Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss151-200

Text File | 1991-03-13 | 870KB | 21,044 lines

Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14540;
          23 Feb 91 0:04 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24229;
          22 Feb 91 22:21 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24716;
          22 Feb 91 21:16 CST
Date:     Fri, 22 Feb 91 20:34:12 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #151
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 22 Feb 91 20:34:05 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 151

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T, MCI, US.Sprint Rate Comparison [Phydeaux]
    Interstate, Interlata Local Calling [John R. Levine]
    Looking For an Answering Machine With Certain Features [David W. James]
    Yagi-Uda Antenna Design Information Needed [Tracy Weber]
    Re: Question About MCI Personal 800 Number PINS [Bill Huttig]
    Re: No Internet/Easylink Gateway Yet [Paul Wilczynski]
    Re: NXX Count (1-15-91) [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? [Jamie Hanrahan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 03:43:27
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T, MCI, US.Sprint Rate Comparison


Howdy!

I've got AT&T on my two home phone lines.  I'm about to get a cell
phone, and I want 800 service so some friends will not have to call me
collect.  Seeing the message about Reach Out America on my AT&T
portion of my monthly bill prompted me to call them and ask about it.
I then called MCI and U.S.Sprint.  I figured the info I gathered would
be useful to other telecom people. Here it is...

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

AT&T - Suggested I choose ROA, which comes in three flavors.

        First hr  Other hrs.   %discount for non-plan hours.
         $8.70     $6.60         25%
         $7.80     $6.60         15%
         $7.15     $6.60         0%

Plan hours are 10 PM to 8 AM, M-F. All day Saturday until 5 PM Sunday.
Then 11 PM Sunday until Monday at 8 AM.

They said they had no real personal 800 service, but connected me to a
department which was a commercial 800 department.  These people offer
what they called a "true" 800 number for $20/month plus usage.  5%
discount for over $50 in calls, %10 for over $350, and another break
at $1300.  Their 800 number could not be combined with any ROA or
other discounts than this. They also suggested the MCI 800 service
was, "Just a calling card."

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

MCI - Suggested I use their hourly plan which is called Primetime.

This service comes in two flavors, but they didn't seem too keen on
selling the second one (the one without the discount plan).

        First hr  Other hrs.   %discount for non-plan hours.
         $7.50     $6.50        10%
         $6.50     $6.50        0%

Plan hours are M-F 5 PM - 8 AM, but not Sunday Evening from 5 PM to 11 PM.

Personal 800 service is $5 per month and $.25 per minute.  If you
choose one of their hourly plans, the charge is $2 per month and the
same rate as the plan.  Calls made outside the plan hours are billed
at $.25 per minute.  The above applies to out of state calls only,
however.  If you receive an in-state call they threaten to charge $.25
per minute unless you have one of their in-state calling packages.
Callers dial an 800 number and then must enter a four digit "security
code" (Which allows them to sell the same number many times.)

Someone here mentioned getting multiple 800 numbers.  I was told that
you could have only one personal 800 number per Primetime package, so
if I wanted two of them (one to each of my phone lines) I would have
to purchase a package for each line (instead of combining them) and
pay $2 per 800 number.  There is no installation charge for the
personal 800 service.

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

U.S.Sprint - Suggested that since my monthly LD bill is over $25 I
should use Sprint +.

Sprint + is a straightforward 10% discount on monthly usage over $25
on calls made from 5 PM to 8 AM seven days.  There is an $8 minimum,
so if you make *no* calls, you still pay $8.

Their other plan, Sprint Select is set up as follows:

        First hr  Other hrs.   %discount for non-plan hours.
         $8.10     $6.50        10%
         $7.50     $6.50        0%

Plan hours are 5 PM to 8 AM seven days.

800 service is $10/month with a $50 installation charge (waived for
the moment). Rates are banded and billed in six second increments. The
info I got from them is as follows:

                0 to 4.99 hours  Approx $.21 per minute
                5 hours and up   Approx $.19 per minute

They didn't know any more than this and suggested I call their
business office.

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

WHAT I LEARNED: (Gee - I feel like I'm back in school)

After going over portions of my bill, I discovered that I'd pay about
the same with AT&T if I switched to their ROA plan.  I might save a
few pennies.  MCI and Sprint had approximately the same rates, but MCI
seemed slightly cheaper.  It's really a bit difficult to compare since
I just moved to IL from NJ and don't have any real useage patterns to
look at yet.  In general, it doesn't seem like you save too much with
the plans. I have looked into this in the past and reached the same
conclusion.

Just because you are being told you are getting a different rate does
not mean it's cheaper.  It just means that it is calculated
differently.  In fact, since I made *NO* daytime long distance charges
last month I would have paid *more* if I was on one of the plans in
which you *pay* to get a daytime discount.

None of the three carriers I spoke to would allow you to use any of
their plans in conjunction with cellular service.  Only Sprint
suggested that they may offer this in the future.

Sprint offers some kind of 'point' scheme which allows you to 'win'
things.  Didn't sound too exciting.  Finally, Sprint and MCI offer
frequent flyer miles on some airlines.

I don't know if I'll switch.  If I do it will be to get the personal
800 service. Then, everything else will follow.  As things look now,
MCI is the company which offers the best rate in 800 service.  I don't
care if friends have to dial four extra digits, I'm paying for the call
 -- and it's cheaper than accepting one collect call per month.

I'd like to hear what other people have found out with regard to
this.

I hope this info has helped out a bit.


reb

*-=#= Phydeaux =#=-*  [e-mail]   or   [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W  h:558 West Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365
w:reb ASK/Ingres 10255 West Higgins  Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500


[Moderator's Note: I think we are seeing more and more convergence of
rates by the big three carriers. Unless your long distance bill each
month is substantial (and you have to judge that), there is very
little incentive to pick and choose on the basis of 'savings' any
longer. In general, AT&T is still a little bit more expensive than the
other two. All three have bulk plans. The choice any more seems to
come down to an applications thing: do you make a lot of daytime calls
and need a discount then? Are there very many intra-lata calls on your
bill? Do you use calling cards a lot or need an 800 number?  etc.   PAT]

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

Subject: Interstate, Interlata Local Calling
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 22 Feb 91 13:03:02 EST (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

> I live very close to the New Hampshire - Vermont border, in New Hampshire.
> The entire state of NH is one LATA, and the same goes for VT.  However, my
> local calling area is made up of two NH exchanges, and three VT exchanges.
> How is it that I can call across a LATA boundary as a local call?

Inter-LATA toll calling is reserved to long distance carriers.  Other
kinds of inter-LATA calls can be carried by the local telco.  This
includes local calls and calls for the telco's use.  In the particular
case of New Hampshire and Vermont, calls between adjacent towns across
the river (the boundary is the west bank of the Connecticut River) are
generally local and are dialed with seven digits, since neither 603
nor 802 is short of prefixes.

One day while shopping in West Lebanon NH I needed to call Woodstock
VT which I happened to know was a local call even though Woodstock
isn't on the river.  I discovered that either I could drop in a dime
and dial the seven digits, or I could dial 1-802-seven digits at which
point the dime came back if I had deposited one and the AT&T Lady said
"ten, cents, please ..."  I am intrigued that AT&T knew to rate that
call specially rather than as a regular interstate inter-LATA toll
call which, after all, it was.

Regards,


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


[MModerator's Note: We have instances of inter-lata, but local calling
on the far south side of Chicago, where the Indiana/Illinois state
line divides the metropolitan area. The Indiana communities of Whiting
and Hammond can call a couple exchanges in Chicago and several south
suburban communities. They are Indiana Bell, and of course we are
Illinois Bell, but it is all considered local, untimed calling.  PAT]

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

From: "D. W. James" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For Answering Machine With Certain Features
Date: 22 Feb 91 21:48:53 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey


Greetings!  I work in a customer support center here at Princeton,
staffed during business hours, some evenings and some weekends.  We
have a rather complicated combination of factors that add up to a need
for an answering machine with the following features:

Outgoing message of variable length, set by us.

    We need to inform users calling after hours what to do in
    a large number of circumstances, so length should be fairly
    long.  Definately greater than your usual 40 seconds.  Also,
    since our schedule changes from time to time, we need something
    that is not too difficult to change the message on.

No incoming message.

    This is just for announcements.

Adjustable ringer pickup.

    We need to be able to set it long enough that customers
    trying to reach us during business hours can be answered
    even though it may take us more than 3 rings.  At the same
    time, we don't want it so long that everyone gets tired of
    listening to the ringing and hang up before the message
    machine picks up.  We guess that this means a number between
    seven and ten rings, but we will need to experiment to find
    out what the best number is.

And, being a university means we would like to find it for as little
as possible.

    I realize that there are cards for PC's that do most/all of
this, but for other reasons (cost and security mostly) we would like
to just get a separate unit.

    I'll summarize any mail sent, in the event that it is
substantially different from what gets posted.  I'll also post a
follow-up article on what we decide.  Thanks, one and all.


David W. James   Information Centers,
CIT Information Systems, Princeton University
[e-mail], [e-mail], or  {backbone}!princeton!nudity!vnend

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

From: Tracy WEBER <[e-mail]>
Subject: Yagi-Uda Antenna Design Information Needed
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 22:04:01 GMT


My friend need info on how to design a Yagi-Uda antenna given the
impedance, radiation pattern and other stuff like that.  Anybody out
there have a program (source or exec) or a book(s) that covers these
topics?

It's urgent, so if anyone has info please email to: [e-mail]

Thanks,


Tracy Weber

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

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 12:12:20 EST
From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Question About MCI Personal 800 Number PINS
Reply-To: [e-mail] ( Bill Huttig)
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
hawaii.edu (Timothy Newsham) writes:

> My question: Does that mean that other people will have the same 800
> number as you, and the call will be routed to the correct person
> depending on the four digit number they enter?

I think that you are talking about the posting I made ... in one of my
past postings I said that a MCI representative said there will be
about 3000 PIN's per 800 number.

[Pat wrote:]

> more common 800 number, callers from rotary dial phones have no way to
> insert the PIN.  I don't know how they get through, or if they do. I

If a PIN is not dialed in quickly enough a MCI/Telecom*USA operator
will ask for the PIN (or if a incorrect one is dialed he/she will ask
for the whole 800 number and PIN).


Bill


[Moderator's Note: I wonder if these numbers are virtually
nobn-blockable or if there is some point at which if enough people
(among the 3000 possible per number) are calling the number it will
return a busy signal, leaving your caller to ask later 'why was your
line busy?' (when in fact you had not been talking.)

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

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 00:30 GMT
From: Krislyn Companies <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Internet/Easylink Gateway Yet


Nigel Allen <[e-mail]> writes ...

> I asked AT&T Mail's help desk ([e-mail]) how to reach
> EasyLink mailboxes from the Internet.

Try asking if Easylink is reachable via X.400 addressing.

Since MCI Mail connects to both AT&T Mail and Easylink via X.400, I
would assume they would connect to each other that way, too.


Paul Wilczynski   Krislyn Computer Services   MCI Mail Agency

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

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 19:36:21 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NXX Count (1-15


In article <[e-mail]>, contact!ndallen (Nigel
Allen) writes:

> > Also, what do you mean by "non-dialable locations in the NANP"?

> NANP = North American Numbering Plan ...
> Some remote locations in northern Ontario, northern Quebec and the
> Northwest Territories have dial telephone service, but long-distance
> calls to those points are (or were) handled by the operator.

> They have telephone numbers in the usual format, though.

Er yes, I know what the NANP is.  What I was asking was, what do those
numbers have to do with the 88X NPAs that Dave Esan mentioned in his
postings?  If the non-dialable locations already have "numbers in the
usual format" (presumably, undialable numbers in real NPAs), then why
move them to 88X?


Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation        [e-mail]
62 Alexander Drive            ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

From: Jamie Hanrahan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play?
Date: 22 Feb 91 14:44:07 PST
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Barton F. Bruce) writes:

> [you really need to be close to 20 or 30 Hz to do this right]

How about: Connect an audio function generator to a line-level input
on a reasonably-powered (say 30 W) audio amp.  Connect speaker-level
output of amp to the 8-ohm side of a 70-volt-to-8-ohm transformer,
such as is used in PA systems.  Connect 70-volt side of transformer to
phone.

Or, try any audio output transformer you happen to have lying around.

You will have to experiment a bit with the gain on the amp to get the
right voltage into the phone.  (As always, start low and work up, not
the other way around!)

Using an audio amp and a function generator is an old laboratory trick
for getting variable-frequency power, rather than just waveforms, at
voltages and currents much higher than any function generator can
provide. Typically it's used when you want something approximating an
AC power supply (=> low source impedance) so a good transistor amp
with high power and a very high speaker damping factor (50:1 is good)
is used, with no output transformer.

An old favorite (mostly because it seems to be indestructible) is the
Crown DC-300A, so named because of its flat freq response at full-
power from (near) DC to 300 KHz.  If you don't have one of those, any
brute-force amp with a hefty transformer and lots of output
transistors should do.  (Don't try this with Carver or other amps with
trick power supplies)


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #151
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29761;
          23 Feb 91 14:57 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10789;
          23 Feb 91 13:32 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28434;
          23 Feb 91 12:26 CST
Date:     Sat, 23 Feb 91 11:47:56 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #152
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Feb 91 11:47:45 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 152

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cordless Eavesdropping [Bob Yazi]
    Re: Cordless Eavesdropping [Matthew McGehrin]
    Re: Telephone Surcharges for Deaf, Poor Anger IBT Customers [John Higdon]
    Re: Telephone Surcharges for Deaf, Poor Anger IBT Customers [J. Sicherman]
    Re: Can I Connect With French Minitel via Internet? [Eric Tholome]
    Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy? [Julian Macassey]
    Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob Yazi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cordless Eavesdropping
Date: 23 Feb 91 03:02:36 GMT


[ A woman was overheard in a department store telling her son they wouldn't
buy a cordless because the police could listen in.  The poster (overhearer)
expressed disapproval due to the word "police" rather than just "someone"
and suggested that paranoia or her "kinds of phone calls" were the problem. ]

Well, it's explicitly LEGAL for the police to listen in to your
cordless calls.  The Supreme Court has ruled on it.  It remains to be
ruled upon whether a person on a corded phone talking to someone else
on a cordless has his conversation protected in any legal way.

The IRS even announced that they were going to listen in on cordless
calls.

When the facts are vicious, I advocate the "spreading of vicious truths".

If I were to wager on whether the woman was more "paranoid" (the
poster's word) or the poster was more McCarthyistic (my word), I'm
afraid I'd tend toward the latter.


Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew McGehrin)
Subject: Re: Cordless Eavesdropping
Date: 23 Feb 91 13:56:04 GMT


In-Reply-To: message from [e-mail]

Steve,

If you want phone frequencies, here, have some:

Cordless are from 46.610 to 46.970

Mobile Telephone:                       Airphones:

1 - 158.490     152.510 - JL |          454.675 - Calling
3 - 158.520     152.540 - YL |          454.700 - 6
5 - 158.550     152.570 - JP |          454.725 - 7
7 - 158.580     152.600 - YP |          454.759 - 5
9 - 158.610     152.630 - YJ |          454.775 - 8
11- 158.640     152.660 - YX |          454.800 - 4
13- 158.670     152.690 - JS |          454.825 - 9
                152.720 - YS |          454.850 - 3
                152.750 - YR |          454.875 - 10
                152.810 - JR |          454.900 - 2
                152.780 - JK |          454.925 - 11
                                        454.950 - 1
                                        454.975 - 12


 That should get you started at least, and save you $15 dollars.

matthew

Inet:   [e-mail]         UUCP:   crash!pro-nka!matthew
ARPA:   crash!pro-nka![e-mail]  GENIE:  M.MCGEHRIN
+201/944-3102  (PCP NJNEW/944-3102)


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

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 21:28 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Telephone Surcharges for Deaf, Poor Anger IBT Customers


Will Martin <[e-mail]> writes:

> Can anyone explain why there is such a brouhaha, what with
> class-action suits and vast publicity, over this lousy *15-cent*
> surcharge, when the $3.50-a-line "FCC-mandated-access-charge", which
> would better be termed a "Fancier-cars-and-better-country-club-
> memberships-for-telco-executives-charge", gets imposed with
> practically *no* public outcry?

Well, how about the "higher rates for everyone that can't go anywhere
else than the local phone company so that those big businesses who
COULD bypass won't because the rates are kept low"?

What, you say? In a recent bill insert Pac*Bell announced that rates
for residence and small business would have to go up. (Actually, the
"rate surcharge" will be diddled with.) Why? So that rates could be
REDUCED for big customers. The reasoning is that big customers have
the ability to go elsewhere for telephone service (known as "bypass").
So to keep that from happening, Pac*Bell will offer deals they cannot
refuse. But to keep revenues flat, Pac*Bell will have to charge the
rest of us more. Of course we cannot go elsewhere for OUR telephone
service so we are just stuck. This is supposed to be a GOOD THING (tm)
since "it keeps overall rates lower for everyone". You heard right.
Only Pac*Bell could say with a straight face, "Your rates are going up
so that your telephone costs can remain low."

I know it gives me a warm feeling inside to know that I am helping to
subsidize the telephone service of customers such as the City of San
Francisco and Kaiser Permanente.


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

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

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 00:45:10 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Surcharges for Deaf, Poor Anger IBT Customers
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry W.
Seals) writes:

> In this day and age, it seems like those things that used to be
> privileges are now being considered as rights.  In addition, those who
> can afford the privileges are being asked to subsidize these "rights"
> via hidden charges or "access fees".  I pay higher insurance premiums
> because of the uninsured motorists, even though (in NC) you aren't
> supposed to be issued a license or plates without proof of insurance
> (and while driving is a PRIVILEGE, some regard it as a God given
> right).

  This thread has arisen before, in fact I even responded to the
previous incarnation, but then political arguments are never settled.

  I'm not sure about you're terminology. I doubt that at phone service
is being claimed to be a 'right'. All the discussion that I've heard
is as to whther it's good public policy to deny people access to
things that are an essential part of modern life. In the case of the
handicapped, the issue is that the design of the equipment and/or the
system is discriminatory.  I also question your argument about
'hidden' fees. The utility subsidization fees that I've seen (in
California) are all right there on the bill.

> There seems to be that same mentality at work here.  Just because the
> telephone is  ubiquitous does not mean that the service it renders has
> become a right available to anyone for asking.

  Nobody gets it 'just for the asking', any more than you do. They get
it because they request service and then must qualify for the subsidy
based upon established need.

> Given the number of goods and services I pay for on which there are
> these hidden subsidies for those who want the privilege without the
> cost, how far are we down the road to a socialist society without even
> knowing it?

  Life is full of hidden subsidies. The number of things that I
subsidize with *my* taxes that I don't necessarily approve of would
fill the digest for a week. The number of ways the phone company
subsidizes services that don't benefit me is also immense (see other
digest sources). I think we know how far we are 'down the raod to
socialism' we are. Just societies don't have to be pure based upon
your economic philosphies. Perhaps you should read Les Miserables
(again?).

> Anyway, though it sounds cynical, there are phone booths and collect
> calls and other methods of reaching out and touching someone without
> reaching out and toucing my wallet.

  You're right, it sounds cynical, not to mention cruel. That is a
much more expensive way of communicating than the small service
charges that are paid and would exacerbate the poverty conditions,
requiring higher public payments (but then, you disapprove of those
too). Maybe the agencies that these people must communicate with
should start accepting all those expensive collect calls, boosting
their expenses.

> Keep your flammage - you may need it to stay warm...

Having a different opinion, even a different set of values is not flammage.


[Moderator's Note: With these two messages we must close this thread
which is becoming less telecom-related with each posting. Thanks.   PAT]

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

From: Eric THOLOME <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Connect With French Minitel via Internet?
Organization: Stanford University - AIR
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 01:48:32 GMT


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

> Is anyone aware of an Internet'able link to the Minitel system?  I've
> heard from a couple of friends in Europe that the system does connect
> to a few European networks, but am not sure if these are myth or
> reality.

I think there are many ways to access the French MINITEL system,
thanks to special phone numbers. Unfortunately, I don't know them, but
I'm sure they are available on the ftp site PAT mentionned, or maybe
in some other places. If you don't find them, ask in
soc.culture.french, I know some have already been posted. I'm not sure
it is possible to access French Minitel through Internet though. I'm
not sure what the American MINITEL company offers, either.

I've tried the other way, that is to find a way to access INTERNET, or
BITNET, etc. with a Minitel from France. I unfortunately haven't heard
of any gateway between the two networks. The only ideas people came up
with were to subscribe to Compuserve for example, which would give me
an E-mail address, and I would have to use a PC and a modem, but it's
*really* expensive.

I am still looking for a cheap way from France to reach USENET or
INTERNET, ... and therefore have an E-mail (and maybe access to
newsgroups, ...), using a Minitel if possible. The best I can think
about is a Minitel service like 3614 EMAIL, which I could be connected
to with a Minitel and would give me what I want.

> [Moderator's Note: We have some information about Minitel in the
> Telecom Archives (sub-directory: Minitel.info). The archives can be
> accessed via ftp anonymous login at lcs.mit.edu.    PAT]

These infos seem to be more about the Minitel American company than
the real French Minitel system. But I am not sure, since I couldn't
really get those files since I ran out of disc space. Anyway, I got a
checksum error :-(

Talking about France, and being French, I might point out that the
government run French telecom company has started a huge Email system
available to anybody who has a phone number in France. It is called
MINICOM and uses ... the Minitel of course! How does it work? Just
dial 3612 on your phone, start your Minitel session, and you can send
messages to anybody that has subscribed to it. Subscription is free,
you only pay to send or read messages, about 20 cents a minute. The
address is just the French phone number. But this is internal to
France, and I haven't heard of any gateway to other networks.

Let's dream a minute ... what if MINICOM and USENET were connected ?
My personal email address in France would be "my_phone_number"@minicom.fr
for example. Anybody would be able to have Email. Great... Still a
little bit expensive, but great. By the way, let me tell you that, I
far as I know, this system (minicom) is not very popular. It seems
that "France Telecom" (our national ATT :-) is not making any effort
to advertise it. People still find it's a big nuisance to have to
connect to the server every day or so. :-(

Anybody out there with any news about accessing EMAIL with a MINITEL
in FRANCE ?  Anybody with opinions, news, ... about MINICOM ?  Anybody
has been able to read my poor English ? :-)


Eric THOLOME    [e-mail]       Stanford University

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy?
Date: 23 Feb 91 04:50:51 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> hayes![e-mail]
(Toby Nixon) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 139, Message 9 of 12

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

>> in the phone itself or in the line. Apparently, according to the
>> geniuses at IBT, all you need to do is pop open the NID box -- located
>> on the back of your house about five feet off the ground -- with a
>> screwdriver or something, pull out a wire, and insert your phone's
>> modular plug. If you can make or receive a call through this point,
>> then the problem lies with your nonworking phone. If you cannot make
>> or receive a call, then the problem probably lies with Bell's network.

>> My worry is simple: with these NID's located so conveniently for
>> anyone to use, shouldn't I (or anyone else with these NID's) be
>> concerned with the probability of fraud?

> In Southern Bell land (our subdivision, anyway), these boxes have
> latches on them on which you can place a padlock.  The telephone
> installer who came to our house strongly recommended making use of
> this feature!  We put on a combination padlock, like you'd use on a
> gym locker, so that if we ever need service we can tell the repair
> office the combination to the lock, which they record on the repair
> order, and we don't need to be there to provide a key.

    Ok, just in case everyone who is worried about people with
telephones in their back pockets sneaking up to their NID, lets put it
in perspective.

    Where your NID is now, there has always been a "protector" or
more recently in telco speak "demarc". They are all easy to access if
they are attached to an outside wall. Yes, some demarcs are in
basements.  So if you knew about this and had a phone with a couple of
alligator clips attached, you could make calls on someone else's line.
This is even better at apartment houses, because you are less likely
to be challenged and there are more lines to chose from. So apart from
the fact that the NID accepts an RJ-11 plug, nothing is new, nothing
has changed. You didn't think it was a problem then, why should it be
a problem now?

    And yes, you can lock your side of the NID, but upon close
inspection, you will notice that the NID can be opened by the Telco
using a security TORX tool (available at car parts stores). The Telco
can open both sides of the NID, theirs and yours, you can only open
one side - unless you have the magic tool.

    So lighten up. If you are really paranoid, move the NID
inside. Yes, my protectors are under the house with the Black Widow
spiders. But the telco put them there decades ago - back when
protectors were large porcelain things and wire was brown and covered
with cotton.


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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 23:08:54 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play?


I can't believe no other reader has suggested this - if I missed it,
please accept my apologies.

Buy a surplus EE-8 field telephone, or the magneto from same, or
similar magneto, from any of numerous surplus vendors (including
Edmund Scientific, if I remember correctly).  These puppies are still
quite plentiful and sold under various names, and for various
purposes, such as inducing worms to surface.

Connect the output to the telephone to be rung.

Turn crank, using ringing cadence desired.

No mains power is required. Damage from shocks (very painful, but
unlikely with the simplest precautions) is limited to the duration of
circular cranking by a human being and a limited generating capacity.

Anyone got a safer and/or simpler solution?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #152
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06619;
          23 Feb 91 22:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14705;
          23 Feb 91 20:38 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03772;
          23 Feb 91 19:33 CST
Date:     Sat, 23 Feb 91 19:27:36 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #153
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Feb 91 19:27:15 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 153

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    BITNET/EARN Networking in Poland [Richard Budd]
    Caller*ID on a Chip! [Roger Clark Swann]
    Caller*ID Operation in Ottawa, Ontario [Fred Ennis]
    Caller*ID Meeting: What Questions Should I Raise? [Jeff Sicherman]
    USPS Fax Discontinued [Roger Clark Swann]
    Apple Data-PCS Petition for Rulemaking [Scott J. Loftesness]
    Help Needed With PC PLUS Screen Problem [Shawn E. Thompson]
    Comm-Port Monitoring / Debugging Utility Needed [Robert D. Thompson]
    Re: Western Union Revisited [John R. Levine]
    Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy? [Laird P. Broadfield]
    Re: Telecom Acronyms [Alan Millar]
    Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? [Macy Hallock]
    Re: How do You Hook up a Phone for a Play? [Steve Gaarder]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: SAT, 23 FEB 91 13.49.47  EDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: BITNET/EARN Networking in Poland


The Technical University of Wroclaw and other Polish universities are
indeed connected into the BITNET (or EARN as is it called in Europe)
and have been since November, 1990.  However, Poland is still
experiencing "growing pains" in joining the world of modern
telecommunications.

The node for the TU Wroclaw is an IBM 4341, one of the older models,
using a VM operatng system and RSCS software linking with EARN on a
9600 BPS modem.  The node is wired to the main listserv PLEARN at the
University of Warsaw and onto the EARN network.  The BITNET nodes are
available from PLEARN or you can ask me forthe numbers and further
details.  One caveat, Wroclaw is not accessible from all gateways from
other networks and is not directly connected to Internet.  Even on
BITNET, accessibility is spotty.  I tried contacting Wroclaw five
times over the past week; three times the mailer bounced me back.  I
believe the remaining two times the message got through though I have
yet to receive a response from Wroclaw; though responses have come
from other Polish sites who saw the article in TELECOM Digest.  Thanks
to Brian McMahon and Peter Weiss who sent me details about the Polish
computer network.

Brian also pointed out there may be restrictions for student access to
EARN, though the networks, particularly P-LEARN are anxious to have
more input from Polish university students.  Some of the problem with
accessibility to the network appears however to be coming from the
poor state of the Polish telephone system, particularly with local
switching and providing continual supervision.  Polish CO's and wires
are in dire need of renovation and, in many cases, modern equipment.
If John Higdon spent a few weeks in Krakow, he would probably find
himself yearning for his Pac*Bell crossbar network and Telco services.
However, the Polish government does not have the funds to finance such
a drastic upgrading of their telecommunications infrastructure.  Many
of the computers and much of the network equipment now has come
through donations from IBM and European governments, particularly
Scandinavia.

The incredible thing is despite the state of the telephone system,
slow second-hand computers, and a dearth of programmers and engineers
with knowledge of 1990s telecommunications hardware and networking
techniques Poland has a fairly reliable computer networking system,
period.  Their most important request is for knowledge and assistance
from the Telecom community.  Hopefully, forums such as TELECOM Digest
will fulfill this demand.

To answer another question, yes, there are Polish jokes in Poland.
You need an understanding of what the Poles have gone through to
understand them.  Here's one I've heard a couple times:

A Warsaw native met a friend he hadn't seen in a long time.  He asked
if his village is now in Poland or in Russia.  The friend replied
"it's in Poland now, thank God. I can't take anymore of those Russian
winters!"


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

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <![e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID on a Chip!
Date: 23 Feb 91 19:57:42 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


[ The following are some excepts from an article in the Feb. 18, 1991
issue of {Electronic Engineering Times}. ]

Sierra samples chip for caller-ID services  ... By Loring Wirbel

Sierra Semiconductor Corp. is sampling an analog front-end chip for
caller-ID services. The chip uses signals sent out by the phone
company between rings and converts the signal to display the calling
number before the user picks up the phone receiver.

The SC11210/11211 caller-ID chip is small enough, with low power
consumption ans surface mount packaging, to be designed into standard
and cordless phones, as well as into the stand alone caller-ID
boxes. Sierra will sell the chip for $2 each.

[ Several paragraphs regarding the controversy over Caller*ID. No
need to repeat that for all of us here. ]

There will be two versions of the chip;

   A 14 pin device that supports power-down mode, energy detection,
   and call progress detection.

   An eight pin version that sacrifices features for reduced size.

Both version store incoming FSK signals in the input duffer, then pass
then through the bandpass filter, where the energy detect settings
determine whether data is blocked or passed.


    Roger Swann               |    uucp:  uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark
         @                    |
The Boeing Company            |

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

Subject: Caller*ID Operation in Ottawa, Ontario
From: Fred Ennis <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 22:41:28 EST
Organization: AFI Communications - Ottawa, Canada


We have Caller*ID operating here in Ottawa, ON and I can answer a
couple of the questions that have been posted about the number passed
to the subscriber when calls originate from PBX locations.

It has been my experience that individual trunks are identified and
occasionally these are "phantom" numbers that don't allow you to call
back. On key systems, individual CO lines are identified.

Cellular calls generate an UNKNOWN NUMBER.

Most interestingly, telemarketing calls from Bell's OWN telemarketing
centre also trigger an UNKNOWN NUMBER display! (sneaky, eh?)

Someone was also asking earlier about the means of encoding the
Caller*ID string.  It's in ASCII and passed by a Bell 202 modem.  Most
of the computer modems around now are Bell 212 at 1200 baud, which
doesn't help in decoding Caller*ID.

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

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 00:56:18 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID Meeting: What Questions Should I Raise?
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  As I mentioned in a prior message, the California PUC and Pac*bell
is (finally) taking up the Caller*ID issues and one of the public-
participation hearings is being held in my town.

  I have decided to attend and would appreciate any suggestions as to
what questions and issues should be monitored or brought out if not
dealt with by the other interested parties. I doubt PAT wants this
thread in the Digest again, so please direct correspondence to me via
email. I will summarize the meeting (April 1st) as best I can and
report back to the Digest.


Jeff Sicherman


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

From: Roger Clark Swann <![e-mail]>
Subject: USPS Fax Discontinued
Date: 23 Feb 91 19:01:41 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


I was by my local US Post Office this past week and found a sign over
the screen of the fax machine there reading: "This service has been
discontinued." These are the desk sized fax machines operated by
Hotel-FAX and MCI in cooperation with the US Postal Service. They are
transmit only devices with a CRT screen, a voice hand set and a slot
for your plastic money. I remember that it was about a year or so back
that these machines were placed in most post offices around the
country. I think the USPS got a cut of the action.

I for one never saw these things being used. Anyone know the inside scoop?


    Roger Swann               |    uucp:  uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark
         @                    |
The Boeing Company            |


[Moderator's Note: Funny you should mention it. I was at the 60690
post office just a few hours ago (Saturday afternoon) and saw the
machine being used by someone for the first time since it has been
there in several months. I've never seen it in use before; but I tend
to go to the post office at odd hours late at night; Sundays, etc. I
do remember reporting here in the Digest some time ago that this
particular machine was wired to the phone line in a very flimsy way
with the phone wire tacked along under the counter next to it and then
across to a pay phone, where it disappeared in the wall right next to
the payphone; apparently tying into an idle pair someplace. They had
even mounted a new modular jack there that anyone could plug into with
a phone. Maybe it is just your post office that is not going to have
it any longer.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 10:07:27 -0500
From: Scott J Loftesness <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apple Data-PCS Petition for Rulemaking


Patrick, I will be sending you a file with the complete text of
Apple's recent petition for rulemaking to the FCC for a new
Data-Personal Communications Service.  It's about 60K in size so
probably should end up in the Archives!


Best,

Scott


[Moderator's Note: And that is where readers will find this latest
addition to the Telecom Archives, filed as 'apple.data.pcs.petition'.
My thanks for sending it along.   PAT]

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

From: Shawn E Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Needed With PC PLUS Screen Problem
Date: 23 Feb 91 22:19:42 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University at Buffalo


Hi,

I have recently moved Procomm PLUS over to my new machine 286/EGA ...
*all* PC PLUS screens shudder when changing screens (like the old
"snow" problem CGA's had).  I'm not having any other problems.

Please suggest help.

Thanks,

Shawn

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert D. Thompson)
Subject: Comm-Port Monitoring / Debugging Utility Needed
Date: 23 Feb 91 21:07:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert D. Thompson)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI


People,

I am in desparate need of a debugging utility to monitor the COM1 and
COM2 on my PC.  I have heard of BREAKOUT-II, but I do not have the
time or the money to get this.

I would greatly appreciate help from anyone.


Thanks ... Regards |(:>


Robert     [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Western Union Revisited
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 22 Feb 91 20:06:30 EST (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

> They still have their money order and cash wire-transfer business as
> well as the telex/twx part of the operation.

Last July, at the same time that WUT Co sold Easylink to AT&T, they
announced that they were also selling them their Telex service, though
not the other enhanced services such as Mailgrams.  Does anyone know
whether the WUT domestic telex service has in fact passed to AT&T?  I
hope so, anything would be better than the cruddy service that Western
Union has provided in recent years.  When AT&T ran the TWX (now Telex
II) network it worked well.

Regards,


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


[Moderator's Note: Oddly enough, it was a court decision many years
ago which forced AT&T to sell the TWX business to Western Union. For
many years, TWX was offered in direct competition to Telex.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy?
Date: 22 Feb 91 02:35:13 GMT


In <[e-mail]> hayes![e-mail] (Toby
Nixon) writes:

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

>> My worry is simple: with these NID's located so conveniently for
>> anyone to use, shouldn't I (or anyone else with these NID's) be
>> concerned with the probability of fraud?

> In Southern Bell land (our subdivision, anyway), these boxes have
> latches on them on which you can place a padlock.  The telephone
 ...
> this feature!  We put on a combination padlock, like you'd use on a
> gym locker, so that if we ever need service we can tell the repair
> office the combination to the lock, which they record on the repair
> order, and we don't need to be there to provide a key.

The snazzy ones Keptel (nee Armiger) sells have a place for the
customer padlock, and a "tamperproof" screw holding shut the telco
side of things.  The cute bit is that the telco-door swings away,
padlocked customer-door and all along with it.  (Conceptually like a
little door in the middle of a big door, although that's not how it
actually works.)


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telecom Acronyms
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 15:20:22 PST


I've been through the acronym files in the Archives, and they've been
quite helpful.

However, I'm not satisfied with "POTS".  It doesn't really stand for
"Plain Old Telephone Service", does it?  That`s cute and all, but what
does it really stand for?


Alan Millar   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: That is *really* all it stands for!  For the rest
of you, if you don't have the glossary files and sometimes do not
understand the terms used here, please get your copies from Telecom
Archives.   (ftp lcs.mit.edu, login anonymous, cd telecom-archives)  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 91 18:26 EST
From: Macy Hallock <fmsys![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line?
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA [phone]


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

>  Is there any device  that one could  insert in  place  of or  on the
> customer side of the Network Interface  that would serve the functions
> for protecting the phone company equipment and employees from any real
> or imagined damage from faulty project design or construction ?

Sure!  Somewhere in my basement I have a couple of KS-20721 Line
Protection Devices.  I can strap them up as STC's for you, too.

Ohio Bell swore these were absolutely necessary to prevent the
destruction of the network by non-Bell equipment ... seems like that
was only a few years ago, as I recall.

If these are not acceptable, I might be able to find some CDH or STP
type units for you ... maybe we should hook them up in front of John
Higdon's Panasonic PBX to keep it from degrading the network as we
know it ...

(Sorry for the sarcasm here, but it really wasn't that long ago that
AT&T and the Bell Companies assured the FCC that couplers were
absolutely mandatory to protect the network.  And the Bells wonder why
their "concerns" meet with so much skepticism these days!)

Seriously, there used to be FCC approved units for this purpose
around.  I think they were used in answering machines extensively at
one time.  I recall seeing an ad for FCC registered line isolation
modules for incorporation into equipment not too long ago.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr.    [e-mail]
[e-mail] uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy

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

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 13:41:13 EST
From: Steve Gaarder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone for a Play?


The simplest thing, seems to me, would be to use a ring generator,
since ringers are tuned to 20 HZ and don't work well at other
frequencies.  The easiest unit to use just might be one of those hand
magnetos -- just what phones used to use.  If you're at a school,
there's a good chance the science dept has one or two for demos.
Otherwise, try Edmund Scientific.  Fair Radio Sales often has magneto
phones, and they also have a 20HZ vibrator-type ring generator that
works from 100 VDC input.


Steve Gaarder    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #153
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12204;
          24 Feb 91 3:08 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05838;
          24 Feb 91 1:47 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11591;
          24 Feb 91 0:41 CST
Date:     Sun, 24 Feb 91 0:11:56 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #154
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Feb 91 00:11:32 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 154

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Intercept Operator [Andy Jacobson]
    Southwestern Bell "COCOT"! [Peter da Silva]
    New Area Code 908 (NJ): Reprogram Your PBXes [Nigel Allen]
    911 Demonstration Program Wanted [Marty Brenneis]
    Re: Office Phone > Home Phone [Steve Gaarder]
    Re: Telephone Privatization/Deregulation in Canada [Richard O'Rourke]
    Re: USPS Fax Discontinued [Henry Mensch]
    Re: Caller*ID Operation in Ottawa, Ontario [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy? [Peter da Silva]
    Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Your Evolving Phone Number [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [Peter da Silva]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 16:32 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Intercept Operator


In TELECOM Digest Volume 11 : Issue 138

> Moderator's Note: A 'special operator' (at least as the term is used
> in Chicago) is an operator who takes intercept calls and handles them
> manually as opposed to a fully automatic response. It sometimes
> happens there is a temporary equipment failure and that the number you
> are dialing (or calling from) does not get captured by the equipment.
> It is very rare, but I will now and then dial a number and have an
> operator come on the line to say " ... special operator. What number
> are you calling from, please?" ("what number are you dialing?").   PAT

Ah yes the old intercept operator, I remember her well ...  I would
have to say frequent not rare. I can remember getting them every once
in a while in Chicago by dialing regular numbers not in service.  It
seems that you would get an intercept fairly often when dialing in the
99's. That is 312-NXX-99XX. In and among the test lines and telco
offices, frames and test boards, you could usually find a number or
two that were dead ends to an intercept. NXX-9909 and 9910 it seems
were actually a good bet to get an intercept (alternately with a test
port).

I can also remember the intercept being used en mass with cutovers.
For example when 312 (now 708)-491 got cut over to ESS from XB (this
was well before Northwestern ate 491 for its PBX), I distinctly
remember there were for a couple of days no "The number you have
reached ..." recordings, just frantic intercept operators checking the
database and telling you that it was not in service. I believe these
operators were not specifically assigned, but were pressed into
service from other pools, as a couple of times they would begin their
general assistance or directory script, catch and correct themselves
midsentence. I have never gotten one in any other area but Chicago.


Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: I remember well back in 1966 when the University of
Illinois at Navy Pier moved en-masse to their new offices at what was
then called 'Circle Campus'.  The new location had a centrex (312-996)
and the old location had a multi (nine or ten) position cord board.
For about two months following the move, calls to the old switchboard
number were answered by an IBT intercept operator "what extension were
you calling at UI?" When you gave the extension number they said
"thank you, the new number to dial is 996-xxxx" after checking a cross
reference chart of old versus new extension numbers. Then one day they
stopped doing that and calls to the old number got a recording saying
the new number was the switcboard number at the new site.  PAT]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Southwestern Bell "COCOT"!
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 1991 02:16:14 GMT


Today I was in Fulshear, a little town to the west of Houston, Texas.
I had stopped to get some really good Barbecue.

My wife mentioned that a friend lived in Brookshire another little
town a few miles away, so we decided I should call them and see if
they'd like us to come over. The phone was a SWB phone, but I read the
info card anyway, and sure enough there was a little line "Long
distance service provided by ITI". What the hell, it's only a couple
of miles. I dialed directory assistance %, got the number (it was
barely audible) and then dialed Brookshire.

"Please insert one dollar and tewnty five cents for the first minute".

Blow that for a joke. I called on my Sprint card. We shall see what
happens when the bill comes.

Moral: just because the phone is a "Bell" phone doesn't mean it's not
a no-armed bandit.

% Directory assistance gave me an old number, so it took two calls to
  get to the other end. I guess ITI (whoever they are) doesn't get
  updates.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: We covered this topic a few months ago here. John
Higdon had maintained that the coin phone business was still in the
hands of AT&T. I noted that in Chicago the 'genuine' IBT payphone
cards all had a space to indicate which carrier handled the long
distance traffic. The consensus was that AT&T handled the coin traffic
by default, and the zero plus stuff went partly to AT&T and the rest
to various carriers as per the notice on each phone. From what you are
saying, it looks like Texas / SBT is doing the same thing.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 1991 15:17:00 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Area Code 908 (NJ): Reprogram Your PBXes
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada


New Jersey Bell ran an ad in {Telecommunications Magazine} reminding
telecommunications managers that customer premises equipment should be
reprogrammed to include the new 908 area code.

"Remember," says the ad, "unless this new number is designated as an
allowable area code, calls to 908 through your Customer Premise
Equipment will not be completed."

This sounds pretty basic, but I dare say there are still some PBXes
out there that block calls to 908.  Use of the new 908 code becomes
mandatory on June 8, 1991, I gather; until then, you can apparently
get away with using 201.

The ad lists a contact number for New Jersey Bell (which is fairly
cute when you look at it carefully): 1-800-242-Y908.


[Moderator's Note: How much would you like to wager that on June 8, 9
and 10 there will be hundreds of calls each day to telcos, equipment
maintainence firms and local telecom managers complaining that 'the
phones are not working right'.  And when told what the 'problem' is
will complain that they had not known of it before.  Despite intensive
promotion of 708, Illinois Bell was literally swamped with calls for
three days after the split became mandatory here.  PAT]

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

From: Marty Brenneis <decwrl!fernwood!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: 911 Demonstration  Program Wanted
Date: 24 Feb 91 03:25:27 GMT


Here is a free idea to any company out there to make this thing.

EMS week is comming soon to a shopping mall or school near you.  For
our local EMS week display we'd like to have a place where people can
pick up a real phone and dial 911 and talk to a real 911 dispatcher.
The folks could watch the dispatcher answer the call and interview the
caller to send the proper help.

(EMS is Emergency Medical Services system)

For obvious reasons we don't want to use a PSTN line for this trick.

Here is my idea for a product for this trick.  A card to fit into a PC
clone that will supply battery and supervisory tones to a normal
phone, and a second jack for the heaset phone for the dispatcher. With
this would be a piece of software to simulate a PSAP screen for the
dispatcher.

If one could make this card for a reasonable price ($100 - 150) they
could be marketed to the 911 agencies across the country as a teaching
aid for the public.

At present I suppose I could borrow a small PBX (SX50) and program it
to have a port with the extension 911.


Thanks,

Marty Brenneis
American Red Cross   Marin County Chapter
uunet!droid@kerner      415-389-1113

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

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 13:36:14 EST
From: Steve Gaarder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Office Phone > Home Phone


No problem using one of these as single line - just hook the line up
to the blue/white pair (the first pair of pins on the connector),
press the first line button, and go.  The hold stuff won't work,
however.


Steve Gaarder      [e-mail]

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

From: Richard O'Rourke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Privatization/Deregulation in Canada
Date: 23 Feb 91 08:18:16 GMT
Organization: Grass Root Systems


There are some companies with good intentions in the Canadian LD
market.  There are some that are ... not so desireable.  I know, I
have seen the worst.

The changes pending in Canada are very different than what happened
years ago in the US.  On the one hand, the CRTC thinks they are
avoiding many nasties, having learned from the experience of Mr. G.
On the other hand, Canada is not, never has, and never will be America
(no offense meant).

I hope that the CRTC does the Right Thing, and is Very Careful about
how they dole out the tickets to sell bandwidth.  There is a potential
for Canada to be (or remain, check out our cable TV network!) a
country with a very impressive telecommunications system.  Conversely,
there is a likelyhood that we will just follow a well beaten path
(again, no offense intended).

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

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 23:16:44 -0500
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USPS Fax Discontinued
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I've never seen one of these at a post office ... are you *sure* this
was a nationwide project?


# Henry Mensch    /   <[e-mail]>   /   E40-379 MIT,  Cambridge, MA
# <[e-mail]-relay> / <[e-mail]> / <[e-mail]>
#     via X.400: S=mensch; OU=informatik; P=tu-muenchen; A=dbp; C=de


[Moderator's Note: When this topic first came up here several months
ago two or three writers commented on the machines from various parts
of the country. Still, maybe it was not in *every* post office.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Operation in Ottawa, Ontario
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 02:40:02 GMT


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

> Someone was also asking earlier about the means of encoding the
> Caller*ID string.  It's in ASCII and passed by a Bell 202 modem.  Most
> of the computer modems around now are Bell 212 at 1200 baud, which
> doesn't help in decoding Caller*ID.

That's OK.  The standard modem for amateur packet radio is a Bell 202
(or equivalent).  Packet TNCs (Terminal Node Controllers) could
probably be converted quite easily for Caller*ID use.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy?
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 1991 02:37:14 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Fred E.J. Linton) writes:

> outside the demarc; and the linesman who came to undo the squirrels'
> handiwork opined that he wouldn't mind at all if such a quick way to
> disconnect premises wiring were to be made mandatory.

Many apartments in Houston have a network interface that consists of a
wire coming out of the wall in a closet somewhere with an RJ11 plug on
the end, going into an RJ11 socket. Just unplug the plug from the
socket and you're isolated. Plug a phone in and you can test the phone
company. And because it's inside there's no security problem. My
current apartment doesn't have one. Pity.

Why bother with a knife switch?


[e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: Well Peter, it really comes down to the style and
age of your existing demark. In a very old building, you may not have
one at all, or it may have been installed before any of us were born.
Did you ever see any demarks in old buildings where the cable came in
from the street and was tied down on a (let's say) 500 pair IT (or
Inside Terminal)? The pairs leaving from there into the building will
have little paper tags tied with strings on the old brown cloth
twisted pairs with cryptic notations. In a building where I used to
live there had been (long before my time) a big switchboard and the
demark was right behind it, still in service although the switchboard
was long gone. From a phone man long since gone on to his Reward:
'fifty pairs from Rogers cable 96 multipled to *new* building across
the alley. Ed Smith, May 5, 1931'.  And in the same box a tag saying
'pairs 109-114 in use by WUTCO. Do not take them. 9/1946'.  Sheesh!
Sometimes you are better off to isolate yours to avoid confusion later
on or false complaints of problems you caused in the box for others
served from the same place.   PAT]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 1991 02:50:46 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: But the fact that you cannot access AT&T via 10288
> is not AT&T's fault.

Who cares whose fault it is? It's AT&T that's losing revenues because
of it, and AT&T's customers who are suffering or switching.

> It is a greedy private operator who is denying access illegally.

What, you mean it's illegal for my place of employment to block 10288
on their PBX? Back when I was doing feild service, was it our
customer's responsibility to provide 10xxx at their place of business?

I think not.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: This is like Deja Vu day at the Digest! :) This is
another topic we covered (how long ago now?) ... and I think everyone
agreed with you that whoever owns the phone(s) can do as they please.
But in this instance we are talking about *public pay phones* or
phones in hotel rooms or otherwise used by the public. Phones for use
by the public should be in compliance, which means having the ability
to use 10xxx codes for the carrier of choice.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David E A Wilson)
Subject: Re: Your Evolving Phone Number
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 03:39:07 GMT


[e-mail] (Claus Tondering) writes:

> American companies, please listen to this piece of advice from a European:
> If you want business from overseas, do not include letters in your phone
> numbers. We can't use them over here.

A bigger problem is the growing use of 800 numbers (without listing
the POTS number). Overseas subscribers cannot call regular 800
numbers. We can call special six digit international 800 numbers.

Is it just coincidence that most countries auto-reverse charge numbers start
with either 800/008 or is there an international standard?


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


[Moderator's Note: Well so far as I know, the Americans were using
this technique first, of auto-reverse charging through the use of 800.
I think as other PTT's picked up on the idea they just went along with
the number (800) we were already using.   PAT]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 1991 02:42:49 GMT



The phone company doesn't need to sell a service that would block
telemarketing calls (ie, blocked call blocking) ... Caller*ID and
call-block provide all you need. Just build a box that eats the first
ring and dumps the call if the caller-ID says "refused".

How cheaply could this be made?


([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: Wouldn't you need such a box right at the demark
ahead of any phones on your premises? Otherwise what would prevent an
exension from ringing?  Also, would this box need to output ringing
current to ring the phones if the call met your conditions, or would
the box itself have some sort of warbler in it?    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #154
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23385;
          24 Feb 91 13:21 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18981;
          24 Feb 91 11:56 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04285;
          24 Feb 91 10:50 CST
Date:     Sun, 24 Feb 91 10:47:59 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #155
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Feb 91 10:47:51 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 155

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    MCI Announces New Plan: MCI Preferred [Marl Bryant via Nigel Allen]
    Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? [John Higdon]
    Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [Peter da Silva]
    Carrier Choices for Leased Line to Africa? [Randy Bush]
    Re: Can I Connect With French Minitel via Internet? [Mark Steiger]
    You Can't Predict Them All [Jeff Sicherman]
    The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: 911 Demonstration Program Wanted [Brian Crawford]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 00:00:11
From: Nigel Allen <isishq!testsys!f438.n250.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Nigel.Allen>
Subject: MCI Announces New Plan: MCI Preferred


 * forwarded by Nigel Allen  ([e-mail])

The following press release from MCI was posted in FidoNet's MDF echo
by Mark Bryant (1:382/54.1). Internet users can address Mark as:
 [e-mail]


CORPORATE NEWS BUREAU                          IMMEDIATE
1-800-289-0073
[phone]


             MCI PREFERRED GIVES SMALL BUSINESSES
          WIDE ARRAY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES


    WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 19, 1991 -- The nation's small
businesses, including professional offices and regional or home-based
enterprises, now have a solution from MCI Communications Corporation
for controlling costs in today's recessionary climate.

    For the first time, businesses spending as little as $50 a month
on long distance can combine all of their long distance requirements
 -- outbound calling, 800 service, calling card and even service in
their home -- on one bill for one combined discount.  The new product,
called MCI Preferred, features the same low per-minute rates
regardless of distance called and offers discounts designed
specifically for the small business -- including an automatic ten
percent discount on calls placed to the customer's most frequently
called area code in a given month.

    MCI Preferred is designed for the estimated five million small
businesses spending $6 billion annually on long distance services.

    "Now, more than ever, small business owners need the efficiencies
and cost controls that are built into MCI Preferred," said William G.
McGowan, MCI's chairman and chief executive officer.

    "This is the first comprehensive telecommunications package
tailored to fit their needs, combining a wide array of services and
features that allow them to manage time and costs more efficiently,"
McGowan said.  "We expect that businesses spending between $50 and
$1,500 monthly on long distance will find no other package so ideally
suited to their needs."

    The package of services included in MCI Preferred are: business
calling, both domestic and international; 800 services; fax usage
reporting; residential calling (up to five homes); account codes;
numerous management reports; and a feature-rich business/travel card.

    The MCI Preferred customer has a choice of two convenient 800
services, both of which can be used on the same phone lines as
outgoing calls.  Classic 800 is a basic inbound service while Private
800 is restricted to callers dialing a private access code.

    The business/travel card, called the MCI Business Card, gives
small businesses easy access to such services as: conference calling,
voice messaging, voice mail, a voice news/information network and
speed dialing.  The card can be used from any phone in the U.S. plus
Puerto Rico and the U.S.  Virgin Islands.

    MCI Preferred customers can also designate one of their phone
numbers for fax usage.  This option tells customers how much they
spend on facsimile transmission by providing a detailed fax usage
report.

    Interstate domestic business and 800 calls are priced at one
simple flat rate per minute.  Daytime calls cost 23.5 cents per
minute, with a thirty percent discount on evening calls and a 45
percent discount on night/weekend calls.  Calls are priced in
six-second increments following an initial thirty second minimum.
International calling prices vary depending on the country called and
time of day.

    Each month, the small business customer will receive a single
invoice for all the MCI Preferred options across all locations.  In
addition to receiving a ten percent "Optimizer" discount on all calls
to the customer's most frequently called area code, the customer will
receive a ten percent discount for combined usage over $200, excluding
enhanced card services.

    "MCI Preferred is key to MCI's goal of equipping small businesses
with the benefits of today's telecommunications technology," said
McGowan.  "The small business market is an important one that will
receive increasing attention from MCI."

                          # # #


Via D'Bridge 1:259/99  02/21 21:11

 Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:163/162
     UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!250!438!Nigel.Allen

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

Date: Sat, 23 Feb 91 21:49 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line?


Macy Hallock <fmsys![e-mail]> writes:

> Sure!  Somewhere in my basement I have a couple of KS-20721 Line
> Protection Devices.  I can strap them up as STC's for you, too.
> [...]
> If these are not acceptable, I might be able to find some CDH or STP
> type units for you

Ah, those were the days. Back in the early days of "interconnect",
those three letter combinations were on the tip of every vendor's
tongue.

The STC was a particularly vile, $70 to install, $5/month to "rent"
device. If you wanted to install so much as a single line phone (the
usual demand was for an answering machine) one of these had to go in.
It had a DC power supply, derived from a transformer cube and provided
for complete electrical isolation between the network and the customer
jack (which was a DB25!). Its flaws were numerous.

Transmission loss through the unit was more than one decibel. While
that does not sound like much, in marginal situations it sometimes
made the difference between usable and unacceptable. The unit had no
provision for bridged ringing on the customer side. Ring up was
provided on a third lead against one side of the voice pair. Ring
voltage was provided from a high voltage DC supply that was reversed
approximately at a 20 Hz rate by a relay that chattered noisily in the
unit. As you might imagine, the waveform produced by that Rube
Goldberg arrangement was dirty as hell. When you combined that with
the unbalance created by the "third wire" ring up, you would hear a
loud buzz injected into other lines traveling through the cable. This
was particularly objectionable when these things were used for key
systems.  A final annoyance was that the "ring detector" in the STC
took a full second to sense ringing voltage from the CO. Partial first
rings were generally ignored (as was "courtesy" ring on forwarding).
This "feature" was designed in and could not be changed.

The STP was an improvement over the STC in that it provided bridged
ringing on the customer side. It still had the other flaws, however.

The CDH was designed for PBX trunks. It took the ground start pair
from the CO and turned it into five pairs for the customer. One pair
had dry two way audio. Another provided closure indicating CO battery
present.  Still another indicated ring voltage. A closure in the other
direction commanded line seizure. I forget what the fifth pair was
for. The early crossbar PBXs anticipated these things and connected
directly. But when the newer electronic matrix PBXs appeared, they
were only able to deal with CO ground start pairs directly. Since that
was a no-no, something called an "anti-interface" was used. This
converted the five pairs from the CDH and produced a simulated CO
ground start trunk. What you had then was TWO interfaces back to back
with the attendant transmission losses and operation sloppiness. All
of this was necessary to provide "safe and reliable" telephone
service, according to the "telephone company".

I had two clients in the same building. When the rulings permitted the
elimination of interfaces, I called Pacific Telephone and ordered them
removed for both clients. The man who came out (an old-timer if there
ever was one) was chuckling that these were the first units that he
had been called upon to remove. He quipped that little did I know that
the customer's equipment would not work without them. The first units
to go were on a Stromberg E120. As he removed each CDH card and
punched the pair on to the 66 block, I connected jumpers to the PBX.
When we were finished, the trunks came up on the switch perfectly. The
phone man was a little surprised, but admitted that he had not
anticipated an electronic system. The proof of his predictions (of
non-working trunks after interface removal) would be with the other
installation.

That other installation was an OKI AC120 crossbar PBX. While it is
true that such a system MUST be connected to a CDH, Mr. Phoneman was
unaware of my secret weapon: a CDH interface made by Comdev previously
installed by me and waiting for action. Again, we moved the pairs one
at a time, and voila!--all the trunks continued to work on the old OKI
system. Incidently, the Comdev was a MUCH better device than the WE
CDH was and even the customer noticed the improvement.

A final note: to its credit, the CPUC eventually ordered Pac*Bell to
refund ALL money EVER paid by customers for "network protection"
devices. This included installation and montly charges plus interest.
I personally received more than a thousand dollars back and my clients
each were refunded thousands of dollars each.


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

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 1991 14:32:28 GMT


The Moderator Noted:

> ... and I think everyone
> agreed with you that whoever owns the phone(s) can do as they please.

You still missed my point, which is that there is a legitimate reason
for AT&T customers to want AT&T to provide 1-800 access, and that no
amount of legislation aimed at public phones will change that.

I use a public phone about once a month. I use the phones at work
every day.


[e-mail]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 1991 14:36:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>,  [e-mail].
com (Peter da Silva) writes:

> Just build a box that eats the first
> ring and dumps the call if the caller-ID says "refused".

> [Moderator's Note: Wouldn't you need such a box right at the demark
> ahead of any phones on your premises?

Yeh, or buy a couple of the boxes, or turn off the ringers on your
other phones. Most people don't *have* that many phones.

> Also, would this box need to output ringing
> current to ring the phones if the call met your conditions, or would
> the box itself have some sort of warbler in it?

It could just pass the second and subsequent ring through. Remember,
it doesn't pick up the line ... it just trips a relay if the Caller-ID
info is anything but "blocked" or "protected" or whatever it is they
send when they block calls.

A modem chip, an 8051 or equivalent cheap-as-**** microcontroller,
maybe a couple of buttons for programming, and a relay.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Randy Bush)
Subject: Carrier Choices for Leased Line to Africa?
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon US
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 1991 07:05:10 GMT


I wish to arrange a leased line between Portland, Oregon US and Rhodes
University in Grahamstown South Africa.  It will be used for V.32 and
V.32bis modems.  Which carriers should I check out?

AT&T quoted over $8k/mo, for the US end, and the SAPT quoted about
$2k/mo for the other end.  What other international carriers should I
be calling for quotes, and any clues as to the kinds of questions I
should be asking, other than how much?

Note that line delay is of concern, as the distance is sufficient to
limit, for example, uucp-g to 450cps effective.  We will be using
SLIP, and are not sure we can force a window width sufficient to
overcome, for example, two satellite hops.

I will summarize email replies to the list, if they're significant.
Thanks.


Randy Bush  / [e-mail]  / ..!uunet!m2xenix!news

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Steiger)
Subject: Re: Can I Connect With French Minitel via Internet?
Date: 24 Feb 91 05:36:25 GMT


In-Reply-To: message from [e-mail]

I have Minitel and they have their own access numbers scattered across
the US.  They have software for the MAC, IBM, and Apple.  you MUST use
their software.  Nice graphics.  Kinda like Prodigy.


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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 00:38:12 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: You Can't Predict Them All
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  The local PBS station (KCET) just ran 2001 and there's a scene in
the beginning where the actor makes a picturephone call to his young
daughter in a Bell (tm) booth, complete with the Bell symbol. I assume
that AT&T, MCI, or Sprint could be covering the interplanetary traffic
(*real* long distance) but does anyone know which of the Operating
companies was given the outer space LATA franchise by the MFJ ?


Jeff Sicherman

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

Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 10:26:33 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number


I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis
around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire
number, i.e. [phone]?  The correct way to write the number is
with dashes and no parenthesis -- or dots if you prefer -- in this
format: 311-555-2368, or 311.555.2368.  I think the use of parenthesis
around the area code must date back to a time when calls outside of
one's own community were a lot less common and it was only as an
afterthought that one included the area code, 'just in case' the
caller was from another city.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 911 Demonstration Program Wanted
Date: 24 Feb 91 16:25:28 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ


In article <[e-mail]>, decwrl!fernwood!well.sf.ca.us!
droid (Marty Brenneis) writes:

> Here is my idea for a product for this trick.  A card to fit into a PC
> clone that will supply battery and supervisory tones to a normal
> phone, and a second jack for the heaset phone for the dispatcher. With
> this would be a piece of software to simulate a PSAP screen for the
> dispatcher.

And, it's Dialogic to the rescue.

[Moderator's Note: Could you be a little more specific please? Do you
have the name / part number for the card?  Price?   Thanks.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #155
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01839;
          24 Feb 91 21:30 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20391;
          24 Feb 91 20:04 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10402;
          24 Feb 91 18:58 CST
Date:     Sun, 24 Feb 91 18:13:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #156
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Feb 91 18:13:04 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 156

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Early Color Television [Bill Vermillion]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Derek Andrew]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91


Re: Subject: The Year Was 1960

        Continuing a thread that began in Digest V11, issue 123,
Richard Budd commented on color TV in issue 128,

> It's been available since the early 1930's, although before World War
> II it was strictly experimental.

        Credits for the first color televison date to a Scot, Charles
Baird, in 1927 experiments to produce color images by mechanical
scanning methods.  Baird was expanding on 1880's work that began with
Senlecq's lab work on the photoelectric properties of selenium and
Nipkow's development of image scanning with a perforated rotating
disk. (In fact, there is some history showing facsimile by purely
electric means dates to about 1847.)

        The problem of Baird's day was providing a transmission
channel.  Bell Laboratories was of course interested, and duplicated
Baird's work, which in recent times has given rise to misleading AT&T
television commercials that imply Bell developed color TV. In 1934,
Philo Farnsworth (independently) and Vladmir Zworykin (at RCA)
developed electronic image scanners. These resulted, combined with
achieving sufficient radio bandwidth, in pioneering television
broadcasts by the British Broadcasting Corporation commencing November
2, 1936, almost three years before American TV began at the 1939 New
York World's Fair.

       Broadcast color television was stalled for a number of years
while the Columbia Broadcasting System continued development of
mechanical methods of separating primary colors based on Baird's work,
in competition with RCA's work on extending Zworykin's electronic
method.  In their first iterations, both required broadcast channels
far wider than the monochrome transmissions already on the air.  The
Federal Communications Commission of the US was unwilling to authorize
use of so much radio spectrum for color television, and ultimately got
the National Television Standards Committee to moderate a system for
broadcast use.  The RCA electronic method won out when it proved most
compatible with existing monochrome methods.  While both CBS and RCA
method experimental transmissions had been aired, the final NTSC
agreement was issued in 1953, permitting regular color transmissions
to spread across the US after that time.

        Budd closed by saying that:

> FM has also been around since the 1930's.

        Our Moderator, always the (rightfully) proud Chicagoan, replied:

> The first FM radio station in the US was here in Chicago, started in
> 1941 by the Zenith Radio Corporation.

        I have to take some issue there, Patrick.  Just like
transmitting pictures, FM has a physics lab history dating to 1862
work of Hermann von Helmholtz, amplified by Lord Rayleigh in England
(a name famous to every radio engineer) in 1883.  In 1925, John Carson
at Bell Labs published on the value of using FM to reduce noise in
communications links.  It was (retired) Major E. H. Armstrong (to whom
we owe credit for the superheterodyne receiver that made broadcast
radio really a practical medium for the general public) who in 1935
aired the first broadcast FM transmissions in 1935, from a transmitter
atop the Empire State Building to receivers in New Jersey. (Sorry,
Chicago.) Both CBS at New York and Zenith at Chicago were early
promoters of FM broadcasting.

        Coincidentally, Major Armstrong put a subcarrier on his 1935
transmitter, demonstrating multiplex transmission of audio programs
with facsimile newspapers.  He obtained a patent for FM that resulted
in a bitter battle with AT&T about patent rights; one in which the
classic "phone company stonewalling" often mentioned in the Digest may
have resulted in Major Armstrong's suicidal hurling himself out of a
New York office window.  In a very complex argument involving the
means of generating frequency-modulated versus phase-modulated
signals, the Bell interests maintained their microwave transmitters
did not violate Armstrong's patent, denying him of course millions of
dollars in patent rights.

        Armstrong's method of generating FM required quite complex
frequency multiplication, then downconversion, then remultiplication
to achieve an output signal in the region below 50 megaHertz, which
was in that era, the only one in which high-powered transmitting
amplifers could be built.  (FM radio before WW II was in the region
42-50 mHz.)  Leave out the downconverter, and the result wound up at
600 megaHertz or more, a useless part of the radio spectrum in the
mid-1930's.  Bell Labs did this, and proceeded to develop means to
focus super high frequency radio waves with reflector antennas that
could work with only a fraction of a Watt of transmitter power,
multiplexing at first 120, then 240 telephone voice channels on a
single radio channel.

Later improvements after WW II extended this to 600, then 1800 voice
channels on a single microwave radio.  In more recent developments,
Bell Labs did pioneering work in polarizing antennas so microwave
channels could be placed half as far apart in the radio spectrum, and
most recently, modified the system to single sideband FM, obtaining a
further doubling of the number of microwave radios that can be run
along a given route.

        All this history became very personal when I first worked in
radio stations that had on the transmitter plant wall, not only an FCC
license to transmit, but also had a patent license issued by
Armstrong's widow.  Later, at AT&T, I questioned photos of TD-2
microwave equipment bays with covers enclosing them.  An AT&T manager
I worked with told me how he had seen them used only at New York, in
early days when Major Armstrong would come to inspect with his
lawyers. The AT&T employees were under instruction to keep the doors
closed and not speak to Major Armstrong when he came to inspect the
installation.

        I hope this rambling from the mists of telecom history is of
interest and value to readers here.  We owe far more to heroes who
labored with balky, complex apparatus than modern histories ever seem
to credit.


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for another excellent article, which all of
us have come to expect from your terminal. But I must question the FM
thing a little. I listened to WEFM for *many* years, and they
frequently discussed this. Of course it was over a dozen years ago the
station changed format and I quit listening. My memory may be a little
hazy. Was the station in New York on the air continuously on a regular
schedule in the 1935 => 1941 period?  Zenith's claim was they were the
first on the air with regularly scheduled, commercial programming on
the FM band. Of course, Zenith itself was the one and only sponsor for
the lifetime of the station (as a classical station) for 36 years.

The day the format changed in 1977 was a sad one. Everyone knew it was
coming as Zenith had been trying to sell the station for quite some
time. Metromedia finally agreed to buy the station but without the
classical music format. Through a quirk, the FCC approved the sale,
but did not approve the change in format for another year, so
Metromedia, whose stations are easy listening and top forty rock found
itself stuck with running a classical station for awhile. But when the
change in format was approved, they wasted no time in the conversion.

The FCC required them to give a week's notice to the listeners. A
disclaimer was played hourly for a week advising that the FCC had
given permission to change the format, and " ... for continued
listening to classical music, we suggest you tune to WNIB or WFMT ..."

On the final night, the last selection was Beethoven's Fifth Symphony,
followed by their usual five minutes of news at 11:55 PM. At midnight
they gave their usual sign-off announcement followed by the Naitonal
Anthem, as was their custom. After about fifteen seconds of dead air,
a nasal, obnoxious sounding voice told us we were listening to the
home of top forty rock in Chicago. Their first selection was "Rock
Around the Clock".  The FCC made them keep playing the disclaimer once
an hour for another week, then several times daily for a month.  PAT]

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

From: Bill Vermillion <bilver![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Early Color Television
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 19:23:43 GMT


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

>H> [e-mail] (John Higdon)
>B> Richard Budd <[e-mail]> (18 Feb 91 20:15 CDT)

>H> No color television? Speak for yourself, Pat. [...]
>H> I distinctly remember watching (of all things) the Perry Como show on
>H> NBC on Saturday nights because it was very much in color on the
>H> neighbor's RCA color TV. (The first color TV I ever saw was in 1956.)

>B> Actually, color television has been around longer than either Pat or
>B> John (if I deduce correctly from their high school graduation dates
>B> that they were born in the early 1940's).  It's been available since
>B> the early 1930's, though before World War II it was strictly
>B> experimental.

> Hmmm ... that's very interesting.  It seems like if color television
> was around _that_ early, that it must be of the mechanical, spinning
> disk variety.  Having said that, how long has the NTSC-compatible
> color TV system been around?

The NTSC compatible finally came out after the end of the Korean war.
There was a government restriction on any new TV stations during that
time.

The war hiatus gave RCA time enough to perfect their system.  The CBS
"color wheel" (field sequential color) was approved before the war,
but was not widespread because of the government mandate.

>B> Color television wasn't rare, but color television programming
>B> certainly was before 1965.

I remember a special presentation put on for the University of Idaho,
Washington State College (now Washing State University (?) Pullman)
and EWCE (Cheney) for all those in broadcast.  This was fall of 1956.
The site was chosen because it was convenient for most involved an it
was closer to Spokane than either Moscow or Pullman.

This was during the first year of color in that area.  We had
technical discussion on the medium, and one interesting project at
that time was the "Chromatron" tube being developed by Dr. Lawrence at
CBS.  Trying to find a way to get rid of the mask and the dot-triad,
this tube used striped phosphors, horizontally.  Never made it.

A set, RCA, with 15" round tube, had been thoroughly adjusted before
the meeting.  The tech proceed to show how things are adjusted and
mis-adjusted the reds.  Then he used the dot generator to re-adjust
and then left.

An hour later when the broadcast in color of "The Desert Song" came
on, it was readily apparent that the tech had moved the red controls
one dot to the left.  All the reds on the picture were misplaced by
one inch.  I still remember the Oldsmobile commercial of several new
Olds side by side running over desert sand dunes.

Shortly after this NBC had a guaranteed one hour of color programming
per day, with an early dramtic series.  It appeared at noon West Coast
time.  Then each Sunday there was at least one program in color.

> What I find amazing was that there was technology to _record_ color TV
> through videotape in the early 50's.  I believe that was done with the
> late Mary Martin's "Peter Pan" TV special in 1954, and that has got to
> be the earliest videotape on record.

There were NO commercial video tape machines available before about
1961.  I remember when I was working at KXLY radio in Spokane that our
TV station got their first B&W VCR.  It was about $80,000 in 1961
dollars (That should easily be about $300,000 in todays dollars), had
three six-foot tall racks of tube electronics and 1 rack for the
transport.  Model was RCA VR-1.  (Video Recorder One).  From what I
remember of it's quality it wasn't much better than any $500 VHS unit
today, if that.  Color VCR's were still a couple of years away.

Prior to that era the only ways to save things were on film.  Typical
was via kinescope, which was a motion picture camera that photographed
a tv-set.  The best way and much more expensensive was to use and EBR
(electron beam recorder).  This exposed the film directly by using the
beam to write on the film elmusion as the film passed through a vacuum
chamber.  This method was also used to distributed video taped
commercials via film, as that technology was much cheaper for mass
distribution.

Things have certainly changed over the years!


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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 15:15:52 -0600
From: Derek Andrew <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator):

> I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis
> around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire
> number, i.e. [phone]?  The correct way to write the number is
> with dashes and no parenthesis -- or dots if you prefer -- in this
> format: 311-555-2368, or 311.555.2368.

I have extracted a portion of an article form an old TELECOM Digest.
My preference for my phone number is [phone], but maybe I am
just a little weird.


  Date: Thu, 30 Aug 1990 01:13:43 MST
  From: <[e-mail]>
  Subject: E Series Recommendations Excerpts - for Edification and Emusement


Here are Interesting Facts and Figures entered from the CCITT
Recommendations of 1988.  There are errata for these Recommendations,
but I have not applied them to these!  Also, my typing skills are not
perfect.

Note: these are all excerpts, and quotes.  I have left out substantial
text, and am including only some of the more interesting tidbits.  If
you are really interested, make sure you get the entire text! Things
in [] are my comments.

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

Recommendation E.123 Notation for National and International Telephone
Numbers

1.1 The international number should be printed below the national
number, with corresponding digits lined up one under the other to
facilitate understanding of the composition of the international
number as showd in the examples in 1.3 and 1.4 below.

1.2 The words "National" and "International" in the appropriate
langauge should be placed to the left of the national and
international numbers, and these should be separated by a horizontal
line.

1.3 Either the symbol for the telephone given in Rec. E.121 or the
word "Telephone" in the appropriate langauge should be placed to the
left of (or above) the national and international numbers (to avoid
confusion with other letterhead numbers.)  The + (plus) signifies the
international prefix.

Example:

                            National               [phone]
                 Telephone  --------------------------------------
                            International        [phone]

1.4 Because the countries of World Numbering >one 1 (North America)
have the country code 1, the same number as is used for the trunk
prefix, and because dialing between these countries is the same as
long-distance dialing within them, subscriber difficulties are avoided
by using an alternative notation that has been found superior for use
within those countries and equally good for subscribers in other
countries dialing to Zone 1.

Example:

                            Within N. Amer. zone    [phone]
                 Telephone  --------------------------------------
                            International         [phone]

1.5 If it is desirable to write only the international number, it
should be written in the form:

    Telephone International [phone]

1.6  [abbreviated: Extensions use the word "ext.", like this:]

                       National               [phone]
            Telephone  -------------------------------------- ext. 876
                       International        [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #156
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07315;
          25 Feb 91 3:00 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21670;
          25 Feb 91 1:12 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11060;
          25 Feb 91 0:07 CST
Date:     Mon, 25 Feb 91 0:00:25 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #157
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 25 Feb 91 00:00:02 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 157

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    In a Corner of our Bedroom [John Richard Bruni]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [John C. Fowler]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Barry Margolin]
    Re: Caller*ID Operation in Ottawa, Ontario [Doug Faunt]
    Re: Payment Processing [Roy Smith]
    Re: You Can't Predict Them All [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Office Phone > Home Phone [Fred Ennis]
    Re: Can Email be Sent to Troops? [Rich Szabo]
    Re: Caller*ID [Carl Wright]
    From the Archives: The Day the Bell System Died [Lauren Weinstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: In a Corner of our Bedroom
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 15:25:03 PST


Pat and all,

The title of this thread reminds me of something funny (as in 'odd').
I called Pac Bell recently to have the line installed which I am using
at this very moment to communicate with Internet.  They had trouble
finding the demarc.  The gal who came to hook it up asked if she could
book the next day to do the job since time was running short.  She was
real nice so what the heck I said OK.  The next morning she located
the demarc in the crawl space access port located in my bedroom
closet.  I`m in a townhouse and there are five more units attached to my
place.  Amazingly enough, *ALL* the demarcs for the building are in MY
bedroom.  There is a 25 pair cable built out in the crawlspace ...
actually it`s just a cable with 25 pairs.  Each one has a `peanut'
attached to it which the Pac Bell gal tells me is a terminator.  If I
were my neighbors I`d be real glad it`s me who owns this unit.  I am
strongly opposed to wiretaps of any kind so they`re safe with me.  But
what a mickey-mouse installation!  I really want it out of here.


Rocky (The Flying Squirrel)   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 15:56:41 PST
From: "John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: University of California, San Diego


In issue 155, Pat writes:

> I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis
> around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire
> number, i.e. [phone]?

I believe the (NPA) NXX-XXXX format came about by an old standard
which stated that digits not always dialed should be placed within
parentheses.  If you think about it, this makes sense.  Being in area
code 619, I can call anyone else in area code 619 without actually
dialing "619," so the number really is parenthetical to me.  Writing
619-555-2368 implies that 619 should be dialed all the time.  Some
area codes won't even allow this, much less require it.


John C. Fowler, [e-mail]

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

From: Barry Margolin <think![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 00:24:47 GMT


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

> I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis
> around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire
> number, i.e. [phone]?  The correct way to write the number is
> with dashes and no parenthesis -- or dots if you prefer -- in this
> format: 311-555-2368, or 311.555.2368.  I think the use of parenthesis
> around the area code must date back to a time when calls outside of
> one's own community were a lot less common and it was only as an
> afterthought that one included the area code, 'just in case' the
> caller was from another city.

Maybe I'm unusual, but most of my phone conversations are with people
in the same area code.  Unless you live/work in a high-density area
such as New York City, area codes still cover a pretty large area.  I
don't think of the area code as even being part of the person's phone
number; it identifies the area (or special function, such as toll-free-
ness) in general.  When I call my mother, I say to myself, "I'm
calling Long Island, so I first dial 516, then I dial my mother's
number."

There's also a common notation for another optional part of the phone
number, the country code.  It is normally written with a preceded by
"+", e.g. [phone].


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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 17:08:28 -0800
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID Operation in Ottawa, Ontario


The newest AMRAD newsletter had a homebrew Caller*ID demonstration
circuit.

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

Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 22:07:31 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Payment Processing
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City


> If you couldn't prove the batch in about ten minutes, you would hold the
> batch in the computer, and pass it to Sara.  Sara had the eyes of an
> eagle or a hawk and could find anything.

    I remember taking a tour of a local NJBell plant in the early
70's.  I remember watching them keypunch the incoming bill payments.
I don't remember the whole deal, but I do remember a machine which
looked basically like a 029 keypunch (was it a 129?) but instead of
punching, it just did comparisons.  You put into the feed hopper a
deck of cards already punched by somebody else.  You then proceeded to
repunch the same data.  If any keystroke you made didn't match what
was already on the card, a light lit up (or something like that).

    I also remember the gazillion-channel paper billing tapes
generated by the switches.  But, the neatest thing I remember was the
automatic envelope stuffing machines.  After they were stuffed, they
were sealed and run through a postage meter (with some sort of gate to
throw out the overweight ones to get extra postage).  My devious
twelve year old mind had visions at the time of pushing all the levers
on the postage meter to nine and putting $99.99 of postage on each
envelope (I confess, I confess!).

> PS:  Trivia:  Who remembers Unicard?  What banks pushed it?  What did it
> grow into?  What was the logo?  How about the jingle?

    Isn't Unicard what became Mastercharge?  I remember when it came out
in, oh, must have been around 1968 or so.  Don't remember any details.


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

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: You Can't Predict Them All
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 1991 00:45:46 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jeff Sicherman) writes:

> (*real* long distance) but does anyone know which of the Operating
> companies was given the outer space LATA franchise by the MFJ ?


L-5 Bell.

[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Hmmm ... is this the amateur comedian's Digest or
what? Hey Peter! Did you see the first message in this issue of the
Digest where the guy took your organization line and changed it into
the subject of his message?   PAT]

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

From: Fred Ennis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Office Phone > Home Phone
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 22:55:40 EST
Organization: AFI Communications - Nepean, Ontario, Canada


[e-mail] (Richard E. Banks) writes:

> I recently received a few phones that came from the office.  The
> phones have ten or eleven lines. The cable is standard 24 gauge modular
> wire; 50 leads with connecter.

> I want to adapt the phones so I can use them in my RJ11 jacks at
> home using one line. Is there any easy way to do this?

You probably have phones from a 1A2 key system, and yes you can use
them as single line phones.  The simplest way is for you to ignore the
amphenol connector and hook up a normal RJ11 Cable to the network
inside the phones.  Just connect the tip and ring to L1 and L2 on the
network and your phone should work.  If it doesn't, then get back to
me with the model number of the phones.

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

Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 16:49:59 -0500
From: Rich Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can Email be Sent to Troops?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Volkhart Baumgaertner) writes:

> I have heard that there is an Internet or Bitnet address that allows one
> to send e-mail to soldiers in Saudi-Arabia. Friends of mine would like
> to send mail to their relatives in units down there. So if anybody has
> information on the address and procedure I'd be  most grateful if he'd
> share it with me.

There is a free e-mail service, "Letters from Home", which GEnie is
providing.  You must dial into their network.  You do NOT need to be a
Genie subscriber to use this service.  GE transmits the letters to
Saudi Arabia and prints them there for physical distribution.

Before sending a Letter from Home you must know the following information
about the intended recipient:

  - Name & Rank  - Social Security Number  - Unit or Ship Name
  - APO or FPO Number

Call the GEnie Client Services at 1-800-638-9636 to get your local
access number.  I found that you must turn on "Local Echo" in your PC
software or on your terminal.


I am in no way affiliated with Genie or General Electric.
Rich Szabo  Cleveland, Ohio USA  internet:[e-mail]

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 1991 05:08:20 GMT


Regarding Caller*ID numbers from PBXs and companies in general, I
remember an article in {Business Communications Review} saying that
ANI (Automatic Number Identification) consists of CNI (Calling Number
Identification) or BNI (Billing Number Identification).

Caller-ID is normally going to give BNI permitting you to block all
numbers from a company location. I don't know what it will do with a
Centrex service where I'd like to know the CNI so I can get back
directly to a caller.

Since ANI was setup for telco billling purposes, I wonder if they use
both BNI and CNI or just one of them for their own billing. Does
anyone know?


Carl Wright                     | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]        | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST       | Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: From the Archives: The Day the Bell System Died
Date: 24 Feb 1991 (Sunday) 23:30 CST


It has been awhile since we ran this, thus many of the new readers
would not have seen it; and with the recent spate of messages about
'how things used to be' I thought this was worth reprinting. The
message which follows first appeared in TELECOM Digest July 12, 1983.
It is as good and pertinent now as it was almost eight years ago when
we first ran it here. It remains today one of the most frequently
pulled files in the Archives. Read it and you'll know why.


PAT
                             -------------

  Date: Tuesday, 12-Jul-83 01:18:19-PDT
  From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM>
  Subject: "The Day Bell System Died"

Greetings.  With the massive changes now taking place in the
telecommunications industry, we're all being inundated with seemingly
endless news items and points of information regarding the various
effects now beginning to take place.  However, one important element
has been missing: a song!  Since the great Tom Lehrer has retired from
the composing world, I will now attempt to fill this void with my own
light-hearted, non-serious look at a possible future of telecommunications.
This work is entirely satirical, and none of its lyrics are meant to
be interpreted in a non-satirical manner.  The song should be sung to
the tune of Don Mclean's classic "American Pie".  I call my version
"The Day Bell System Died"...

 --Lauren--

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

           *==================================*
           * Notice: This is a satirical work *
           *==================================*


                    "The Day Bell System Died"


              Lyrics Copyright (C) 1983 by Lauren Weinstein

                      (To the tune of "American Pie")

             (With apologies to Don McLean)


  ARPA: vortex!lauren@LBL-CSAM
  UUCP: {decvax, ihnp4, harpo, ucbvax!lbl-csam, randvax}!vortex!lauren

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

Long, long, time ago,
I can still remember,
When the local calls were "free".
And I knew if I paid my bill,
And never wished them any ill,
That the phone company would let me be...

But Uncle Sam said he knew better,
Split 'em up, for all and ever!
We'll foster competition:
It's good capital-ism!

I can't remember if I cried,
When my phone bill first tripled in size.
But something touched me deep inside,
The day... Bell System... died.

And we were singing...

Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die?
We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI,
"Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry.
Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die?
Ma Bell why did you have to die?

Is your office Step by Step,
Or have you gotten some Crossbar yet?
Everybody used to ask...
Oh, is TSPS coming soon?
IDDD will be a boon!
And, I hope to get a Touch-Tone phone, real soon...

The color phones are really neat,
And direct dialing can't be beat!
My area code is "low":
The prestige way to go!

Oh, they just raised phone booths to a dime!
Well, I suppose it's about time.
I remember how the payphones chimed,
The day... Bell System... died.

And we were singing...

Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die?
We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI,
"Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry.
Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die?
Ma Bell why did you have to die?

Back then we were all at one rate,
Phone installs didn't cause debate,
About who'd put which wire where...
Installers came right out to you,
No "phone stores" with their ballyhoo,
And 411 was free, seemed very fair!

But FCC wanted it seems,
To let others skim long-distance creams,
No matter 'bout the locals,
They're mostly all just yokels!

And so one day it came to pass,
That the great Bell System did collapse,
In rubble now, we all do mass,
The day... Bell System... died.

So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die?
We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI,
"Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry.
Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die?
Ma Bell why did you have to die?

I drove on out to Murray Hill,
To see Bell Labs, some time to kill,
But the sign there said the Labs were gone.
I went back to my old CO,
Where I'd had my phone lines, years ago,
But it was empty, dark, and ever so forlorn...

No relays pulsed,
No data crooned,
No MF tones did play their tunes,
There wasn't a word spoken,
All carrier paths were broken...

And so that's how it all occurred,
Microwave horns just nests for birds,
Everything became so absurd,
The day... Bell System... died.

So bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die?
We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI,
"Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry.
Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die?
Ma Bell why did you have to die?

We were singing:

Bye, bye, Ma Bell, why did you die?
We get static from Sprint and echo from MCI,
"Our local calls have us in hock!" we all cry.
Oh Ma Bell why did you have to die?

<End>


[Moderator's Note: I thought you'd all like that!  And my sincere
thanks to Lauren for having sent it to us several years ago.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #157
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04420;
          26 Feb 91 2:13 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14382;
          26 Feb 91 0:32 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14257;
          25 Feb 91 23:24 CST
Date:     Mon, 25 Feb 91 23:21:13 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #158
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 25 Feb 91 23:21:06 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 158

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Toby Nixon]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Brian Gordon]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Chris Petrilli]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Roy Smith]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Wally Kramer]
    Re: Airphones and Receiving Calls [Alain Fontaine]
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number (in Australia) [Brendan Jones]
    Re: AT&T, MCI, US.Sprint Rate Comparison [Bob Yazz]
    Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments? [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments? [Dan Herrick]
    Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom [John W. Temples]
    Quotable Quotes (was Western Union Revisited) [Dell H. Ellison]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Date: 25 Feb 91 00:46:46 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

> I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis
> around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire
> number, i.e. [phone]?  The correct way to write the number is
> with dashes and no parenthesis -- or dots if you prefer -- in this
> format: 311-555-2368, or 311.555.2368.

Actually, Pat, you should look at CCITT Recommendation E.123, which
specifically addresses the issue of how telephone numbers should
appear in printed material.  The recommended format has SPACES between
parts of the number (country code, city/area code, exchange, station),
with a "+" preceeding the country code.  The use of parenthesis
surrounding the city/area code is specifically permitted when it is
desirable to indicate that portion of the phone number that is
optional when dialing from within the local area.  Use of dashes or
periods is optional, as well, and specifically stated as being to
accomodate national conventions (i.e., Ma Bell always used dashes, and
who is the CCITT to say they can't?)

One notes, for example, that CCITT Recommendation T.30 specifies that
the only characters valid for inclusion in a facsimile phone number
field (TSI/CSI/CID frame) are the digits zero through nine, space, and
plus.  Many fax machines do indeed support the entire ASCII/IA5/T.50
character set, but only those twelve characters are mandatory.


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

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

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 11:19:43 PST
From: Brian Gordon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator wrote
about the ways people write their phone number, and the area code
being in parenthesis as though it were incidental.

Perhaps it is more than that.  If I dial the ten-digit number of my
second home phone from my first, I get "can not be completed as
dialed" -- the area-code is actually hostile.  In that sense, the
(xxx) reminds callers that it is mandatory in some situations,
optional in others, and hostile in others.  In other words, "remember
to treat these three digits in a special way."


Brian G. Gordon       [e-mail] (if you trust exotic mailers)
                   ...!sun!briangordon (if you route it yourself)

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

From: Chris Petrilli <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Date: 26 Feb 91 02:04:57 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation


Our esteemed Moderator writes:

> number, i.e. [phone]?  The correct way to write the number is
> with dashes and no parenthesis -- or dots if you prefer -- in this
> format: 311-555-2368, or 311.555.2368.  I think the use of parenthesis

I believe that the ISO says that the following format is the "correct"
one:

   [phone]

the format is:

   +<country_code> <local format>

for the US it would be:

   +1 <area_code> <prefix> <extension>

I believe that the standard says that no hyphes nor periods should be
used as they sometimes have other purposes.

The coincidense of the US version being +1 is just that ... the US
country code is 1, so..


Chris Petrilli    Internet:  [e-mail]
Insert silly disclaimer drivel here.

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

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 21:35:48 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City


> I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis
> around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire number,
> i.e. [phone]?

    Odd you should mention that.  I recently was expecting
somebody on an Air France flight and called their (AF's) office to see
when the flight would be in.  A recording of an obviously French voice
gave me another number to call.  What's odd (at least to my American
ears) was that the voice gave the new number as something like "area
code 212, telephone number xxx-xxxx", as if the area code was not to
be considered part of the phone number, but something extra, or as PAT
puts it, incidental.

    I wonder, was it just a oddity of the person who made the
recording, an artifact of a person speaking English as a non-native
language and struggling with an idiom, or is it just common usage in
France to pronounce phone numbers that way?


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

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 22:57:56 GMT


think![e-mail] (Barry Margolin) writes:

> There's also a common notation for another optional part of the phone
> number, the country code.  It is normally written with a preceded by
> "+", e.g. [phone].

Except that then the NPA is mandatory and so not in ().

I still see organizations incorrectly listing their international
numbers in advertising etc - a motel in Canberra is listed as follows:

    Phone        (06) 2ab cdef    [I can't remember the exact #]
    International    616  2ab cdef

I wonder if some poor soul in the USA gets calls for this motel?

What other STD/ISD dialing methods are in use in the world? In
Australia all STD area codes begin with a zero when dialed nationally
and this zero is omitted when dialing from overseas. In the USA your
area codes don't have a prefix (unless you count the 1).  -


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

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

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 17:26:44 PST
From: Wally Kramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR


I recall seeing a TELECOM Digest article mentioning ISO standards
about eight or nine months ago which recommended how to write a phone
number.

As I recall, it explicitly said to not use any punctuation except
space and a leading + (to indicate the digits required for
international access).  So fictitious North American number (311)
555-2368 in Bell (tm) parlance would be written [phone].


Wally Kramer    contracted from Step Technology, Portland, Oregon 503 244 1239
[e-mail]        [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 15:32:20 +0100
From: "Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Airphones and Receiving Calls


On 21 Feb 91 19:43:05 GMT Jeff Carroll said:

> Moral of the story: Protect yourself from exposure to dangerous
> electromagnetic radiation and self-jamming aircraft. Fly only on
> American-made planes :^)

Alternate moral: don't risk your life on planes equipped with avionics
unable to stand some interference. Use European-made planes only 8-)


AF

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

Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number (in Australia)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 16:53:00 +1000
From: [e-mail]


In Australia, finding out your own phone number is very easy (in areas
with digital exchanges).  Just dial 19123 and a clear digitised voice
recites your phone number twice, including area code.  However, it
doesn't work for public phone boxes (*all* of which have silent
numbers in Australia), or through most PABXs.

It was very handy to know this when my brother moved to a new house
recently.  The phone number he was given was in fact incorrect.  By
dialling 19123, the real phone number was revealed - and it was
nothing like what he was told!!


Brendan Jones        ACSnet:  [e-mail]
R&D Contractor          UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan
Services R&D         Phone:  [phone]   Fax:  [phone]
|||| OTC ||          Snail:  GPO Box 7000, Sydney  2001, AUSTRALIA

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T, MCI, US.Sprint Rate Comparison
Date: 25 Feb 91 08:45:46 GMT
Organization:


> [Moderator's Note: I think we are seeing more and more convergence of
> rates by the big three carriers.  Unless your long distance bill each
> month is substantial (and you have to judge that), there is very
> little incentive to pick and choose on the basis of 'savings' any
> longer.

I dumped Sprint in favor of AT&T after verifying that Sprint had
programmed their computer to reveal my billing info to anybody who
called them knowing my phone number.

I hope this convergence of rates will encourage more people to dump
Sprint for the privacy reason.  After hanging up on some dolt of a
Sprint Rep who wouldn't get me a supervisor, I got a really nice one
(via a nice rep) who listened to my explanation of why I was dropping
them.  I was assured that my reasons would be passed along.

I also signed up for a 10223 account with Cable & Wireless, suppliers
of my spiffily spelled programmable 800 number.


Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 1991 15:02:42 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments?


[e-mail] (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>> It may give you a pain to put the contents into the envelope in a
>> particular way, but it aids the Telco's automation.
> Speaking as a consumer (rather than a telco employee, which I also
> am), why should I *give* a frog about aiding the Telco's automation?

Well, assuming that the Telco's charges to you are relative to their
costs (probably a big assumption), if they can lower costs through
automation, then they are also lowering your bill. If you go along
with their automation efforts you help lower your bill.


Scott Hinckley   Internet:[e-mail]
|UUCP:.!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!huntsai!scot

DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not
represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management.

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

Date: 25 Feb 91 14:33:00 EDT
From: "CONTR  HERRICK, DAN" <abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments


In TELECOM Digest #136, Ron Heiby <[e-mail]>
writes:

>> The thing about my IL Bell bill-paying envelopes, and many others,
>> that I continue to find a mystery is, "Why the heck do they need that
>> window on the envelope?"  As far as I can tell, it's just to give me a
>> pain by forcing me to a specific orientation of contents insertion.
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> The envelope already has the city/state/zip+4.  In fact, the zip+4 is
>> BAR CODED on the envelope!  [...]

> It may give you a pain to put the contents into the envelope in a
> particular way, but it aids the Telco's automation.  If the check is
> always behind the bill and the bill is right side up, a machine can

Ohio Bell annoys me with an envelope that is outsize and won't fit
into a shirt pocket or the rubber banded bundle of mail to be posted
at various future dates.  So I wad it up to fit.

Many of my creditors who provide envelopes have the extra flaps that
they want me to tear off and use to buy something else.  I carefully
put my check in the envelope, fold the flap in on top of it and then
put their coupon in so it shows through the window the way they
specify.  My perversity considers the effort a wasy compared with
tearing off and discarding the coupon.  I want to take away any
productivity benefit they get until they stop using those dumb flaps.


dan herrick      [e-mail]

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

From: John Temples <jwt![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom
Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 02:33:28 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John_Richard_Bruni@
cup.portal.com writes:

> But what a mickey-mouse installation!  I really want it out of here.

What if one of the neighbors wanted to add another line?  Would it
have to be done at YOUR convenience since the telco would need access
to your bedroom?  What if you were out of town for a couple of weeks
 -- or for the winter?


John W. Temples -- [e-mail] (uunet!jwt!john)


[Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, they (telco) could demand a key from
the landlord and enter the premises to work. Telco always has what is
known as 'easement rights' where their wires are placed.  We had a
story in the Digest more than a year ago about a situation almost like
this one: A man who was visually hanicapped had run an answering
service from his home for many years. He apparently had about a
hundred subscriber lines terminating on a switchboard in a room in his
house. The service closed down, he moved and sold the house. The woman
who bought it did not realize that in the room which would become her
bedroom there was a *large* terminal box in the closet. Since it was
an older urban neighborhood in a suburb here, as to be expected the
hundred or so pairs terminating in that terminal box were multipled
all over over the neighborhood. She had phone pairs for everyone in a
two or three block area in the box in her bedroom. Telco said they
would move the box elsewhere if she paid them a couple thousand
dollars to do so; she demanded rent from telco and they told her to
jump in the lake. The last I heard, she was suing the guy who sold her
the house, to get him to pay the telco for the move, and telco was
pressuring her to provide them with a key to get into the area as
required.    PAT]

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

From: "Dell H. Ellison" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Quotable Quotes (was Re: Western Union Revisited)
Date: 25 Feb 91 14:02:20 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu (Gabe Wiener) writes:

> Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings
> [e-mail]             to be seriously considered as a means of
> [e-mail]       communication. The device is inherently of
> [e-mail]         no value to us."  -Western Union memo, 1877

Here's another quote that I like:

"Well-informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over
wires.  Even if it were, it would be of no practical value."

                                               - Boston Post 1865

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #158
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07229;
          26 Feb 91 4:10 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10359;
          26 Feb 91 2:38 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ag02888;
          26 Feb 91 1:33 CST
Date:     Tue, 26 Feb 91 1:06:20 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #159
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Feb 91 01:06:08 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 159

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Ken Abrams]
    Re: NXX Count (1-15-91) [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: NXX Count (1-15-91) [Steve Watt]
    Re: USPS Fax Discontinued [Mark Steiger]
    Re: CIDCO Caller ID Unit and Area Code Question [Steven A. Minneman]
    Re: MCI Personal 800 Numbers [Edwin D. Windes]
    Re: Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History [Donald E. Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Steven S. Brack" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 04:02:01 GMT


What is the legality of a property rentor blocking access of 10xxx
numbers from its renters' phones?  I rent housing from a large
university, with its own PBX (actually a slightly scaled-down telco
switch serving about 30,000 phones).  Every dormitory room has its own
phone.  UNITS, the university telco, runs its own LD operation, which
involves giving each subscriber an access code, which is intercepted
by the university switch, which then completes the call through <I
assume> a regular LD carrier.  I have an ATT calling card that offers
a fair discount, and I would like to use it to place LD calls from my
phone.  All combinations of 10288, including using outside line
designators, fail.  When I dial an Ohio Bell operator (9-0) (9-0-0
doesn't work at all, I am informed that LD is not allowed from my
phone, and I'm not connected to AT&T.

My question:  Can they do this? If so, what is the legal justification?


Steve Brack   Telecommunications Engineering
The Ohio State University  Columbus, OH        43210-1211
[e-mail]
[e-mail] (Avoid sending here, if possible)


[Moderator's Note: I don't think there is any legal justification when
the telco or (in your case pseudo-telco) has a captive customer base
by not allowing installation of phones from off campus, etc. I think
it passes legal muster when a private organization restricts employee
phones like that. It is legal since I guess employees have no
automatic right to make personal calls on company phones. It is a pity
how some of these universities want to play telephone company and yet
conveniently ignore the rules other telcos manage to follow. Some one
or more people ought to start slapping them silly with lawsuits left
and right until they wise up.  PAT]

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access
Date: 25 Feb 91 22:01:13 GMT
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


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

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

>> [Moderator's Note: I don't see why AT&T has to get an 800 number. The
>> rules established for this plainly call for equal access via 10xxx,
>> and thus far, AT&T has been insisting everyone follow the rules. I've
>> heard all the arguments about fraud and difficulty in billing 10xxx
>> calls, but that is the COCOT owner's problem ... not AT&T's.   PAT]

> [Moderator's Note: But the fact that you cannot access AT&T via 10288
> is not AT&T's fault. It is a greedy private operator who is denying
> access illegally. What is to prevent the same greedy operator from
> blocking access to 950 numbers if desired, or assessing some

In both your responses there is one very large, important point that
you failed to take into consideration.  Judge Green's order and all
the associated technical changes that it provoked is binding only upon
the companies that were a part of the old "Bell System".  None of the
other operating companies are legally obligated to have anything to do
with "equal access" or 10XXX or 950.

It seems that the other major players have elected to go along for
reasons of their own but they are not REQUIRED to conform.  Entire
independent telcos are seemingly able to contract with whomever they
please to carry their subscriber's toll traffic and are probably under
no legal obligation to provide access from it's lines to other
carriers.  Assuming that I am not way off base, the only solution
would appear to be 800 access to AT&T in these situations.


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


[Moderator's Note: What is to prevent the same greedy operator who
forbids 10xxx service from denying access to AT&T's 800 number? What
is to prevent him from doing something like adding a surcharge on
calls to 800 numbers like many COCOTs are doing?  In other words, if
the telco, or COCOT or whatever won't observe common courtesy by
allowing 10xxx connections, why do you feel they will observe common
courtesy by handling 800 calls in the heretofore traditional way of
passing the calls without additional charge?  The real complaint some
of those guys have is they do not want you to reach AT&T. They do not
want you to have any choice of carriers. After all, what sort of fool
would use *their* service if there was any choice in the matter?  If
AT&T did install an 800 number I can guarentee you the same people who
now block 10xxx would figure out a way to block 800-ATT-#### or else
tack a tidy surcharge on for themselves.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 1991 15:01:47 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: NXX Count (1-15-91)


[e-mail] (Arnold Robbins) writes:

> Georgia is currently only two area codes altogether.  Probably Atlanta
> will keep 404 and the rest of North Georgia would get the new area
> code.  The Atlanta LATA is apparently the largest free calling area in
> the world, from what an adjunct professor who works for Southern Bell
> once told me.

This is true. To give an example, when I lived in Atlanta I was able
to make local calls to places that were a good hour's drive away. The
local calling area spans several counties.

Here in Huntsville the longest local call would take about twenty
minutes to drive to, and many places that are within a fifteen
minute's drive are long distance.


Scott  Hinckley   Internet:[e-mail]
UUCP:  .!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!huntsai!scot

DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not
represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management.


[Moderator's Note: Do you think driving in city traffic has anything
to do with it?  Here in Chicago I can't go five miles in fifteen
minutes during the rush hour.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Watt)
Subject: Re: NXX Count (1-15-91)
Organization: Steven Watt, Consultant, San Jose, CA, USA
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 08:24:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

[ slurp! ]

> You have some cases where you say "ten digit dialing"; this should be
> eleven digits (1 + area code + number), as there are some places where
> ten digit dialing (leading 1 NOT required) is in effect for local
> calls crossing an area code border.  [ more deleted ]

  On a somewhat related note, I'm curious ... how many area codes are
there out there (like PacBell territory in 408) that don't require a
1+ for *any* call, local, long-distance, or otherwise?

  I once heard a rumor that 408 was the last area code in the NANP
that allowed 10 digit (real 10 digit, not 1+ten.) dialing ... is
PacBell that slow?  Is it PacBell that's slow?


Steve Watt  ...!claris!wattres!steve   wattres![e-mail] also works

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Steiger)
Subject: Re: USPS Fax Discontinued
Date: 26 Feb 91 01:16:08 GMT


In-Reply-To: message from ![e-mail]

USPS Fax???  We never got that up here in the tundra.  Sounds neat,
though.  :)


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

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

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 10:59:36-1795
From: "Steven A. Minneman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CIDCO Caller ID Unit and Area Code Question
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steven A. Minneman )
Organization: Fujitsu Network Switching of America, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>  gtnetdc@richsun6.
gatech.edu.UUCP (David Carter) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 135, Message 3 of 9

> So my question is: how long before we begin having area codes in North
> America with other than 0 or 1 for the second digit?

July, 1995 -- however, they are now trying to move the date to either
July, 1994 or July, 1993 if all the operating companies will be ready.

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

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 10:48:36 EST
From: Edwin D Windes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Personal 800 Numbers
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL


> [Moderator's Note: I wonder if these numbers are virtually
> non-blockable or if there is some point at which if enough people
> (among the 3000 possible per number) are calling the number it will
> return a busy signal, leaving your caller to ask later 'why was your
> line busy?' (when in fact you had not been talking.)

Sharing the same 800 number doesn't necessarily imply the bottleneck
that you might envision.  Routing to the carrier's operator system
should be based on the 800-NXX, and wouldn't be much different than
other 800 numbers.  Once at that switch, the PIN would be collected,
and the translation to the real number would be done.  After this
point, it wouldn't matter how the call was dialed.

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 03:02 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History


In commenting on my original post (Digest v11, iss156), our Moderator
wrote:

> [Moderator's Note: Thanks for another excellent article, which all of
> us have come to expect from your terminal.

Golly, thanks, Patrick.  You should have seen the rosy blush my little
T-1000 laptop emanated when it displayed that line.  But please don't
do that too much.  It got so coy the rest of the day that I spent too
much time coaxing it back out so I could tickle its keys some more!

More along the thread, our Moderator continued (about Chicago's WEFM
having been the *first* FM broadcast station):

> ...Was the station in New York on the air continuously on a regular
> schedule in the 1935 => 1941 period?  Zenith's claim was they were the
> first on the air with regularly scheduled, commercial programming on
> the FM band.

Armstrong's 'station" was purely an experimental one, and Zenith's
claim that WEFM was the first regular station was certainly correct.
My original remark was taking issue with a broad claim phrased in a
way implying that Zenith was the first ever, thus perhaps creating the
impression that Zenith was the developer of FM.  In radio engineering
education, the frist reference is always to Armstrong's 1935
experiments and his landmark paper read to the Institute of Radio
Engineers in 1936.

In New York, CBS also jumped on the FM bandwagon, but I do not have
a date to compare to Zenith's Chicago operation. I do have in my own
history book collection a 1942 engineering text that describes FM
broadcast trnsmitters made by Armstrong, GE, RCA and Western Electric,
all of which operated in the 42-50 mHz range, the original "FM band."

On a different vein, our Moderator mentions how the FCC involved
itself in the sale of WEFM concerning programming, saying:

> ... the FCC approved the sale, but did not approve the change in
> format for another year. The FCC required them to give a week's
> notice to the listeners.  A disclaimer was played hourly for a week
> advising that the FCC had given permission to change the format,
> and " ... for continued listening to classical music, we suggest you
> tune to WNIB or WFMT ..."

Ah, yes, the good old, bad old days of close regulation.  The WEFM
sale must have been the last of the era in which the FCC concerned
itself with what kind of programs the public had access to in each
market. In that time, each broadcaster had to propose to the FCC how
much of each type of programming ... news, sports, education, music
(by type), religion, and such it would air, brokne down into
commercial and non-commercial amounts.  Then, at triennial license
renewal time, do an analysis from sample program log dates set by the
FCC, showing how well the proposal was complied with, explaining any
significant deviation.  The "deregulation" of broadcasting preceded
that of telecom by quite a few years.  Many believe it led to the
destruction of radio as an important information medium in America.

One last note about the balky apparatus of early FM: My radio "Alma
Mater: had one of the Western Electric 10 kilowatt FM trans- mitters,
that had as a "feature" a motor-driven automatic frequency control
circuit.  It worked rather well, except that if there was a sustained
low-frequency note, the darned thing would decide one of the large
sidebands was the carrier frequency, and crank itself over there. When
the note stopped, it lost track of where it should be, and the motor
would just run off to one end of its track.  The old WECo transmitter's
power amplifiers were so broadly tuned, it would wander a full two
megaHertz up the band, and park on top of one of the other stations in
town, still putting out its full 10 kilowatts.

At the same time, our fine Hewlett-Packard frequency monitor had
circuitry such that it indicated zero deviation from assigned
frequency every 3500 Hertz up the band, so its needle would settle
with the appearance that we were just in fine shape.  Our "alarm"
would be some combination of the studio calling to say we "went off
the air," and relaying calls from listeners who said they heard us on
top of the other station!  That other station had a GE transmitter
using different circuitry with its own annoying version of the same
habit, but a tendency to go clear off into Lord-knew-where in the
radio spectrum.  They had a subcarrier with the local Muzak on it, so
their "alarm" would be the guy from Muzak calling up to say his
customers lost their music.

        Somehow, life was a lot more adventuresome in those days....


[Moderator's Note: But I don't recall WJJD (1160 AM here) or WLS (890
AM) going through such efforts to change their format. WJJD went from
a classical format to Country and Western overnight with no notice at
all. And WLS: what a switch that was! It was 1959 or 1960. After years
of ownership by Sears, Roebuck (the <W>orld's <L>argest <S>tore, after
all!) WLS had become just what their nickname implied: The Prairie
Farmer Station. From early in the morning with a farm show and someone
discussing the condition of the crops to late at night with the Old
Barn Dance program from Nashville, TN, they spent the day with soap
operas from the Mutual Network and Country/Western music. The
exception was Sunday: From 6 AM until midnight, it was one preacher
after another; thirty or sixty minute slots brokered to every crackpot
with a post office box in Pasadena, CA.

When WLS decided to go with rock music, they brought in several good
DJ's, and switched the format at 6 AM one morning while everyone was
still asleep. They bought off all the Sunday preachers who still had
time left on their contracts and dumped them all the same week ... all
but one ... a local guy here in Chicago named Preston Bradley, whose
church services had been on WLS for umpteen years. They couldn't buy
him off, and he still had two years to go ... so for two years
following the change in format from Prairie Farmer / soap opera /
peculiar religious stuff to a hard rock format, every Sunday they
stopped the music at 10:58 AM and the DJ would say "It's time for
Doctor Bradley ... I'm going out for breakfast ... we'll be back at
noon."  And at exactly noon they would cut him off the air, as often
as not in mid-sentence and start the rock music again. I'm sure it
pained them no end to have to suspend for an hour.

The only time I heard any complaints from the FCC about them was when
a DJ (remember, this was early sixties) said a naughty word on the
radio one night. The FCC made them go off the air a few minutes later;
they got (I think) a three day suspension of their license.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #159
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08767;
          26 Feb 91 5:23 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12550;
          26 Feb 91 3:43 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10359;
          26 Feb 91 2:39 CST
Date:     Tue, 26 Feb 91 1:59:06 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #160
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Feb 91 01:58:54 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 160

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Eireann Call Charges [Colum Mylod]
    More 900 Addresses [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    The Great US Telephone Conspiracy [John Higdon]
    Phone Dinging Around 2 AM [Barry Margolin]
    Data Format of and Decoding of Caller*ID [Wayne Wolf]
    PacTel Long Range Cordless [Matt Simpson]
    Wanted: Economical, Reliable Rack-Mount 2400 bps MNP5 [Steve Pershing]
    IXC Service at Pay Telephones [Scott Hunter]
    ANI and Ringback in the Inland Empire [Javier Henderson]
    Data Access Arrangement (was Should Projects ...) [Jon Sreekanth]
    Where do You Live? In a Cave? [Randy Borow]
    What Does MCI/Sprint Personal 800 Offer Over AT&T Call*Me Card? [T. Hansen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Colum Mylod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Eireann Call Charges
Date: 25 Feb 91 13:28:16 GMT
Organization: Oracle Europe


As the original article mentioning changes in Telecom Eireann charges
has expired here, this is not the customary followup. That article did
say that local calls were going from untimed to three minutes. Well,
another source confirms the change but not the details. From the
e-mailed news letter "The Irish Emigrant" dated 25 Feb. 1991 comes
this:

       On Friday [ 22 Feb. ] Telecom [Eireann] confirmed that it was
       going to end the practice of charging a flat rate for local
       calls, irrespective of duration.  Between the hours of 8:00
       and 18:00 each five minutes will cost one charge unit.  For
       the remainder of the day a charge unit will buy a fifteen
       minute call.  On the plus side the charge unit will come down
       from 11.17p to 10p.  I am not sure when this will come into
       effect and I believe it needs Government approval.

The "I" is the editor, one Liam Ferrie and this worthwhile news
service is available by requesting same to irish-net-request@cs.
cornell.edu (end of plug). Source is "Irish Times" and RTE teletext.
So now the story is local calls timed to *five* minutes.


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

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

Date: 25-FEB-1991 01:00:23.27
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: More 900 Addreses


I just got a call today from 900-741-8200, for some vacation deal.

The Archives' list 900-741 as a Telesphere 900 number, so after about
thirty minutes of trying to get the right department, I found out
where to get a 900 provider's address from Telesphere: Call (708)
954-7700, and ask for the "Database".  That should connect you right
away with the people who handle this sort of information.

In case you've received calls from this 900 outfit and want to stop,
you can write to them at:

Junction Financial Corp.
1055 N.W. 3rd. Street
Hallandale, FL.   33009

How many of these frims *are* there anyhow? It's getting monotonous
sending letters to them all! :)


Doug

[e-mail]      [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Feb 91 22:44 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy


Recently, I was talking to a former notorious "telephone manipulator"
who offered one hypothesis explaining why we do not have telephone
"debit cards" for use in public phones. The following is a summary of
his thoughts mingled with some of my own.

Public telephones are just that: public. And anonymous. When someone
walks up to a coin phone, deposits money, and makes a call, he leaves
no tracks. Even if a record is kept of the local call, there is
ambiguity concerning the identity of one party to the conversation.
But traditionally in this country our long distance is another story.
Phone records have always been available via subpoena for law
enforcement agencies to further an investigation.

Except for collect calls, which are becoming increasingly rare, all
long distance calls are ticketed to an account that can be used to
identify a caller -- even if that caller uses a coin phone. And it
makes no difference whether it is a COCOT or a utility phone. Your
calling card points to you, as does any call billed to a third number.

The theory is that the gummit (all flavors) does not want to give up
this data collection. If you stop to think about it, why have there
been no attempts to establish a stored value card system for public
telephones? They are found in a number of other countries, including
Japan. Most Americans that I talked to there liked the system and used
it. (The others were unaware of it.) I do not believe that it would be
rejected by the American public.

The whole debacle of COCOTs was another banana peel in the road for
such a system. For the plan to work, there would have to be one card
that would work in any card phone nationwide. With the zillion COCOT
owners, not to mention many different local utility coin phones, the
prospects for a universal system are slim.  Perhaps the government
enthusiasm for COCOTs is seated in, among other things, the desire for
this roadblock to stored value cards.  If you could buy a phone card
from a vending machine and then use any card phone you liked to make
international calls, the potential for law enforcement tracking of
such calls would be significantly reduced.

Granted, this all sounds bizzare and paranoid, but I have to admit
that I gave it a few moments of thought. I realized that my entire
telephone usage habits could be tracked with the greatest of ease. I
consider this information to be far more sensitive than anything
involved with Caller*ID, and yet we all just put up with it since it
has always been that way.


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

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

From: Barry Margolin <think![e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Dinging Around 2 AM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 07:22:57 GMT


On most nights, somewhere between 2 and 3 AM, my phone will
spontaneously emit two tiny rings (it has a real bell, not a tone
generator, and goes ding -- ding).

I used to have a problem of crosstalk between the two lines in my
apartment (one for voice, the other for modem), and I would get a ding
or two one the phone when I hung up the modem line (I would also get
garbage on my terminal when the using the phone).  I attributed the
late-night dinging to this cross-talk, but it didn't go away when I
solved that problem.

Does anyone have an idea what's causing this?  Does NEw England Tel
send out some kind of test pulse that my phone (an AT&T Trimline 230)
is oversensitive to?


Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

[e-mail]    {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

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

From: ingr!b17b![e-mail]
Subject: Data Format of and Decoding of Caller*ID
Date: 25 Feb 91 14:20:57 GMT
Reply-To: ingr!b17b![e-mail]
Organization: Intergraph Corporation


I apologize if this is a FAQ.  I'm interested in any information
relating to decoding the caller*id data format.  Say I would like to
build my own phone to handle displaying the caller*ID.  Does anyone
have any pointers as to where to find information regarding the data
format of the signal, hardware that may exist to decode this signal,
and generally how Caller*ID operates?  Any pointers are appreciated.
Thanx in advance.


Wayne Wolf   Internet: [e-mail]
Usenet  : ...!ingr!wyle!shaman!wolf

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

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 11:13:06 EST
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: PacTel Long Range Cordless


Some time last year, I posted an item here seeking additional info on
a brief item I had seen in a magazine about a new cordless phone. The
article said it would have a range of 4 miles, or up to 8 miles with
degraded quality. It also said "Pac Tel/Great Technologies. Model SST.
$149. Available 1991". That's all she wrote. I got no response from
the Digest readership about the phone or Pac Tel, so I recently
managed to find a number for Pacific Telesis.  Since it's now 1991, I
called and said I wanted one. The woman who answered the phone
condescendingly suggested that I look in the Yellow Pages. I told her
we didn't have Yellow Pages in Kentucky, and begged to speak to a
marketing type. She finally relented and gave me another number (408)
957-6300.

This number reached a more pleasant woman who answered the phone "Pac
Tel Products". She confirmed that they were developing a long range
cordless Model SST, but said that the prototype was still being worked
on, and no further information was available. She did take my name,
number, and address, and promised to send information when it was
available. She could not even say when additional info might be
available. I didn't bother trying to ask any technical questions,
because I didn't think I'd get any answers, even if I knew what
questions to ask, which I really didn't.

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

Subject: Wanted: Economical, Reliable Rack-Mount 2400 bps MNP5
From: system administrator <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 08:47:41 PST
Organization: Questor*Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC => +1 604 681.0670


I am looking for a source of reliable, economical rack-mount 2400 bps
MNP5 modems.

If anyone has had experience with such and can offer recommendations,
it would be much appreciated.

Please e-mail directly, thanks.


Steve Pershing, System Administrator

Usenet:  [e-mail]       POST: 1027 Davie Street,  Box 486
Phones:  Voice/FAX:  [phone]         Vancouver, British Columbia
         Data/BBS:   [phone]         Canada  V6E 4L2

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Feb 25 13:13:09 EST 1991
Subject: IXC Service at Pay Telephones


InterLATA coin service doesn't default to AT&T in any special way on
Bell-owned (i.e., regular) pay phones; it's just that nearly
everyplace, only AT&T is interested in that business and/or is
equipped to handle it (with the special coin-related TSPS buttons,
etc). A LEC payphone can involve at least three different carrier
options -- xxBell for the local calls, yyy for calling card / third
party bill interlata calls, zzz for sent-paid coin interLATA.
Depending on the capabilities of the interLATA carrier, collect call
handling may also be lumped over to AT&T, giving it the very worst
(most costly to handle) piece of the pie.

The thing to really watch for is that when you use a Bell pay phone,
that your IXC calls end up being handled by the carrier you expected;
at least in my part of the world (New Jersey), a consistent 20% of the
phones route calls to an IXC or AOS differing from the placarded one,
and 99% of the time, it's when the placard says "AT&T" but you really
end up with Someone Else.  Consumers ought to be vigilant in listening
to what happens after the *BONG* tone.


Scott Hunter
Learning Dynamics, Piscataway, NJ  [phone]
AT&T EasyLink: !rshunter  INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: Javier Henderson - TMS Group <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANI and Ringback in the Inland Empire
Date: 25 Feb 91 00:06:10 PST
Organization: Avnet Computer - CTC Group; Culver City, CA


In the 714 area code (at least the portion of it that's served by GTE)
you can dial 114 and a computerized voice will tell you the phone
number that you're calling from.

As for ringback, you need only dial the phone number (which can be
obtained as described above if you don't know it).

The ringback information is printed in the phone book (they suggest
using different extensions in your house as intercoms). The ANI info
was posted on a local BBS some time ago.


Javier Henderson   Engineering Services
Avnet Computer     Los Angeles, CA

[e-mail]
{simpact,asylum,elroy,dhw68k}!hamavnet!henderson

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Data Access Arrangement (was Should Projects ...)
Organization: The World
Date: 25 Feb 91 11:02:57


In article <[e-mail]> fmsys!macy@
usenet.ins.cwru.edu (Macy Hallock) writes:

> Seriously, there used to be FCC approved units for this purpose
> around.  I think they were used in answering machines extensively at
> one time.  I recall seeing an ad for FCC registered line isolation
> modules for incorporation into equipment not too long ago.

I assume you're talking about Data Access Arrangements (DAA's) ?

I know of only two manufacturers, Cermetek and Dallas Semi. Dallas had
a SIMM module that was supposed to go with their modem, so other modem
manufacturers might make some similar DAA. Cermetek has a whole line
of DAA's, with DIP-like packages.

Why are these DAA's so expensive ? For one of the FCC/CSA listed units
from Cermetek, I was quoted in the $50 range. One can buy a whole PC
2400 baud modem card for about that much, and that modem card has the
circuitry this DAA has (ring detect, isolation, 2-4 hybrid) and much
more. One can buy a phone for $15.

Is it just a small niche market, and Cermetek is the only one
interested in being in it, and hence they can charge any price they
want ? Or am I missing something ?

Regards,


Jon Sreekanth

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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Feb 25 11:10:27 CST 1991
Subject: Where Do You Live? In a Cave?


In TELECOM V11 #154, Nigel Allen had commented on the 201/908 NJ
split. Our Moderator had remarked about Illinois Bell being swamped
with complaints, etc.  Just an amusing afterthought to that statement:
IBT implemented the switch in November of 1989. Ayear and a half
earlier, they began to -- as Pat put it -- intensely promote it. From
buses to trains to airports to flyers to radio and TV ads -- you name
it, they advertised it. Fairly well, I might ad. There were even
countless newspaper articles and TV news stories about it.

Well, when the permissive dialing was stopped on Feb. 9th last year
and the 708/312 codes became mandatory, IBT had to open several
operator services centers which were normally closed at the time just
to handle the flood of calls. Even we here at AT&T, when we handled
billing inquiries at that time, received a bunch of quries. The most
common? According to IBT and other telecom. folks to whom I talked,
the most frequent complaint about the area code split was: "Well,
nobody ever told ME about it!"

To which we all wanted so badly to respond: "Where the HELL have you
been -- in a cave or something ...?!?" The stupidity of our fellow homo
sapiens never ceases to amaze me. Oh well, that's what makes life so
interesting I guess.


Randy Borow    Rolling Meadows, IL.


[Moderator's Note: I think other telcos due for area code splits would
do well to learn from IBT's example and assume the worst. They should
plan to have their offices well staffed for at least two days
following the change to mandatory dialing.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 14:43:33 EST
From: Tony L Hansen <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Does MCI/Sprint Personal 800 Offer Over AT&T Call*Me Card?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


What does an MCI/Sprint personal 800 number offer over the AT&T
Call*Me Card?  The two services sure seem similar to me. Both seem to
require an extra four digits to validate the caller. Both offer
discounts. (AT&T does so separately through the Reach Out plans).

Advantages of Call*Me Card

    o    It doesn't require having to learn a completely new phone number.
    o    There's no charge for the Call*Me card.
    o    ???

Advantages of personal 800 number

    o    It has the nebulous "prestige" of having an 800 number.
    o    ???

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


[Moderator's Note: Another advantage to an 800 number might be to cure
the problem mentioned in the last issue of the Digest: some telcos
and/or institutions do not allow 102xx access in any form. So if you
cannot get AT&T, you can't very well use the card.      PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #160
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09555;
          27 Feb 91 3:38 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31176;
          27 Feb 91 1:58 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32126;
          27 Feb 91 0:52 CST
Date:     Tue, 26 Feb 91 23:55:47 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #161
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Feb 91 23:56:22 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 161

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Information Wanted on X.400 [Lang Zerner]
    Information Wanted on Combination DID/DOD Trunk [Al Cohan]
    Information Wanted on X.25 [Bernie Roehl]
    Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart [Scott Hinckley]
    Information Wanted on Line Noise Filter [Ken Jongsma]
    Safety in Numbers [Rick Farris]
    Pentara or Herald Parts Wanted [Clive Carmock]
    Re: Early Color Television [Tom Streeter]
    Re: Early Color Television [Maurice R. Baker]
    Armstrong and Ma Bell [John Winslade]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Information Wanted on X.400 (was: No Internet/Easylink Gateway)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Organization: IBM AWD  Palo Alto
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 21:42:34 GMT


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

> Nigel Allen <[e-mail]> writes ...

>> I asked AT&T Mail's help desk ([e-mail]) how to reach
>> EasyLink mailboxes from the Internet.

> Try asking if Easylink is reachable via X.400 addressing.

Speaking of X.400 addressing, can anyone provide a pointer to an
informed description of X.400?  I've heard a lot about it, mostly in
the form of brief verbal summaries by people who use networks
supporting it, but really don't know any of the details.  Even a
physical postal address for ordering hardcopy information would be
useful, though e-mail or anonymous FTP access would be mightily
preferable.

Be seeing you...

 ++Lang

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

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 23:43 GMT
From: The Network Group <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on Combination DID/DOD Trunk


Many years ago, I had a practice from the old Pacific Telephone or
A.T.&T that explained the circuit design of a combined DID/DOD trunk.

I am now attempting to get a combination inbound DID trunk with
outbound dialling. I don't really care about passing the PBX extension
number to the C.O. for billing purposes, just to make it a two-way
trunk. Has anyone been successful if getting this type of trunk?

On a related note, I am also trying to get E & M Type I terminations
for Centrex off of a 1A ESS machine. The folks at Pac Bell recited
Hymn # 12: "Well, we don't provide that because we haven't done that
before"!  I've heard this type of explanation many *many* times over
the last 25 or so years and it is still not acceptable.

If anyone can help with either of these two problems, or would care to
share experiences with obtaining these types of circuits, I'd surely
appreciate it.


Al Cohan    The Network Group   P.O. Box 5069
Mammoth Lakes, CA 93546    [phone]
MCI MAIL: The Network Group / 452-6627

Disclaimer: If The Network Group ever paid me, only then would they be
entitled to my opinion.

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

From: Bernie Roehl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on X.25
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 1991 14:22:22 GMT


I'm considering setting up a multi-line BBS that's accessible over
Datapac (Canada's X.25 service, analagous to Tymenet or Telenet).  I'm
considering several options:

1. Buy a self-contained PAD with a number of serial lines, and hooking this
   up to a multi-port serial interface on the PC end.  Advantage: works
   off-the-shelf, no additional software to write (I'd be using a Fossil
   driver and an existing BBS).  Disadvantage: hardware cost and being
   limited by hardware to a small maximum number of sessions.

2. Buying an X.25 board and writing software to provide an int 14h type
   interface (do the board come with that kind of software?).  Advantage:
   again, relatively simple to implement, and eliminiates running a
   bunch of serial cables.  Disadvantage: cost.

3. Buying a synchronous serial card for the PC, and implementing X.25 in
   software.  Advantage: lowest cost.  Disadvantage: lots of work.
   Do X.25 libraries exist for the PC?

Any advice would be appreciated.  (I know, I know ... why X.25?
Because it's there.  I don't like the protocol particularly, but it is
in widespread use).


    Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept
    Mail: [e-mail] OR [e-mail]
    BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!sunee!broehl
    Voice:  [phone] x 2607 [work]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 1991 15:00:36 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart


Where would I look for a current chart/table/etc of EM spectrum
allocations?

Thank you,


Scott Hinckley    Internet:[e-mail]
UUCP:.!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!huntsai!scot


DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not
represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management.

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

Subject: Information Wanted on Line Noise Filter
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 8:59:35 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Several BBS's and now the latest Hello Direct catalog, sell something
to eliminate "hissing, scratching and humming" from your telephone
line.

My question is: What is this device and what exactly does it do?

The Hello Direct catalog claims it removes up 30db of EMI. It costs
$10 and looks like a very small modular extention cord.


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

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

From: Rick Farris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Safety in Numbers
Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 04:41:15 GMT


As I rushed to meet a client today, I ran over to the AT&T 730 that
I've programmed to call the number which activates call forwarding of
my main number to my cellular phone.  Things worked as usual, I
watched as the phone dialed 72#259-6793.

All of a sudden, it occurred to me that I wasn't dialing from the line
which has call-forwarding installed.  (I had swapped phones around a
couple of months ago.)  Out of curiosity, I called 259-6793 to see if
it was forwarding correctly.  It was.  Here's what I think is
happening:

I have six lines, all billed to the main 259-6793 number.  Clearly,
when I call long-distance from any of the six lines, the billing
office is getting ANI (BNI?) from the 259-6793 line.

Near as I can tell, the call-forwarding computer (subroutine) is also
receiving the 259-6793 ID, no matter which line I call from.
Therefore, I can activate call-forwarding on 259-6793 by calling from
any of my six numbers.

Pretty cool, huh?  On the other hand, suppose I wanted to be able to
forward one of my other numbers, independently?

I called the business office and they didn't have the slightest clue
about how call-forwarding worked, and transferred me to repair who was
similarly clue-less.  Oh well.

The good news is that when CLI starts up later this year, I don't have
to worry about accidently compromising one of my "private" numbers --
I had already started training myself to always dial out from "public"
numbers.


Rick Farris  RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014  voice [phone]
[e-mail]     ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris      serenity bbs 259-7757

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

From: Clive Carmock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pentara or Herald Parts Wanted
Date: 26 Feb 91 19:33:19 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK


Does anyone have any parts from a Herald or Pentara PABX system for
sale, such as spare extension cards, Tone Dialler cards, Exchange line
cards, TX style terminals or complete systems for sale?

Thanks,


Clive Carmock    ([e-mail] or [e-mail])

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

From: Tom Streeter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Early Color Television
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 00:36:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> bilver![e-mail]
(Bill Vermillion) writes:

> The NTSC compatible finally came out after the end of the Korean war.
> There was a government restriction on any new TV stations during that
> time.

> The war hiatus gave RCA time enough to perfect their system.  The CBS
> "color wheel" (field sequential color) was approved before the war,
> but was not widespread because of the government mandate.

> There were NO commercial video tape machines available before about
> 1961.  I remember when I was working at KXLY radio in Spokane that our
> TV station got their first B&W VCR.  It was about $80,000 in 1961
> dollars (That should easily be about $300,000 in todays dollars), had
> three six-foot tall racks of tube electronics and 1 rack for the
> transport.  Model was RCA VR-1.  (Video Recorder One).  From what I
> remember of it's quality it wasn't much better than any $500 VHS unit
> today, if that.  Color VCR's were still a couple of years away.

Two corrections:

The FCC actually approved the CBS system prior to the Korean War, but
the rest of the industry (under the banner of the Radio Manufacturers
Association) made the decision not to produce the sets.  This left CBS
in a defacto monopoly situation it was not in a position to exploit.
Wheras NBC and DuMont had manufacturing arms to back them up, CBS did
not have the means to roll out its TVs.  As Barnouw writes the
history, the FCC reversed its decision and blamed it on the war later.
The adoption of a color standard was only one part of the television
freeze; it was primarily imposed to work out channel allotments (though
color became one of the biggest delays to lifting it.  There were six
issues on the table, and it was decided that all six had to be
resolved before the freeze could be lifted.)

As for VTRs, Ampex rolled out its first machine at the NAB convention
in 1953.  CBS bought the first for something in the neighborhood of
$100,000.  Bing Crosby was a major force behind the invention because
he hated doing his show live on the West Coast and having it sent on
kine to the East.  I was recently digging through old copies of
"Broadcasting" and came across an article describing how the first
machines would work.  At the time this article was written, Ampex had
not yet been chosen as the manufacturer.


Tom Streeter    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 09:47:34 EST
From: Maurice R Baker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Early Color Television
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, bilver![e-mail]
(Bill Vermillion) writes:

> This was during the first year of color in that area.  We had
> technical discussion on the medium, and one interesting project at
> that time was the "Chromatron" tube being developed by Dr. Lawrence at
> CBS.  Trying to find a way to get rid of the mask and the dot-triad,
> this tube used striped phosphors, horizontally.  Never made it.

An early, somewhat distant relation of the Sony Trinitron.

> There were NO commercial video tape machines available before about
> 1961.  I remember when I was working at KXLY radio in Spokane that our
> TV station got their first B&W VCR.  It was about $80,000 in 1961
> dollars (That should easily be about $300,000 in todays dollars), had
> three six-foot tall racks of tube electronics and 1 rack for the
> transport.  Model was RCA VR-1.  (Video Recorder One).  From what I

Ahem ... it was TR-1 (for Television Recorder).  I used to work for a
TV station which owned one; it was long since retired by the time I
started there, but still an impressive sight [what was left of it ...
some of its innards had been cannabalized for repair parts used in
other pieces of equipment].

RCA liked to name its television equipment "T_" followed by some sort
of a number.  To wit: television 2" quad VTRs were TR-1, TR-2, TR-22,
TR-70, TR-600 (there were also variations on the theme -- TR-70B vs
TR-70C -- latter having digital servos, etc.).

Film/slide projectors were TP-16 (for 16 mm. movies) and TP-66 (for
slides) into a film chain.  Television transmitters were TT-something,
television video-cart machines (now there's a Rube Goldberg invention
if there ever was one, and sounded like it when running, too) were
TCR-100s, and television frame synchronizers (only made one to my
knowledge) were TFS-121s.

Curiously, television cameras were not TC-xxxx but TK-44, TK-45,
TK-76, etc.  TK-4x series was color TV studio cameras ... TK-47 being
the last version made.  Believe that they still use 'em on the Tonight
Show with Johnny Carson.  TK-76 was a very popular (and rugged ...
built like a tank) portable ENG camera.  Not to forget the infamous
TK-27 film chain camera ... if you watched any movies on TV during the
mid-late 60s or early-mid 70s, it's a good bet that they were seen via
a TK-27.  It used four tubes: three for Red, Green, and Blue and a
fourth for luminance ... not to mention an involved scheme which
controlled sensitivity by varying target voltage, making it a real
bear to set up and align.  The TK-28 was an improvement ... only three
vidicons, and a fast acting neutral density filter wheel to
effectively control sensitivity.  By then, electronics technology had
really come a long way in a fairly short time.

In the early to mid 80's you could see RCA Broadcast going downhill,
and they finally left the business shortly before RCA was acquired by
GE.  One can marvel at some of the real engineering accomplishments
which could only happen in such a unique environment, and shudder at
the way the MBAs are effectively ensuring that it'll never happen
again.


M. Baker

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

Date: 26 Feb 91 21:30:00 CDT
From: JOHN WINSLADE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Armstrong and Ma Bell


In a recent message, "DONALD E. KIMBERLIN" writes:

> Our Moderator, always the (rightfully) proud Chicagoan, replied:

>> The first FM radio station in the US was here in Chicago, started
>> in 1941 by the Zenith Radio Corporation.

> I have to take some issue there, Patrick...
> It was (retired) Major E. H. Armstrong (to whom we owe credit for
> the superheterodyne receiver that made broadcast radio really a
> practical medium for the general public) who in 1935 aired the
> first broadcast FM transmissions in 1935, from a transmitter
> atop the Empire State Building to receivers in New Jersey.

Oh wow!  I am trying desparately to retrieve data from memory cells
that have not been accessed, let alone refreshed, for many years, but
I can attest to hearing of (I am not *THAT* old ;-) E.H. Armstrong's
experimental FM station of the 1930's.  If I remember correctly, this
was not a commercial 88-108mHz band transmitter, but one that ran in
the frequency range of CB - 10m ham, if I remember correctly.

The significance of Armstrong's transmitter (if the data coming down
the rusty data paths are correct) was that it was the first practical
ELECTRONIC frequency-modulation system, and thus could take advantage
of the static-free high-fidelity medium that FM provides.  Previous FM
schemes used mechanical Rube-Goldberg contraptions, such as the
'Wobbulator' (no, I am not making that one up, it was used in some
comm gear up through the early '50s) which was essentially a small
foil-coned speaker with an accompanying stationary coil.  Audio
signals to the wobbulator varied the inductance of the coil, thus
giving a means to frequency-modulate an oscillator.  If I remember
correctly, Armstrong's FM system used predistortion and phase shifting
which is similar to some of today's methods.

> He obtained a patent for FM that resulted in a bitter battle with
> AT&T about patent rights; one in which the classic "phone company
> stonewalling" often mentioned in the Digest may have resulted in
> Major Armstrong's suicidal hurling himself out of a New York office
> window.

I remember the Feud with Ma Bell, but not the suicide.  Is this a
documented fact ??

(<boo-hiss> Contrary to lesser-known urban legend, E.H. Armstrong
 was NOT the inventor of the hand-operated adding machine.  ;-)

Good Day!       JSW


[Moderator's Note: As a matter fact, I believe the hand-cranked adding
machine was invented by William Burroughs.   PAT]

------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V11 #161
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10908;
          27 Feb 91 4:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10269;
          27 Feb 91 3:04 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac31176;
          27 Feb 91 1:59 CST
Date:     Wed, 27 Feb 91 1:21:00 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #162
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Feb 91 01:20:57 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 162

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 1+206 Dialling Coming to Washington [Tad Cook]
    NID "Security" is Fiction [Dan Herrick]
    MCI Friends and Family Offer [Ralph W. Hyre]
    CDMA Cellular (was Re: Digital Cellular Correction) [Klein Gilhousen]
    Caller ID Status Report [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Broadcasting The War with High Tech Telecommunications [Donald Kimberlin]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Dell H. Ellison]
    MCI ... March 18 and More [Steve Shimatzki]
    Call Waiting and Prodigy [Brinton Cooper]
    CBS Uses Inmarisat for Gulf War Coverage [Steve L. Rhoades]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: 1+206 Dialling Coming to Washington
Date: 27 Feb 91 03:48:32 GMT


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

> Several months ago (or was it that long) there was a discussion in
> this Digest about NPA 206 (western Washington state) running out of
> NXX exchange codes, and the fact that we will soon be seeing N0X/N1X
> exchange codes.

I got the notice from Bellcore a couple of weeks ago.  I called the
contact at US West listed on the notice, and tried to get him to
speculate when 206 (Western Washington) will be divided into two NPAs.
He thinks that it will be a done deal by mid-1995.

My personal guess is that they will make King and Snohomish counties
206, and the rest of Western Washington something else, or they will
draw an east-west line somewhere between Seattle and Tacoma, and
divide it there.


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA   Packet: KT7H @ N7ENT.#WWA.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]   MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad  or, [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Feb 91 10:15:00 GMT
From: "CONTR  HERRICK, DAN" <abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com!herrickd>
Subject: NID "Security" is Fiction


In article <[e-mail]>, hayes![e-mail]
(Toby Nixon) writes:

> this feature!  We put on a combination padlock, like you'd use on a
> gym locker, so that if we ever need service we can tell the repair
> office the combination to the lock, which they record on the repair
> order, and we don't need to be there to provide a key.

Your door only opens half of the NID.  The Phone company has another
door that opens the whole NID.  They don't need to open your lock to
get access to the inside of the NID.  They use the torx screw with a
pin in the middle to open the whole box.  Jensen tools will sell one
of those "security" drivers to anyone with the appropriate amount of
money (information from an earlier thread here in the Digest).

So the lock only protects you from the casual and the ignorant.


dan herrick    [e-mail]

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

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Friends and Family Offer
Date: 27 Feb 91 02:05:04 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


My guess is that the 'friends and family' offer is a calling plan for
a certain set of numbers that you and your callees use.  (Is this a
form of virtual private network?) It will be interesting to see how
they implement and administer it.


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

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

From: Klein Gilhousen <qualcom![e-mail]>
Subject: CDMA Cellular (was Re: Digital Cellular Correction)
Organization: Qualcomm Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 02:55:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, motcid![e-mail]
(John T Ellis) writes:

> 2. TDMA = Time Division Multiple Access
>    CDMA = Code Division Multiple Access

> 3. The capacity increase of 3:1 is not on paper; we have shown the TDMA
>    capability to Pactel with a working demo system.  The 20:1 increase
>    that is proposed for CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access, a form of
>    spread sprectrum transmission) is only on paper; nobody has
>    built a working example.

> 4. The biggest problems with TDMA technology is the degradation of
>    speech quality with channel errors, and the fact that a POCKET-SIZED
>    digital mobile is several years away.  Also the great difficulty in
>    expanding the speech compression to the final 6:1; that is the
>    theoretical limit for this application.

The QUALCOMM, Inc. CDMA digital cellular system was demonstrated to
the industry in November, 1989.  This demonstration consisted of TWO
cell-sites and a mobile unit all running CDMA.  The system
demonstrated all important features of the proposed CDMA system,
including the "Soft Handoff" in which a call is processed
simultaneously by two cells when the mobile moving from one cell to
the other.  In Feb, 1990, the demo system was taken to Manhattan to
demonstrate operation in the high multipath and clutter environment of
the mid-town skyscrapers.  The system performed exactly as predicted
(very, very well.)

The referenced TDMA demo system did not (I believe) include a handoff
capability, was a single cell-site and single mobile.

This summer, we will be fielding our validation system here in San
Diego.  This will consist of several cell-sites and about 70 mobile
terminals.  The mobiles will be form, fit and functional prototypes of
CDMA car phones.  This system will prove the capacity improvement
claims.

I personally feel that the 20:1 claim we have made is quite
conservative.  We have had a hard enough time getting people to
believe the 20:1 without sounding like we are completely crazy.  As we
have continued to improve our design, we have just held constant with
the same claim, putting the increase in our hip pocket.

CDMA addresses the issues of channel quality head-on by providing
several additional forms of diversity.  The result is a channel
remarkably free of outages due to multipath, fading, interference,
blockage, etc.

There is no such "theoretical limit" on vocoder compression.  The
lower would be determined by the information transmission rate which
is quite slow.  The problem is to reduce the transmission rate without
causing an unacceptably low quality.  Both the TDMA and the CDMA
approach use vocoders compressing to about 8000 bits per second.
Testing has produced "Mean Opinion Scores" of about 3.9 on a scale of
5 where a wired phone is about a 4.5.  Not too bad, but not quite as
good as a wired phone.  Improved vocoder algorithms should result in
somewhat lower bit rates at this quality level.

Interestingly, Motorola, along with AT&T, Nynex, Ameritech, Pactel,
Nokia and Clarion have all committed to support the CDMA development.
Of course, many of them also continue to keep the their TDMA
developments alive until the marketplace resolves which system will
win out.


Klein Gilhousen, WT6G   Qualcomm, Inc.
Amazing NON-Disclaimer:  In this case, I _DO_ speak for my company.

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 03:03 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Status Report


        The January 1 issue of {TE&M Magazine} carried a colorful map
of the US, showing the year-end status of Caller ID state by state.
Here's a text rundown of that status:

APPROVED WITHOUT CALL BLOCKING          APPROVED WITH BLOCKING
New Jersey                              Maine
Virginia                                Maryland
West Virginia                           District of Columbia
Tennessee                               South Carolina
                                        Kentucky
DECLARED ILLEGAL                        Nevada
Pennsylvania

        STATES WITH FILED TARIFF, BUT NO REGULATORY DECISION AS YET
Vermont                                 Ohio
Indiana                                 Illinois
North Carolina                          Georgia
Alabama                                 Florida
California

                  STATES WITH NO REGULATORY ACTION AS YET
New Hampshire                           Massachusets
Rhode Island                            Connecticut
New York                                Delaware
Michigan                                Wisconsin
Mississippi                             Louisiana
Texas                                   Oklahome
Arkansas                                Kansas
Missouri                                Nebraska
Iowa                                    Minnesota
South Dakota                            North Dakota
Arizona                                 New Mexico
Utah                                    Colorado
Idaho                                   Wyoming
Montana                                 Oregon
Washington

        There's obviously been much movement since this list was first
generated. US West had, for example, conducted some technical trials
in North Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa and Idaho. And, it's certain there
have been others.  But, nationwide deployment still seems far from on
a rapid track, and wide divergence in the details of operation and
information content seem to be likely state by state.

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 03:05 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Broadcasting The War with High Tech Telecommunications


        The recent weekend revealed that broadcasters have begun to
use really high-tech telecomm tools.  In general, broadcasters have
been the solid clients of the government PTT of each nation they
travel to, renting quarter- and half-hour periods of CCITT-standard
"porgam channels" for audio and video transmission.

        After the bombing of the Iraqui PTT in Baghdad, broadcasters
were limited for a couple of weeks to telephone line transmission from
the capital of Iraq.  It seemed to me that ABC led the lot, and was
first to get a transportable earth station with three meter uplink
dish into Baghdad and resume direct video to the outside world.

        However, beginning Sunday, February 24, ABC has had daily
15-minute periods at 6 AM (Eastern) time from Forrest Sawyer standing
in front of his three meter uplink right out on the Saudi/Kuwaiti
border desert.  Following the Sawyer segment, Peter Jennings would get
a similar update with video from Baghdad.

        This evening, CBS Radio had a reporter with the front-line
troops reaching the U.S by *direct dial* from an (obviously) INMARSAT
portable satellite telephone.  The CBS radio commentators could not
contain their wonderment about having a reporter dial them from a
phone-less, power-less desert lcoation.

        I forecast we'll be observing broadcasters offering a great
deal more of this direct reportage, it becoming a commonplace in a
very short time.  Too bad, but most of it will probably be actualities
from wars and riots around the world.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 00:25:32 GMT
From: "Dell H. Ellison" <mcdchg!motcid!marble![e-mail]>
Subject: How Do I Reach the BILL Company


You mentioned a company called "BILL" in an earlier article.  I
couldn't find them in the phone book.  Do you have their address and
phone number?

Thanks,


Dell Ellison


[Moderator's Note: BILL is in Arlington Heights, IL. I do not have
thier phone number in front of me. If you are in the Chicago area,
using a Chicago area bank, BILL is a good electronic bill paying
service which works with any bank in the area.   PAT]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 1991 02:45:15 GMT
From: Wish-Bringer (Steve Shimatzki) <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI ... March 18 and More


Here's a few for ya:

#1

Has anyone seen the new ad for MCI, saying something about just wait
till March 18 ... Anyone got the inside scoop?  I hate waiting!

#2

Would it be possible to use Call Forwarding, to call long distance, and
not pay for it?  Heres the Scenario: I call a friend who is right
between me and an area that is LD for me. His number then forwards
to another number, but into the LD area. Do I get the local call, or
billed for the LD number that it was forwarded to?   What if I did
this with a few people, and forwared a forwareded call?   If it is
possible, is there any disadvantages to it? (ie, poor quality call;
Limited use; lots of people involved?)


Steve


[Moderator's Note: Addressing #2, each phone line only is billed for
what it dials. Therefore you would pay for a call to your friend in
the intermediate area, and he would pay for a call to the next area.
If it so happens you both wind up paying for only a local call as a
result, so be it. Where the reality enters is that very rarely can you
string together a series of local calls and wind up paying less than
for a single long distance call. The exception might be if all the
intermediate points had untimed 'free' local service. But a call in
the middle of the night from one side of the country to another is
somewhere around 12 cents a minute on Reach Out ... how many local
connections linked together with chain-forwarding would it require to
cover the same distance, and how many local calls in the path would
cost five or ten cents each?  And who would pay the intermediate
people for their services as telephone operators?  Using various
configurations of call-forwarding is not an effecient way to avoid
long distance charges in most instances. In a limited number of fairly
local or short-haul toll calls, *maybe* -- until you wear out the
patience of the people in the middle with your penny-wise but pound-
foolish experiments.   PAT]

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

From: Brinton Cooper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Waiting and Prodigy
Date: 26 Feb 91 04:10:06 GMT
Organization: Ballistic Research Laboratory


My niece has a PS-1 which runs and connects her to Prodigy (I think).
Anyhow, they have call waiting at their house; as you know, this
feature of the phone often disconnects dial-up modems.  In fact, with
their C-64 and TRS-80 machines, they experienced this when calling
BBS lines.

However, she tells me that when she's connected to Prodigy, the call
waiting seems not to work.  If someone calls during a Prodigy session,
the caller gets a busy signal.

Does someone have an explanation?

I prefer e-mail.  This is a very active group and one that I don't
normally read.  Thanks, folks.


Brint  <[e-mail]>   Brinton Cooper
BRL - Where "Research" is our Middle Name.


[Moderator's Note: Might it be that the dial-up number for Prodigy
being used somehow does not supervise on connection of a call? If
supervision is not present, the originating switch may think it is
still trying to set up the call. When you first go off hook and dial a
number, call-waiting is de-activated since an incoming call at that
moment would cause disruption in the dialing process.  Otherwise, how
about doing two things: (1) give us the in-dial number used for closer
examination, and (2) ask your niece to try again and make sure this is
really the case. Better still, *you* try calling her when she is known
to be online with Prodigy and see if you can knock her down. I suspect
she got this report from someone who tried dialing her just as she was
dialing into Prodigy. They got a busy signal at that instant (naturally);
reported it to her and she misunderstood the exact time at which they
called and thought it had to do with Prodigy rather than her status at
the moment.  PAT]

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

From: "Steve L. Rhoades" <[e-mail]>
Subject: CBS Uses Inmarisat for Gulf War Coverage
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 04:14:46 GMT


The following article is from {BROADCASTING Magazine}, Feb 25, 1991 p.10:

If a ground war begins in the Middle East, TV network use of
telephones may go a long way toward determining who provides the most
compelling coverage.

The key could be a 65-pound portable satellite phone and new wideband
audio service to be provided by Inmarisat and IDB.  CBS, for example,
has ordered eight units for deployment in Baghdad or the Saudi front,
this one offering 56-kilobit (up from 3.5) transmission to New York-
enough for wide-band audio or video stills.

Any of the eight CBS units "could become the backbone of coverage" in
a volatile war zone, said Frank Governale, director of bureau
operations.

                     ----End quoted article----


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #162
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12227;
          27 Feb 91 5:50 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14353;
          27 Feb 91 4:10 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac10269;
          27 Feb 91 3:04 CST
Date:     Wed, 27 Feb 91 2:45:20 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #163
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Feb 91 02:45:13 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 163

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Eric THOLOME]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Jim Breen]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Jim Rees]
    Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Brian Crawford]
    Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom [Christopher Lott]
    Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom [Ken Dykes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eric THOLOME <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: Stanford University - AIR
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 20:57:00 GMT


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

> [...] A recording of an obviously French voice
> gave me another number to call.  What's odd (at least to my American
> ears) was that the voice gave the new number as something like "area
> code 212, telephone number xxx-xxxx", as if the area code was not to
> be considered part of the phone number, but something extra, or as PAT
> puts it, incidental.

>    I wonder, was it just a oddity of the person who made the
> recording, an artifact of a person speaking English as a non-native
> language and struggling with an idiom, or is it just common usage in
> France to pronounce phone numbers that way?

I don't have a precise answer to that question, but I might have some
hints explaning why this occured.

Until five years ago, France was devided in about 100 areas. Each had
an area code, and everything was working similarly to the US system:
the phone numbers where supposed to be written this way (xx) xx xx xx
(though the area code was often dropped by non professionals). To
phone in the same area, you had to dial only the last six digits. To
phone in another area, you had to dial 16, get a tone, and then dial
the full phone number.

About five years ago, the system was changed, and the notion of area
disappeared. Everybody got an eight digit phone number xx xx xx xx,
which was, of course, obtained by adding the area code to the old
phone number. This is why some people still talk about their phone
number the way they used to do it before, that is by mentionning the
area code, and then the phone number.

To be precise, I should also tell you that it is actually not as
simple as I put it: before, some areas like Paris had seven digit
phone numbers. Therefore, they decided to add a 4 in front of it to
get the new eight digit phone number. The problem was that this was
leading to phone numbers starting with 46 for example, which is the
area code near Royan (Town on the Atlantic Ocean coast). Therefore,
they had to keep a system of areas. France is now devided in two areas:
Paris and elsewhere. To phone inside an area, just use the eight digit
phone number.  To phone from Paris to outside, use 16 xx xx xx xx. To
phone from outside to Paris, use 16 1 xx xx xx xx. People in Paris
should print their phone number this way: (1) xx xx xx xx. I believe
the use of the (1) is not symmetric in order to be able to make the
difference when a call is coming from another country.


Eric THOLOME     [e-mail]      Stanford University

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

From: Jim Breen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 1991 22:18:58 GMT


[My word, hasn't Patrick stirred up a storm on this one. All praise to
the many who weighed in with the quotations from the CCITT E series.

When subscriber trunk dialling was introduced here many years ago, the
PMG (Telecom Australia's predecessor) ran a large publicity campaign
encouraging people to use the (aaa) xxx yyyy format when printing
their numbers. They have not pushed the two line national/international
format to the same extent.]

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

> I still see organizations incorrectly listing their international
> numbers in advertising etc -- a motel in Canberra is listed as follows:

>     Phone        (06) 2ab cdef    [I can't remember the exact #]
>     International    616  2ab cdef

> I wonder if some poor soul in the USA gets calls for this motel?

Worse than that, David. CSIRO ran some job advertisements in the
international press last year (New Scientist, etc.) quoting their
(Sydney) numbers as (612) xxx yyyy, instead of +61 2 xxx yyyy. I guess
a lot of people in the (US? Canada?) 61x area codes are getting used
to receiving calls intended for Australia.

> What other STD/ISD dialing methods are in use in the world? In
> Australia all STD area codes begin with a zero when dialed nationally
> and this zero is omitted when dialing from overseas. In the USA your
> area codes don't have a prefix (unless you count the 1).  -

 From my experience most countries EXCEPT the country code '1' brigade
(US/Canada/Mexico/etc) use a leading zero, which is omitted when
dialling from foreign parts. I am always amused by the postings from
North American readers suggesting that their (minority) approach be
made the world standard.


Jim Breen   AARNet:[e-mail]
Department of Robotics & Digital Technology.
Monash University. PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia
(ph) [phone] (fax) [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 18:12:45 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number


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

> What other STD/ISD dialing methods are in use in the world? In
> Australia all STD area codes begin with a zero when dialed nationally
> and this zero is omitted when dialing from overseas. In the USA your
> area codes don't have a prefix (unless you count the 1).  -

Perhaps a better way to think about area codes is to mentally leave
off the national access prefix.  I.e., it's much simpler to say "the
area code for Canberra is 2" than to say "the area code for Canberra
is 02 in Australia and 2 outside of it.  The zero becomes the
"interarea access prefix", in the same way that international calls
require an international access prefix.  After all, we don't say "the
country code for Australia from Germany is 0061"; the "00" is just the
(German) international access prefix.


Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation        [e-mail]
62 Alexander Drive            ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 16:36:04 GMT


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

> I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis
> around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire
> number, i.e. [phone]?

I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with no country
code, as though it were incidental to the entire number, i.e.
311-555-2368?  The correct way to write the number is with the country
code in this format: [phone].

Seriously though, a glance through the local phone book shows that
even TPC is confused on this matter.  In the first dozen pages of the
Ann Arbor book we see the following numbers.  Formatting is faithfully
reproduced.

0
9-1-1
1 800 44ARSON
1-800-572-1308
1 517 546-2440
1 226-6400    Secret Service -- note that 10-digit is now mandatory in 313,
        so this number would seem to be wrong (or maybe just secret)
1-221-3131
[phone]

By the way, there are still Enterprise numbers in the book!  On page 128 of
the "business white pages" we have:

UTA French Airlines Chicago Il
 An Arb Tele Only No Charge
 Dial Operator And Ask For ------ Enterprise-8844

Glad to see this venerable old institution still survives.

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access
Date: 26 Feb 91 18:49:19 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:

> I rent housing from a large university,
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You have no rights!  :)


Brian Crawford               INTERNET (current):   [e-mail]
PO Box 804                            (permanent): [e-mail]
Tempe, Arizona  85280        FidoNet:              1:114/15.12
USA                          Amateur:              KL7JDQ

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 1991 11:38:39 EST
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access


> [Moderator's Note: But the fact that you cannot access AT&T via 10288
> is not AT&T's fault. It is a greedy private operator who is denying
> access illegally. What is to prevent the same greedy operator from

Not necessarily ... in the case of the AT&T system 85, it *is* AT&T's
fault that you cannot access 10288.  The System 85 does not allow
access to any 10xxx number.  We depend on 95-xxxx numbers (which we
route over FX lines to an equal access office, by the way) to get our
users to MCI or Sprint.  If we want to switch to another carrier for
our 0+, we would be forced to block calls to AT&T, even though we do
not want to.

The University of New Hampshire is not offered any commission for our
inter-Lata 0+ traffic by AT&T.  We would, and probably will, take up
Sprint's offer for commissions, but our users may resent not being
able to use AT&T.  We don't see an option.

For now,this is just a nuisance.  If the FCC chooses to rule that
Universities are aggregators, we are in for major problems unless AT&T
breaks down and offers 950 or 800 acccess.

Question: Why does AT&T want to block themselves out of this business?
Is it not as lucrative for them as for their competitors?

Another Question: Does anyone have an opinion on how likely the FCC is
to regard Universities as aggregators?  Our opinion is that we are not
because the new law defines aggregators as those providing service to
"transient" customers.  Our feeling is that University students, being
resident enough to register to vote, are not transient.  What do the
rest of you think?


Kath Mullholand    UNH, Durham NH.


[Moderator's Note: But registering to vote is a more solemn
obligation, and not to be taken lightly. Voting is considered
important enough that the law is interpreted as liberally as possible
in order to avoid the slightest hint of discrimination. The idea is to
make it as easy as possible to vote. Choosing a president is somewhat
more important that choosing a long distance carrier, or so the
thinking goes.  I don't think AT&T is deliberatly locking themselves
out of the 800/950 business because it is not lucrative for them. I
think they are doing it to force the issue on 10xxx; their thinking
being that if 10xxx access becomes an absolute, bar-none requirement
on all switches, they will recapture a lot of revenue denied to them
now anyway, thus making the whole long distance calling industry a lot
LESS lucrative to the marginal operators out there now. And I sort of
agree. Let's all play by the rules the 'others' tried so hard to
install -- equal access and all -- and see who wins and who loses. I
think you already know the answer.     PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 12:07:15 -0500
From: Christopher Lott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom
Organization: The University of Maryland Dept of Computer Science


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

>hundred or so pairs terminating in that terminal box were multiplied
>all over over the neighborhood.                ^^^^^^^^^

Pardon my stupidity, Pat, but would you please explain what this means?

I can't find much mention of lines being multiplied in the glossary.

Thanks,


Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
  [e-mail] /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg  301.405.2721 <standard disclaimers>


[Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly a case of the PD's crept in there.
Printer's Deviltries, (or PD's for short -- another name for typographical
errors) creep in when you print a large quantity of stuff every day. The
correct word was 'multipled' -- not 'multiplied'.

A telephone cable contains a large number of pairs of wires. At each
place along the way where a phone is (might be) installed, some of the
individual pairs are  'opened', or made available for connections. For
maximum flexibility, each pair in the cable might be opened a dozen
times along the cable run. Naturally, only one subscriber will use the
pair at any given time. When we say a pair is 'multipled', we mean it
is availale for being picked up (or used, or connected to a phone) at
several places between the central office and the other end of the
cable a few miles away. Picture a switchboard with a dozen trunk lines
to the central office and maybe a hundred extensions. The extensions
share the trunk lines, being swapped on and off the line as required.
The same thin happens with cables. A pair terminates at my house and
the same pair terminates at your house a block away. I move out and no
longer need the pair, but you install a second line and need another
pair. In other words, the pairs within the cable go parallel to
several locations at once. When the phone installer climbs the pole at
your house to bring you a second line, he is supposed to then go down
the street to where I used to live, climb the pole and *disonnect* (or
open up) the same pair at that end, preventing someone down the street
from getting on your line. They sometimes forget to do that. Once in
an apartment I had, there was a modular phone jack. I had only one
line, but there were two pairs in the modular jack. I was curious, and
went on the other pair: Viola! dial tone ... I dialed the ring back
code to see what would happen, and let it ring. Presently it was
answered by a lady. When I questioned where she was at, it turned out
she was across the alley and a few houses down. A phone man had not
done his job correctly.   A long example, but that is what we mean by
'mulitples on the cable':  The opening up, or ability to connect to
the same wires at many locations, depending on who got them first and
who needs themm when the subscriber on them quits the service.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 22:32:18 EST
From: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom
Organization: Thinkage Ltd.


In article <telecom11.157.1@eecs> [e-mail]
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 157, Message 1 of 10

> the demarc in the crawl space access port located in my bedroom
> closet.  I`m in a townhouse and there are five more units attached to my
> place.  Amazingly enough, *ALL* the demarcs for the building are in MY
> bedroom.  There is a 25 pair cable built out in the crawlspace ...

In my highrise apartment bldg (and I suspect this could be common
wiring practice for highrise buildings) I live in unit #1004.  Behind
one of the RJ-14 plates on a common supporting wall is a 25-pair cable
drop.  Bascially all the "-04" units can tap each other.  And it would
be true for any vertical-row of units.

Simply dropping cables down walls like that I suspect is the, er,
"efficient" way of doing the job...

Then of course out on the lawn beside my building is the Bell
green-box (about four or five feet wide, three or so feet tall, ten or
so inches thick, on a cement pad) with the millions of connections for
the three highrises , one lowrise, and one strip-mall (with bank :-)
in the immediate vicinity.  The padlock on it is a joke.


Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada    [43.47N 80.52W]
    [e-mail]  [129.97.128.1]       watmath!kgdykes


[Moderator's Note: This is another example of how a cable run with
many pairs is multipled. There is some absolute number of pairs
available from the phone exchange to the apartment complex. The cable
terminates in the outside box mentioned, and from there the wires can
be swapped back and forth.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #163
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08911;
          28 Feb 91 1:27 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14962;
          27 Feb 91 23:30 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28891;
          27 Feb 91 22:25 CST
Date:     Wed, 27 Feb 91 21:45:53 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #164
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Feb 91 21:45:38 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 164

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Correction: Genie 800 Number For Troops [TELECOM Moderator]
    When Area Code Splits Become Final [Steve Kass]
    Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count) [Yoram Eisenstadter]
    International 800 Numbers? (was Re: Evolving Phone Number) [Hans Mulder]
    Another Report on Telecom*USA Service [Mark Steiger]
    Equal Access / 800 NXX Assignments [Jack Dominey]
    GTE and Pac Tel Cellular in Los Angeles [Javier Henderson]
    Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [Robert Swenson]
    Cellular Carriers and Prefixes [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    Waco (Texas) Calling Instructions [Carl G. Moore Jr.]
    Re: 911 Demonstration Program Wanted [Tad Cook]
    Re: How to Hook up a Phone For a Play [Ken Abrams]
    Caller*ID - How Much? [Joubert Berger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 20:52:59 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Correction: Genie 800 Number For Troops


The other day we ran several messages in the Digest discussing methods
of sending email to the troops in Saudi Arabia. The message pertaining
to the free service offered by Genie had an error:

The toll free number to send a message via Genie is 800-638-8712.

Sorry.


PAT

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 10:06 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: When Area Code Splits Become Final

There have been several discussions of the complaints that are
received when area code splits become mandatory.  How hard would it be
for the following to be announced, say, when I dial 1-221-xxxx instead
of 1-908-221-xxxx?

"As of June 8, 1991, it will be necessary to include the area code 908
to place a call to the number you have dialled.  You can already use
the new area code, and will avoid this message by doing so.  Your call
will now be connected."

I have a vague memory of something like this happening during the
212/718 split.


Steve Kass/ Dept. of Math & CS/ Drew U/ Madison NJ 07940
(201)-408-3614 or 201.408.3614 or 201-408-3614/ [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 13:03:04 EST
From: Yoram Eisenstadter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count)
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science


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

> [e-mail] (Arnold Robbins) writes:

>> The Atlanta LATA is apparently the largest free calling area in
>> the world...

> This is true. To give an example, when I lived in Atlanta I was able
> to make local calls to places that were a good hour's drive away. The
> local calling area spans several counties.

Similarly, New York City's local calling area spans five counties
(each borough of NYC is a separate county), and one would have to
drive for an hour (on highways, in optimal traffic) to get from where
I live in eastern Queens to the southern parts of Staten Island.  The
NYC local calling area also spans two area codes (212 and 718), and
will soon span three area codes (a separate one, 917, for pagers, cell
phones, data lines, etc. is coming in 1992).

NYC wasn't always a single local calling area; I remember several
years ago there were parts of Queens that were local to Manhattan (25
cents from a payphone) and some that were not (40 cents from a
payphone).  I think that the PUC mandated uniform local calling rates
throughout NYC when the 212/718 split occured.

Note that geographically, NYC is only a small part of the LATA that
also encompasses Nassau and Suffolk counties (area code 516),
Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties (914), and the part of
Connecticut (203) that is served by NY Telephone.


Y

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 19:50:30 +0100
From: Hans Mulder <[e-mail]>
Subject: International 800 Numbers? (was Re: Evolving Phone Number)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
E A Wilson) writes:

> We can call special six digit international 800 numbers.

Are you sure international 800 numbers exist today?  If so, why do
televised ads aiming at an international audience contain those
screens full of national 800 numbers, when a single international 800
number would do the job?

(I was about to say ``Look at any of those Euro-XXX channels'', but I
guess David can't receive those in Australia.)

It was my impresssion that the idea of international 800 number had
occurred to the PTTs only recently and that it was still years away.

> Is it just coincidence that most countries auto-reverse charge numbers start
> with either 800/008 or is there an international standard?

For what it's worth, auto-reverse charge numbers in the Netherlands
start with 06-0 or 06-4.

Have a nice day,


Hans Mulder    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Some 800 numbers are international, but relatively
few in comparison to the total. The European versions of 'USA Direct'
operating in this country (allowing residents of other countries
visiting here to 'call home' and speak with an operator in their home
country in their native language, just like USA Direct in reverse) all
have 800 numbers assigned to them. And, there are a few others.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Steiger)
Subject: Another Report on Telecom*USA Service
Date: 26 Feb 91 06:36:02 GMT


It's been awhile since I saw any mention of Telecom*USA sooo....

I just started their calling card service.  I got it and it has
features like conference calling, speed dialing, message storage and
forwarding, and even 800 number voice mail boxes.  The other day,
their speed dialing programs weren't running properly.  I called, and
the operator said their technicians were working on it.  She said
she'd call me back when it was fixed.  Yea sure I thought.  About one
hour later, I recieved a call from Telecom*USA.  It was even the
operator I was talking to earlier.

One other nice thing, happened when I called a number that wasn't in
service.  An operator came on the line (A real live one, a rarity on
ATT) and said it was out of service.  She then got the new number for
me from Directory Assistance, and dialed it for me.

That's service!


Mark

(I have no affiliation with Telecom*USA.  Just a satisfied customer)

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


[Moderator's Note: Yes, it is good service. Combine that with the
other options available on the Telecom*USA card such as the Voice News
Network, store and forward, and 800 voicemail, and you have a very
good deal. I've never yet encountered a rude operator at Telecom*USA.
I hope the MCI merger does not mess things up too much.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue Feb 26 14:32:39 EST 1991
Subject: Equal Access / 800 NXX Assignments


In issue #159 our Moderator made a small slip:

>> If AT&T did install an 800 number I can guarentee you the same people who
>> now block 10xxx would figure out a way to block 800-ATT-#### or else
>> tack a tidy surcharge on for themselves.   PAT]

For reasons best known to Bellcore, I suppose, the 288 NXX for 800
service was assigned to MCI!  Presumably the same reasoning assigned
624 to AT&T.  I have to wonder, though, how MCI got custody of 333,
444, 666, 777, 888, and 999.

Anyone have the inside story on how these numbers are doled out?

And on a related topic, what's the current status of efforts to make
800 numbers 'portable' from one interexchange carrier to another?


Jack Dominey  AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA
voice: 404-496-6925  AT&T Mail: !dominey


[Moderator's Note: AT&T had 800-624 a long time before MCI got
800-288. Bellcore hands out *what is left* of the unused 800 prefixes.
Remember, AT&T had that service for many years before MCI came on the
scene, and as a result, a very large (lion's share, really) arbitrary
selection of codes assigned by themselves.  Following the breakup,
AT&T kept the ones they had and took more as well.   PAT]

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

From: Javier Henderson - TMS Group <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE and Pac Tel Cellular in Los Angeles
Date: 26 Feb 91 13:03:31 PST
Organization: Avnet Computer - CTC Group; Culver City, CA


Here's an interesting bit of trivia for Pac Tel users in Los Angeles.

I have Pac Tel for my cellular carrier, and GTE (in the 714 area code)
at home.  Since my cellular number is in the 213 area code, when my
wife calls me, we have to pay toll charges (plus airtime of course). I
called Pac Tel yesterday to find out if I changed my cellular number
to the 714 area code, would there be any toll charges.

The service representative said that only Pacific Bell customers get
toll free service to Pac Tel Cellular customers, but that they do
reimburse GTE customers for calls placed from their homes to their
cellular phones, as a courtesy. In fact, she even guessed the reason
for my asking and suggested the above instead of changing the number,
which has a $15.00 fee.

To get the refund (which is done via a credit to my cellular service
account) I just have to mail them a copy of the phone bill to a
special address, with the calls that I claim credit for highlighted
(and the rest crossed out, she said, if I don't want anyone to see who
I call and when). She also said that GTE would eliminate tolls to
cellular phones within the year (she didn't say whether that would
apply for both Pac Tel and LA Cellular customers).

Is this a common practice across the nation? And for that matter, is
this known to anyone else at all?


Javier Henderson    Engineering Services
Avnet Computer      Los Angeles, CA

[e-mail]  {simpact,asylum,elroy,dhw68k}!hamavnet!henderson

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 1991 13:30:19 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing


> I once heard a rumor that 408 was the last area code in the NANP
> that allowed ten digit (real ten digit, not 1 + ten) dialing.

This is sometimes confusing.  I work in AC 408 where the 1 before the
AC is NOT PERMITTED (this is in Santa Clara county), and I live in 415
(in Alameda county), where it IS required. Sometimes it takes a few
tries before I realize I am using the wrong dialing pattern for where
I am.


Bob Swenson

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 16:39:10 PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Carriers and Prefixes


Folks,

For the second time in not too long I have had to call *611 and tell
the cellular carrier to update their switch. We just added DID trunks
to our business with prefix 917 and not surprisingly I was unable to
call this the first day from my cellular phone.  The service reps told
me that they do get updates (generics?)  from time to time, but added:
"we rely on our customers to inform us about changes too.  Isn't that
just lovely!

For fun, I checked the other carrier and just as I expected, they were
also unable to place calls to that prefix. I left it to a friend who
uses that carrier to call *611 and get things fixed over on the other
side.

By the way, the new switch, a System 25, which was an "upgrade" from a
Merlin II has many, many problems. Suggesting that this is a natural
migration in the AT&T family of products is an outright lie. The two
systems share few features, and behave differently in most respects.
Migration is a real nightmare!


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report
Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, USA
Phone: [phone]  FAX: [phone]  Email: [e-mail]
Direct:[phone]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 21:31:07 -0500
From: Carl G Moore Jr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Waco (Texas) Calling Instructions
Reply-to: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>


I got to a library to get the Waco calling instructions on microfiche.
I looked up Waco because it is in 817 and beyond the Dallas/Fort Worth
area.  Voila, the July 1990-91 call guide has, for intra-lata calling,
0 or 1 followed by area code IF REQUIRED.  Plus, I am seeing 1+7D for
some toll-free service numbers.  214 area already had N0X/N1X by then,
because the call guide announced the coming of area code 903 in
November 1990.

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

From: hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]
Subject:  Re: 911 Demonstration Program Wanted
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 19:41:43 PST


Proctor & Associates makes a special version of the 49200 Telephone
Demonstrator that simulates 9-1-1 trunks.  Two of the lines are
originating telephones, in two different simulated C.O.s, and the
other two lines are incoming 9-1-1 trunks tied to the simulated C.O.s.
The two POTS lines can call each other, or dial 9-1-1.  The calls ring
into the 9-1-1 jacks, and can be answered with plain old telephones,
or a 9-1-1 console.  Going off hook on an idle 9-1-1 trunk produces a
120 BT, just like a real 9-1-1 trunk.

This is just like the 49200 Telephone Demonstrator, which simulates
four telephone lines, but it has special software for simulating two
B911 trunks.

It does not forward any ANI, but it can be used with a special version
of the Proctor Call Logger to simulate ANI.

They are at:

Proctor & Associates   15050 NE 36th St.  Redmond, WA  98052  206-881-7000


Tad Cook  Seattle, WA   Packet: KT7H @ N7ENT.#WWA.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]     MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad    or, [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: How to Hook up a Phone For a Play
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 91 15:30:39 CST
From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>


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

> In reference to using 117 VAC 60 Hz to ring a phone:

> One more time: 100 VAC 20 Hz is JUST as dangerous, if not more so,
> that 117 VAC 60 Hz.  Using house current to ring the phone is no more,
> and no less, dangerous, than ANY other reasonable way you can make the
> ringer work.

The REAL issue is not the voltage applied but the ability of the
source to provide current limiting.  10,000 volts at .00000001 ma is
not dangerous (static electricity).  100V, 20HZ and 117V, 60 HZ are
both deadly if they are not current limited.  The wall socket that
provides the 117V certainly is NOT current limited (to any practical
degree) without a device in series to accomplish that.  A suitable
current limiting device would make 117V, 60 HZ suitable for use to
ring the phone with little danger.  The 88-100V, 20 HZ normally used
to ring a phone on the network is current limited at the source AND by
virtue of the loop resistance between the CO and the phone (typically
200 to 500 ohms or greater).  Standard telco ring voltage will give
you a nasty surprise but is not (usually) dangerous because it IS
current limited.


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

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

From: Joubert Berger <afc-tci![e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID - How Much?
Date: 25 Feb 91 15:33:15 GMT
Organization: Advance Financial Corporation / Teldate Computer Industries, Inc.


I was woundering how much Caller*ID would cost?


Joubert Berger   [e-mail]   Teldata Computer Industries, Inc.
{rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!afc-tci!joubert
Atlanta, Georgia  [phone] |{emory,gatech}!holos0!afc-tci!joubert


[Moderator's Note: $6.50 per month seems typical. Of course you have
to buy your own decoder box as a one-time purchase. The prices seem to
range from $60 - 100 for those, depending on features and quality.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #164
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10038;
          28 Feb 91 2:27 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03535;
          28 Feb 91 0:35 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14962;
          27 Feb 91 23:30 CST
Date:     Wed, 27 Feb 91 22:36:39 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #165
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Feb 91 22:36:37 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 165

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    What Does A Comm Center Need? [Bruce Carlson, sci.military via B. Vaughan]
    AT&T vs. The World (aka John Higdon) [David Ptasnik]
    Giving Through Calling [AT&T News Briefs via John Higdon]
    Automatic DA Call Completion [Telephone Engineer & Manager via Ron Hood]
    Slamming Prevention at SNET [SNET News via Douglas Scott Reuben]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 03:56:51 PST
From: "Bob Vaughan  [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Does A Comm Center Need?


I think this may be of interest to Telecom readers.  This is part of a
thread which appeared in the sci.military newsgroup and was written by
the people named in each part. References are given to Message-ID
numbers if you wish to locate and review the entire thread. The item
by Bruce Carlson is to be especially noted.


  Newsgroups: sci.military
  Subject: Re: What does a Comm center need?
  Date: 27 Feb 91 02:22:25 GMT

  References: <[e-mail]>,
              <[e-mail]>,
              <[e-mail]>


>From: carlson@gateway (Bruce Carlson)

In article <[e-mail]> bcstec!shuksan!
[e-mail] (Mike Schmitt) writes:

>> From: [e-mail] (News System Account)
>> [e-mail] (Michael Edelman) writes:

>> >This brings up the question of what is needed for a command and control
>> >center.

> The 'normal' brigade CP consists of about 4 M577 command tracks.
> one each for intelligence, operations, fire support and engineer.
> Each track carries a 'field desk' full of all the necessary SOPs,
> and forms - radio instructions etc - all kinds of radios and spares,
> antennas up the ying-yang - canvas, light sets, coffe pots, heaters,
> cable, wire, and a generator to power it all.  Inside this "Main CP"
> also sit the Air Force ALO (Air Liaison Officer) talking to the fighter
> pilots and/or forward air controller, the supporting combat aviation
> company's liaison (called a 'battle captain') and numerous lieutenants
> from subordinate/attached units acting as LNOs (liaison officers)
> anxiously awaiting to courier orders/instructions to their own units.

>  mike schmitt

One other item the Brigade CP has is several touch-tone telephones,
which gives them direct dial access throughout the division area and
may give them connectivity to Corps or higher.  The telephones are
connected to automatic switchboards that are primitive by AT&T
standards, but still work very well.  The boards can have up to 90
lines (although at Brigade I think they only use a 30 or 60 line
configuration).  Local numbers are three digits and "long-distance" to
division or to other brigades is 9xx-xxx.  Division Signal publishes
phonebooks and it is fairly easy to locate and call anyone else in the
Division.

The telephone traffic trunk lines are multiplexed with other circuits
and tranmitted through a grid of interconnected multichannel VHF radio
systems.  All VHF circuits are bulk-encrypted and classified traffic
can be discussed over the telephone.  Brigades also usually have a
facsimile system, which is used to send intelligence summaries,
diagrams, or anything else you might think of.  Each brigade also has
a comm center that provide over-the-counter service for transmission
by facsimile or radio-teletype and for delivery by courier.

Infantry battalion CPs are supposed to have a line into the brigade
automatic switchboard, but very few units run the line unless they
know they are going to stay in place for a while.  Battalions use
single-channel VHF FM radios with encryption devices for most of their
commo to Brigade and to their companies.  Battalions may run wire to
the companies in the defense, but in the offense it is usually too
time consuming.

The fire support officer at battalion is an artillery officer assigned
to a unit in DIVARTY and tasked as direct support to a specific
battalion.  He talks up to DIVARTY and down to his FIST team chiefs
that are with each company in the battalion.  The FSO uses a different
set of radio nets than the infantry/armor staff in the CP.


Bruce Carlson
[e-mail]

                            -----------

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


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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T vs. The World (aka John Higdon)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 9:07:53 PDT


While I have occasionally disagreed with John over a variety of
issues, I find myself largely in agreement with his criticisms of AT&T
Phone Systems.  At this time I am a Telecommunications Analyst for the
University of Washington.  This is MY PERSONAL OPINION, not the
University's.  UW has over 300 Merlin systems installed behind Centrex
from a US West 5ESS Central Office.  I am one of several people who
analyze the needs of different departments, order Merlin equipment,
order installation, program the equipment, and train the users.  I
have worked extensively with the Merlin 3070 FM 3, FM 4, and FM 5, as
well as the Merlin II FM 1, FM 2, and Rel 3.

Before I came to the University, I was an outside sales rep for a
non-utility phone system vendor.  I have sold Iwatsu Omega IV and ZTD,
Trillium Talk-To and Panther, various TIE systems, Panasonic VA's and
KXT's, and Tadiran PBX's.

With that said, I must admit that I am not fond of the Merlin systems.
The University receives outstanding support from AT&T.  The Merlin
gets quite large for a Key System.  My gripe is with the features.  It
is a rather old fashioned and kludgy system.  It does not have Call
Forward Don't Answer or Call Forward Busy for stations.  This means
that it does not work well with Voice Mail or a centralized message
center.  This includes the most recent Merlin II Release 3 software.

The Iwatsu systems I was selling five years ago had these basic
features.  When you use the Merlin Remote Call Pickup feature, the
dial pad goes dead.  If you have just picked up a call that requires
additional dialing, you must transfer the call to another phone first.
There is a feature called Call Coverage that allows one phone to
answer for another on a delayed ring basis, while this sounds like
Call Forward Don't Answer, its not.  Once again, the dial pad goes
dead as soon as you get the call.  Further, one station is only
allowed to cover six others.  An attendant responsible for covering
seven phones is in trouble.  Only the most recent software allowed
paging to every phone on the system.  Previous versions allowed a
maximum of 15 phones to be paged simultaneously.  Even the most
current version will not allow you to exclude a few telephones, you
are limited to fifteen phones or ALL the phones.  There is lots more,
but you get the point.

When I was selling the Iwatsu Omegas I was always pleased with the
additional things I could make it do.  With the Merlin, I keep running
into walls.  AT&T offers many things, technological sophistication on
Key Systems is not among the offerings.  In most ways, I think UW
chose the most appropriate system for the needs of our users.
Migration from 1A2 to electronic key was very easy for most users,
with system's like the Iwatsu, it's sophistication make it TOO
different from what our staff was used to.  For technical reasons, we
had to get Key System's, not PBX's, and we needed BIG key systems.

When I bought a phone system for our house, I bought a Panasonic KX-T
616.  I just LOVE it.  Now how can I talk the Mrs. into letting me
upgrade to the new Panasonic digital DBS, hmmmmmmm....


[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 12:12 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Giving through Calling


AT&T NEWS BRIEFS
[All items are today's date unless otherwise noted]

Wednesday, February 27, 1991

"MCI is offering to contribute a portion of its customers' bills to
four conservation groups in an attempt to attract more residential
long-distance customers. At the customer's option, MCI will contribute
five percent of customer's monthly bills to Ducks Unlimited, National
Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation or Nature Conservancy.
  ...  {St. Louis Post Dispatch}, 10B."

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

This is not a first. Last year, a reseller of Sprint sent out a major
mailing claiming that a portion of the proceeds would go to
conservation groups. This is an interesting ploy and one our various
local, state, and Federal governments use to excess. While using
taxation to effect social change is old hat, linking unrelated private
transactions is relatively new. I say "unrelated" because no stretch
of the imagination can connect telephone usage with conservation.

My own preferance would be to get my telephone service five percent
cheaper and then donate directly to causes of my choosing. I am not
convinced that the services provided by long distance companies are
equivalent to the point that a gimmick as described above should be a
deciding factor. If only MCI would concentrate on its primary
product...


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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 14:12:40 MST
From: Ron Hood <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automatic DA Call Completion


I just finished reading what I though was a fairly interesting article
titled "Call Completion: An Easy Sell for Cellular" in the February
15, 1991 edition of {Telephone Engineer & Manager}.  Here's a quick
summary:

Automated Directory Assistance Call Completion (ADACC) is a new
service that could potentially be offered by telephone companies
whereby a caller to Directory Assistance could have their call placed
automatically by the DA operator.  This differs from today's
environment, where the number is read back to the DA caller (or sent
via a voice announcement) who must then dial the number to place the
call.  There would most likely be a fee associated with the automatic
call completion.

The article didn't state what equipment would be used to offer the
service, but given that the article was written by a Computer Consoles
Inc. employee I would suspect that it is based on their hardware and
software.

The service would be available to all subscribers, however, it is
envisioned that it would be of particular interest to cellular users
for the following reasons:

1) Most cellular users don't carry phone books with them and are
   therefor frequent users of DA,

2) It is often inconvenient for a cellular user to write down a number,
   and

3) Dialing a phone in a moving vehicle can be difficult.

The article claimed that seven to ten percent of DA callers are likely
to accept ADACC offers, and that the acceptance rate among cellular
users could be up to ten times higher than the average.

Unfortunately, there are several obstacles to providing ADACC,
particularly to cellular users.  These include:

1) The system must compare the calling number and the called number
   looked up up by DA to determine of they are both in the same LATA.
   If the numbers are in different LATAs then ADACC cannot be offered
   as this would be considered an interexchange service under terms
   of the Modified Final Judgement (MFJ).  This means that you could
   not use ADACC to call a number in a different LATA.

2) In order to support billing for ADACC the system must receive
   Automatic Number Identification (ANI), and apparently many cellular
   systems do not provide this.  The Mobile Telephone Switching Office
   (MTSO) often looks like a large PBX to the network, and instead of
   providing the number of the calling cellular phone, provides the
   the access line designation for the particular trunk being used.
   Since this is not associated with the specific caller it is useless
   for billing purposes.

3) Calls that would have been considered "local" had they been placed
   directly by the cellular caller through the cellular network may
   result in toll charges if placed by ADACC.  This is apparently due
   to the different manner in which the calls would be set up.

4) Cellular roamers are even more likely to call DA, and would also
   present additional billing difficulties.

As a possible solution to the billing problems it was proposed that
the cellular provider could bundle DA and ADACC calls into a single
price, regardless of whether ADACC was actually used.

The article concludes by saying that ADACC is a winner for everyone
involved.  The cellular subscribers get a convenient new service, the
cellular operator gets additional air time from its subscribers, and
the operator service provider gets some additional revenues.  Although
it went unstated, I would expect that Computer Consoles Inc. would
also get to sell some more computers and software.

As a disclaimer I should point out that the article was written by a
company hoping to sell its equipment to other telephone companies, and
that because of this it does not necessarily represent the opinions or
intentions of an operating telephone company, an operator services
provider, a cellular operator, or a cellular user.


Ronald C. Hood     U S WEST Advanced Technologies
[e-mail]    Englewood, Colorado
{boulder,sunpeaks,amdahl}!uswat!hood

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

Date: 27-FEB-1991 16:48:19.83
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Slamming Prevention at SNET


Just got my bill today from SNET. Some rather interesting stuff in the
Newsbriefs ("SNET News") insert:

Slamming: "A word to the wise...don't get SLAMMED, watch your phone bill."

    In carrying out the fight for their share of customers, sales
people for some inter-state carriers may switch you from your long
distance carrier without your approval.

    Here's how it can work.

    A salesperson calls and asks if you'd like to save money on
your long distance bill and if you'd switch away from your present
carrier.

    Unless you are absolutely clear in your responses -- for
example -- "I'm pleased with my present carrier and I do not want you
to initiate any changes,", the salesperson may notify SNET, indicating
that you have approved a switch.

    If that happens, you've just been SLAMMED and SNET switches
you away from your carrier of choice. In that process, SNET puts a
one-time charge on your bill under "Other Charges and Credits" to
cover the cost of making that change.

    SNET urges you to be as explicit as possible if you get one of
these calls and to carefully watch your monthly bill. Notify us
immediately if you believe that you've been SLAMMED. (There've been
instances of SLAMMING without a sales call.)

    We'll remove the charge and return you to your former carrier.
And, if you wish, we'll put a "freeze" on your line so only YOU can
tell us to switch carriers for you.

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

Also stuff about blocking of 900 numbers, and how "adult" messages
must be scrambled (hmmm???), use pre-payment by credit card, or have
some sort of access code, or else they are in violation of FCC rules.
(Never heard of this before ... something new?)

Finally, a small piece about "collect" calls to help out troops in the
Gulf, and how these are usually scams and how to get them taken off
your bill.

Seems like SNET is actually trying to keep up with new developements
in the Telecommunications industry ... a few years ago you could ask
them about Equal Access and they would have NO idea what you were
talking about!

I asked that a freeze be put on my lines, in two different towns in
CT, and it was no problem for them. The whole call to the service
center took less than two minutes, and the sales rep. was polite and
knew exactly what I was requesting. Very efficient...


Doug   [e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #165
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11266;
          28 Feb 91 3:18 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13630;
          28 Feb 91 1:41 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03535;
          28 Feb 91 0:35 CST
Date:     Wed, 27 Feb 91 23:41:10 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #166
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Feb 91 23:41:05 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 166

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Rob Schultz]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Steven S. Brack]
    An Unusual Way to Write Your Phone Number [[e-mail]]
    Re: Call Waiting and Prodigy [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Call Waiting and Prodigy [Toby Nixon]
    Re: 1+206 Dialing Coming to Washington [Carl Moore]
    Re: Armstrong and Ma Bell [[e-mail]]
    Re: NXX Count (1-15-91) [John Higdon]
    Re: Caller ID Status Report [Robert Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 01:03:05 GMT


[e-mail] (Bob Goudreau) writes:

> Perhaps a better way to think about area codes is to mentally leave
> off the national access prefix.  I.e., it's much simpler to say "the
> area code for Canberra is 2" than to say "the area code for Canberra
                Sydney                                        Sydney
> is 02 in Australia and 2 outside of it.  The zero becomes the
> "interarea access prefix", in the same way that international calls
> require an international access prefix.

I agree -- but this is not the way the system is described to the
general public. The Telecom Australia PSTN (and ISDN) Numbering Plan
divides telephone numbers into the following parts:

Trunk Prefix Code   |    National Destination Code   |    Local Code
    0        |    1 to 3 digits            |    up to 7 digits

        STD Area Code                |

            |        National Significant Number

            National Number


Nowhere in common usage is the Trunk Prefix Code considered to be a
separate entity. All telephone directories, advertising etc refer to
the STD area code (which includes the 0). For example, the overseas
calling page of my telephone directory states:

Calling Australia from overseas:

When direct dialling Australia from overseas, call
a. Appropriate International Access Code
b. The Australian Country Code; 61
c. The Area Code without the first zero
d. The Telephone number


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

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

From: Rob Schultz <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Date: 27 Feb 91 14:49:02 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim
Breen) writes:

> Worse than that, David. CSIRO ran some job advertisements in the
> international press last year (New Scientist, etc.) quoting their
> (Sydney) numbers as (612) xxx yyyy, instead of +61 2 xxx yyyy. I guess
> a lot of people in the (US? Canada?) 61x area codes are getting used
> to receiving calls intended for Australia.

The 612 area code covers central Minnesota, including Minneapolis.
That area happens to have a fair amount of large business, and
therefore a fairly sizable population.  My guess (and everyone here
will correct me if I'm wrong :-) is that there is a better than 50%
chance that the number given in these adverts is in use somewhere in
Minnesota.  Given the assumption that relatively few people are truly
informed about international calling, I would say the odds are pretty
good that someone in that area did receive quite a few calls.

"Hello"
"Hi, Is this Sydney Australia?"
"No, this is Podunk Minnesota."
"Really?  But the number I have is . . ."
"Well, sorry about that, I am in Minnesota"
"You must be mistaken, I dialed Australia"
"Well, you know I have always wanted to visit there, perhaps you can
    convince the phone company to move me . . ."

Well, the scenario *could* be different . . .


Rob Schultz                                           [phone]
Motorola General Systems Sector           [e-mail]
1501 West Shure Drive  Rm 3118               ...!uunet!motcid!schultz
Arlington Heights, IL  60004       All appropriate disclaimers apply.

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 01:44 CST
From: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: Gordon Burditt


> I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis
> around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire
> number, i.e. [phone]?

Because dialing the area code is often prohibited or optional?

> with dashes and no parenthesis -- or dots if you prefer -- in this
> format: 311-555-2368, or 311.555.2368.

What authority establishes that as the correct way (especially with
periods -- I haven't seen that in use at all)?

Southwestern Bell phone books would write it as 1 + 311 + 555-2368 .
The international version is [phone] .

A quick glance at newspaper ads reveals that the convention is that
even when area codes 800 and 214 both appear in the same ad, 800 is
surrounded by dashes and 214 is surrounded by parenthesis.


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 1991 13:22:24 EST
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number


In entry 11.158.1, it's suggested that we look at:

> Actually, Pat, you should look at CCITT Recommendation E.123, which
> specifically addresses the issue of how telephone numbers should
> appear in printed material.

What is CCITT?

Kath Mullholand    UNH Durham, NH.

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

From: "Steven S. Brack" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 23:11:55 GMT


In article <telecom11.163.4> [e-mail] (Jim Rees) writes:

=> UTA French Airlines Chicago Il
=>  An Arb Tele Only No Charge
=>  Dial Operator And Ask For ------ Enterprise-8844
=>
=> Glad to see this venerable old institution still survives.

I thought I knew most of the terms associated with telephony, but I
have never heard of "Enterprise-NNNN."  What is it?


Steven S. Brack   [e-mail]
[e-mail] (Avoid sending here, if possible)


[Moderator's Note: "Enterprise", aka "Zenith" was the predecessor to
800 service.  Prior to being able to automatically dial a reverse
charge (collect) call to persons automatically willing to recieve
same, it was necessary to use the operator for this function. Unlike a
regular collect call where the operator had to verbally obtain
permission from the called party to charge the call to their line, the
use of "Enterprise - xxxx" (in some places it was "Zenith - xxxx") was
a code number telling the operator the charges were automatically
accepted.  A business (there were no personal users of Enterprise
service) would obtain an Enterprise number from the national database
of same, which as I recall was/is kept by the Rate and Route Bureau in
Morris, IL (itself a function of AT&T).  Maybe Bellcore keeps these
records now, I don't know. The specifications of exactly which calls
would be accepted were printed in telephone directories with the
listing of the business and associated Enterprise number. The example
given here was 'from the Ann Arbor Exchange'.

To call an Enterprise number, you would dial your Long Distance
Operator and ask for the number. The most common and frequently called
Enterprise numbers were noted by the operators in a flip chart
reference list at their disposal. Less common Enterprise numbers were
available to the operator by calling Rate and Route and asking for the
translation. The translation was merely the regular number for the
business, however by virtue of you asking for the Enterprise number,
the operator would put the call through and automatically bill it as a
collect call to the called party.

With the advent of 800 service -- when? circa 1965? -- (and it
likewise can be restricted by locality or geographic region as to who
can and cannot call) Enterprise numbers became obsolete. I do not
think they are even available any longer, and are probably
grandfathered to existing customers who wish to keep them for whatever
reason, never to get them again if they ever give them up.  I think
the Bell companies called it "Enterprise" and GTE and many independent
telcos preferred "Zenith". But the database was the same.   PAT]

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

From: scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: An Unusual Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 1991 16:03:14 GMT


The recent discussion of how to write your phone number brings to mind
something I've been meaning to ask for a while now.

Several years ago, I read a message on a BBS from a person who wrote
his phone number as some incredibly long string of digits (i.e. much
MUCH longer than the normal ten digit telephone number). Although I
didn't actually test it out at the time, he claimed that by dialing
this incredibly long string of digits you would, in fact, reach his
phone. He found it amusing to give this long version out to people who
asked him for his phone number. The cobwebs of time (or perhaps those
of my mind ;-) have obscured the details of the algorithm used and
how/why it worked. Can anyone provide some additional details on how
to accomplish this?

Much obliged.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 09:40 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Call Waiting and Prodigy


If I had reliable info that this was happening, I'd check to see
exactly what Prodigy was dialing.  Perhaps the Prodigious folks
programmed their black-box software to dial *70 before the number,
just in case?


edg

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Waiting and Prodigy
Date: 27 Feb 91 17:38:54 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brinton
Cooper) writes:

> My niece has a PS-1 which runs and connects her to Prodigy (I think).
> Anyhow, they have call waiting at their house; as you know, this
> feature of the phone often disconnects dial-up modems.  In fact, with
> their C-64 and TRS-80 machines, they experienced this when calling
> BBS lines.

> However, she tells me that when she's connected to Prodigy, the call
> waiting seems not to work.  If someone calls during a Prodigy session,
> the caller gets a busy signal.

> Does someone have an explanation?

I believe the Prodigy Startup software asks you whether or not you
have Call Waiting.  If you do, it automatically prepends "*70," to the
phone number when it dials, to disable call waiting.  Have them add
"*70," to the beginning of phone numbers they use to call BBSes, and
they shouldn't get interrupted by Call Waiting any more.

There IS another explanation, by the way.  The Hayes Personal Modem
2400 that is sold with the Prodigy Startup Kit has a special "Call
Waiting" feature.  Not only is the modem tolerant of the call waiting
interruption, but it also has the ability to inform the software with
a special message that a call is coming in.  The software can then put
a message up on the screen for the user which could say something like
"You have another call coming in.  Do you want to log off Prodigy and
take the call now, or ignore it?"  However, even though this feature
was added at Prodigy's request (that modem was built by Hayes to
Prodigy's detailed specifications), I don't believe the feature has
ever actually been supported in Prodigy's software.


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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 10:42:31 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1+206 Dialing Coming to Washington


206 is running out of NNX, not NXX.  If it were running out of NXX,
you would be looking at a split now, not the implementation of
N0X/N1X.  (Sorry I didn't spot this until I saw Tad Cook's response.)

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

From: 99700000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Armstrong and Ma Bell
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 08:44:58 PST


Bits and pieces - maybe somebody will come through with the
authoritative story.  I remember the suicide, but thought the patent
suit was with RCA, not AT&T.  I remember reading that the courts
awarded his estate a million bucks from RCA when the case was finally
settled.

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

Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 20:35 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: NXX Count (1-15-91)


[e-mail] (Steve Watt) writes:

>   On a somewhat related note, I'm curious ... how many area codes are
> there out there (like PacBell territory in 408) that don't require a
> 1+ for *any* call, local, long-distance, or otherwise?

Only part of the 408 area code (San Jose metro area) does not require
a '1' for long distance. Within the last few years, '1' has been made
permissive; that is you may dial it if you like and you will not mess
up your call. The area south of the Santa Cruz mountains starting with
Los Gatos on Hwy 17 and Morgan Hill on Hwy 101 MUST use a '1' for long
distance. Also, the entire Monterey LATA (which is 408) must use the
'1'.

>   I once heard a rumor that 408 was the last area code in the NANP
> that allowed 10 digit (real 10 digit, not 1+ten.) dialing ... is
> PacBell that slow?  Is it PacBell that's slow?

As much as it pains me to say it, the reason that a '1' has never been
required is because this area was one of the early DDD-capable
locations. In the original manifestations of DDD, a '1' was not
specified. The switch (usually a #5 crossbar in that day) would
recognize the second digit being a '1' or '0' and process the call
accordingly. This was easy for a common control switch.

When the Bell System wished to expand DDD into older offices and to
the independents who had SXS equipment, some method had to be employed
to "tell" the switch up front that this was to be a long distance
call. In those offices when you dialed the '1', you were simply
connected to a toll office or another CO which could accept the ten
digit number. In most of the sixties there were many areas that
required the '1' while others (mainly metro areas) did not. As
"informal prefixes" became necessary, the '1' was introduced to those
areas that had heretofore not required it.

Back to 408. The office that serves my home (#5 crossbar) has had the
"pure" form of DDD since 1956. In that time, there has not been
sufficient consumption of prefixes to require the '1'. About four
years ago, when the CONTAC adjunct was installed, the '1' became
permissive -- but not required. As I was growing up, long distance
never required a '1' except in the neighboring independently served
communities. (Los Gatos -- Western California Telephone Company --
required a '112'.) When I move back to North Carolina for a brief time
I found that the '1' requirement was ubiquitous.

As the prefixes in 408 run out, the San Jose area will join everyone
else in the dialing of '1' before each long distance call.


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

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Status Report
Date: 27 Feb 91 23:01:52 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle


The chart that was cited neglected California, one-seventh of the
national telecommunications market.  In California, blocking of Caller
ID is mandated by law, whenever the trials actually begin.


Bob Jacobson


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for pointing this out. I wonder if the lack
of California details in the chart was an oversight by the original
author or somehow a typo error by the person sending it here?   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #166
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12407;
          28 Feb 91 4:25 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30381;
          28 Feb 91 2:46 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad13630;
          28 Feb 91 1:41 CST
Date:     Thu, 28 Feb 91 1:10:33 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #167
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Feb 91 01:10:23 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 167

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phone Dinging Around 2 AM [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Phone Dinging Around 2 AM [Ken Abrams]
    Re: AT&T, MCI, US.Sprint Rate Comparison [John Higdon]
    Re: Telephone Surcharges for Deaf, Poor Anger IBT Customers [Tad Cook]
    Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart [Guy Hillyer]
    Re: Information Wanted on X.25 [Toby Nixon]
    Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? [Joe Talbot]
    Re: MCI ... March 18 and More [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History [Glen Herrmannsfeldt]
    Call*Block and Changing Subscribers [Steve Forrette]
    Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Phone Dinging Around 2 AM
Date: 27 Feb 91 01:58:11 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, think!barmar@bloom-beacon.
mit.edu (Barry Margolin) writes:

> On most nights, somewhere between 2 and 3 AM, my phone will
> spontaneously emit two tiny rings (it has a real bell, not a tone
> generator, and goes ding -- ding).

I get it also in Arlington MA. Not long enough to latch the 1A2's line
card for its six or so second normal memory of having seen ringing,
but enough to ding the bells. FWIW, my line cards are so HI-Z the test
board gets confused thinking there is an open line. They simply can't
'see' the cards.

I had simply assumed adding a normal phone to the line would stop
whatever automatic line testing is happening from ringing my bells
because its load would shunt whatever is goosing my KTUs. Your having
it happen now makes me wonder if my assumption is wrong.

The traditional ringer IS sensitive to the polarity of pulses!  Aside
from adjusting the bias spring, the 'proper' cure for BELL-TAP
(tinkeling as a rotary extension or other party dials or even just
goes on/off hook) is to have the phone's two wires connected properly
to TIP and RING. Early TT phones really cared, because the TT pad
wouldn't work if wired backwards. Now all TT phones have the
polarity-guard (diode bridge) built in so they are clutz proof.

You might just try reversing the two line wires.

There may be a bias spring that can be hooked to a stiffer notch that
will help.

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Dinging Around 2 AM
Date: 27 Feb 91 19:43:24 GMT
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


In article <[e-mail]> think!barmar@bloom-beacon.
mit.edu (Barry Margolin) writes:

> On most nights, somewhere between 2 and 3 AM, my phone will
> spontaneously emit two tiny rings (it has a real bell, not a tone
> generator, and goes ding -- ding).

> Does anyone have an idea what's causing this?  Does NEw England Tel
> send out some kind of test pulse that my phone (an AT&T Trimline 230)
> is oversensitive to?

Yes, in all probability, that is exactly what is happening.  The test
is called ALIT (Automatic Line Insulation Test).  It makes two passes
at the line.  A slight adjustment on the bias spring in your phone
ringer would probably eliminate the problem.  If the problem is more
exotic, the test can be programmed to skip individual lines.


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

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

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 00:38 GMT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: AT&T, MCI, US Sprint Rate Comparison


Bob Yazz <[e-mail]> writes:

> I dumped Sprint in favor of AT&T after verifying that Sprint had
> programmed their computer to reveal my billing info to anybody who
> called them knowing my phone number.

I almost dumped Sprint today after receiving an envelope marked
"personal and confidential", which is code for "this is a dunning
notice from a Colection Agency". It seems that Sprint's collection
department was getting nervous about the bogus charges that appeared
on my bill last week. (I had been billed for $125 worth of calls to
Edgecliff, TX, from a number I have not had in years.) The amount
named in the "Intent to Disconnect" letter was that very sum.

After waiting the requisite cooling-off period on hold, I spoke to
someone who claimed that my account was current. I demanded to know
why I was being dunned for the bogus charges, so soon after I had
received the bill at that. No explanation.

My business nose tells me that Sprint must not have a surplus of cash
if they are resorting to such nonsense to handle collectibles. I pay
my bills right regularly and one of my major buttons is when companies
feel the need to send one of those "threatening" notices. Especially
when it is incorrect and the sender cannot even explain why it was
sent.

I told the person on the other end of the phone that the next time
someone at Sprint feels it necessary to send me an "Intent to
Disconnect", just cross out "Intent" and change it to "Order" and pass
it along to the service department. I have dropped credit cards for
such practices; I can certainly drop a crummy OCC.


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

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

Subject: Re: Telephone Surcharges for Deaf, Poor Anger IBT Customers
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 27 Feb 91 17:11:05 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Larry W.
Seals) writes:

(Stuff deleted)

> There seems to be that same mentality at work here.  Just because the
> telephone is ubiquitous does not mean that the service it renders has
> become a right available to anyone for asking.

> Given the number of goods and services I pay for on which there are
> these hidden subsidies for those who want the privilege without the
> cost, how far are we down the road to a socialist society without even
> knowing it?

Larry seems to forget the concept of "universal service."  That is why
all kinds of cross-subsidies were set up in telephone service.  The
idea being that the telephone network is only really useful when the
majority of the population is connected.

"Hidden subsidies for those who want privilege without the cost" ??

Why should communications only be for those who can afford ISDN,
Caller ID and modems?  What's the matter with my poorer neighbors
getting access to 9-1-1 ??


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA   Packet: KT7H @ N7ENT.#WWA.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]      MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad     or, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It is intereesting that you phrased your final
paragraph in the way you did. On a call-in talk show today, the host
was discussing this issue with a man who was calling in on his
cellular handheld phone while riding in the back seat of a taxicab
yet. The host posed a similar question: should communications be only
for those of you who ride home to the suburbs in a cab every night
talking on a cellular phone?  Why can't poor people have a phone when
they need to call the police or the doctor?  And the caller's
response, which has to be an all-time classic, taking nerve if I do
say so myself: "Well, they probably could afford a basic single line
phone if they would quit buying so many Illinois State Lottery tickets
every month!"  Jeesh! Not only does he not want to assist in paying
for their 'basic phone'; he wants to steal their dreams also!  :) The
host's response: "You know something mister? You've got a mean, very
stingy disposition. I'd hate to have to ask you for anything."  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 10:57:46 EST
From: Guy Hillyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart


[e-mail] writes:

> Where would I look for a current chart/table/etc of EM spectrum
> allocations?

I happened to see this in the Edmund Scientific catalogue just
yesterday:

    ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM CHART

    Developed by Westinghouse and San Francisco's Exploratorium, chart
    is a series of circular bands moving outward from center which
    describe the electromagnetic waves.  Range 10**10 cm to sub
    atomic 10**-14 cm in wavelength scale.  Frequency scales, general
    and specific names, radio and microwave usage, black body
    curves, emission spectra and atmospheric absorption bands.
    24" x 33", prined on poster stock in full color.  $10.95,
    catalogue number K36,861.

This is a two-year-old catalogue, but I'll bet they still have it.
I've seen this poster and it's a beauty.

Edmund Scientific Co.   101 E Gloucester Pike
Barrington NJ 08007-1380    [phone]


Guy Hillyer   [e-mail]

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on X.25
Date: 27 Feb 91 17:25:03 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu (Bernie Roehl) writes:

> I'm considering setting up a multi-line BBS that's accessible over
> Datapac (Canada's X.25 service, analagous to Tymenet or Telenet).  I'm
> considering several options:

> 1. Buy a self-contained PAD with a number of serial lines, and hooking this

> 2. Buying an X.25 board and writing software to provide an int 14h type

> 3. Buying a synchronous serial card for the PC, and implementing X.25 in
>    software.  Advantage: lowest cost.  Disadvantage: lots of work.

There's a fourth option you may not be aware of: a modem with X.25
built in.  The Hayes Ultra 96, for example, provides V.22bis or V.32
X.32 (dial-up X.25) with a four-channel X.3/X.28/X.29 PAD built in.
It connects via your normal async port -- one port.  The data to/from
the four channels is multiplexed onto the single async port via a very
simple protocol we call "AutoStream" (which I had a part in
designing).

We've implemented an AutoStream multisession interface in Smartcom
III's SCOPE scripting language -- it's really that simple to do
multisession communications with AutoStream.  Ultra 96 is fully
certified for use on Datapac.  You have to have a synchronous modem to
do X.25 anyway, and for a little more than the "average" cost of a
V.32 modem you can have one with X.25 built in.  I think this would be
the best combination of low cost and low effort, compared to the other
options you've listed.

I don't know if four channels is enough for you.  You should consider
that if you try to do MORE than that, then the throughput on a 9600bps
modem might become unacceptably slow for the remote users.  You could
use additional modems (on standard comm ports) to provide an
additional four channels each as your use expanded.  If you want
higher throughput, about your only choice is a digital circuit at
56kbps or 64kbps, but then you're talking about a major expense.

If you'd like more information on Hayes modems with X.32/X.25 built
in, and AutoStream, just let me know.


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

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

From: Joe Talbot <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play?
Date: 27 Feb 91 19:07:12 GMT
Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca


Use a REAL ring generator and an unmodified REAL phone. An outfit
called Minnesota Telephone installers is selling a small ring
generator that (I beleive) is the one used on the old shoebox four
line key systems. It's a very small black cube with a short AC cord on
it and two screws that have about 100 volts at 30 hertz (unplug before
connecting). It will ring an unmodified phone of about any vintage
(your play may be set in the thirties as my high school play was, so I
used a 300 desk set. The 300 wasn't made until the fourties but nobody
could tell, I didn't think a trimline was appropriate). Just run a
cable to the phone's location (1 pair bridged ringing!). Connect the
phone at the one end. At the other end, connect one wire from the pair
to a screw on the generator, connect the other to a push button and
the other side of the button to the other screw on the generator. Push
the button to ring the phone (wow).

Minnesota Telephone installers:  [phone]

You want a WE 118A ring generator advertised for $30 in Telephone
International. (Try bargaining; they can't be selling that many.
Mention what it is for. Many of these secondary vendors are very
helpful and flexible. I have never done business with these people,
however.)


joe@mojave

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

From: "Steven S. Brack" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI ... March 18 and More
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 18:17:26 GMT


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

> Would it be possible to use Call Forwarding, to call long distance, and
> not pay for it?  Heres the Scenario: I call a friend who is right
> between me and an area that is LD for me. His number then forwards
> to another number, but into the LD area. Do I get the local call, or
> billed for the LD number that it was forwarded to?   What if I did
> this with a few people, and forwared a forwareded call?   If it is
> possible, is there any disadvantages to it? (ie, poor quality call;
> Limited use; lots of people involved?)

My uncle recently moved from GTE territory to Ohio Bell territory.
This had the unfortunate side-effect of making the calls he gets from
GTE territory toll calls (1+7D).  So, what he did was have a second
line installed to my house, which he uses only as a forwarding line to
his other number.  As it works out, he ends up saving money (very
little) and his clients can call him without any extra phone charge.
Needless to say, this situation is only cost effective to to the
current turf war between Ohio Bell and GTE in northwest Ohio.  There
are literally areas in Toledo where toll calls are required for
distances as short as 3/4 mile.  Incidently, until Judge Green's
decision, my house did not have any sort of demark, just the house
wires nutted together with Bell's wires.


Steven S. Brack   [e-mail]
[e-mail] (Avoid sending here, if possible)


[Moderator's Note: You mention your uncle is saving a little money
each month from this arrangement. Have the savings yet been sufficient
to amoritze, or pay for the initial installation cost of the line
being permanently forwarded and for the monthly charge for the phone
sitting there doing nothing but forwarding calls?  PAT]

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

From: Glen Herrmannsfeldt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: 27 Feb 91 19:51:34 GMT


There is a small confusion here related to the term FM.

THere is FM, frequency modulation, which can be used at any frequency.

There is the FM band, from 88 to 108 MHz, which is what almost
everyone calls FM.

The modulation method came before the band.  Someone did each first.

Sorry if this is obvious, but the distinction was not obvious in the
previous note.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 00:16:33 GMT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call*Block and Changing Subscribers


Someone mentioned the potential problem of people with numbers
Call*Blocked missing important calls from people who are assigned a
number that once belonged to someone else who needed to be blocked.  A
suggestion was made that numbers on the block list expire after a
certain time.  Since the telco obviously knows when a number changes
subscribers, why not clear numbers from everyone's block list as they
are disconnected?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Feb 91 10:49:14 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier?


On two pay phones in Newark, Delaware, I have discovered that the
default long-distance carrier is listed as RCI Corp., 180 So.  Clinton
Ave., Rochester, NY 14646, telephone [phone].  The zipcode turns
out to be the same as Rochester Telephone Corp.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #167
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14649;
          1 Mar 91 6:01 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13278;
          1 Mar 91 4:09 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13543;
          1 Mar 91 2:55 CST
Date:     Fri, 1 Mar 91 2:21:23 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #168
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 1 Mar 91 02:21:12 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 168

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [Brent Chapman]
    Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [Robert Swenson]
    Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [Seth I. Robson]
    Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [John Higdon]
    Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [Linc Madison]
    Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? [Jerry K. Wagner]
    Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? [Curtis E. Reid]
    Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? [Jeff Wasilko]
    Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? [Sean Williams]
    Re: Large Local Calling Areas [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: Large Local Calling Areas [Robert M. Hamer]
    Re: Large Local Calling Areas [John R. Levine]
    Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy? [Fred Linton]
    And You Thought COCOTS Were a Problem [Jeff Sicherman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brent Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing
Date: 28 Feb 91 22:30:56 GMT
Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation; San Jose, CA


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

>> I once heard a rumor that 408 was the last area code in the NANP
>> that allowed ten digit (real ten digit, not 1 + ten) dialing.

> This is sometimes confusing.  I work in AC 408 where the 1 before the
> AC is NOT PERMITTED (this is in Santa Clara county), and I live in 415
> (in Alameda county), where it IS required. Sometimes it takes a few
> tries before I realize I am using the wrong dialing pattern for where
> I am.

Are you sure this isn't just the funky Xerox phone service?  I used to
work at PARC; I know just how funky it can get ...

I live and work in the 408 area code, and have "normal" lines both at
work (where I run the phone system; an AT&T Merlin II that I
inheirited with the job, if anybody cares) and at home; I habitually
dial "1 415 xxx yyyy" for 415 numbers from both locations, and never
have a problem.  I just tested dialing without the "1" from work, and
sure enough it works, but (at least here, in the 408-943 exchange) it
works just fine _with_ the leading 1 as well.


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

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

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 1991 15:17:17 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing


 From John Higdon ([e-mail]) who wrote:

>> [e-mail] writes:

> This is sometimes confusing.  I work in AC 408 where the 1 before the
> AC is NOT PERMITTED (this is in Santa Clara county),

It was my understanding that '1' was made permissive a few years ago.
Are you sure it is your telephone exchange that does not permit using
a '1' and not your in house system? If so, I would be very interested
to know what prefix does not allow the '1'.

I just tried and my in house system still will not permit +1 (415) xxx
xxxx.  As your note asks, I do not know what Pac Bell will do
directly.  My work phone is (408) 737 xxxx


Bob Swenson

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

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 91 00:46:19
From: "Seth I. Robson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing


I live in Santa Cruz, which is a part of the 408 area code.  When I
dial numbers in the greater Bay Area (415), I am required to dial a 1+
first.  Even if I want to make a zone 3 call within my own area code
(say, to Sunnyvale or San Jose), I am still required to dial a 1+
before the rest of the number.  I don't know whether I am the norm or
the exception in the 408 AC.


Seth I. Robson; [e-mail] (the ascii assassin)
University o'California, Santa Cruz.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 00:14 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing


[e-mail] writes:

> This is sometimes confusing.  I work in AC 408 where the 1 before the
> AC is NOT PERMITTED (this is in Santa Clara county),

It was my understanding that '1' was made permissive a few years ago.
Are you sure it is your telephone exchange that does not permit using
a '1' and not your in house system? If so, I would be very interested
to know what prefix does not allow the '1'.


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


[Moderator's Note: As noted in another message in this issue, his home
phone is 408-737.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 03:35:38 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing


I lived in San Jose from 1985 - 1987, and use of 1+ was permissive at
that time.  Indeed, I'm quite skeptical of the articles that have
appeared recently mentioning that until recently the use of 1+ was
prohibited.  It may have been prohibited for calls within 408, but the
discussion about San Jose being the last area in the country to allow
not using 1+ has centered on dialing other area codes.  Also, I saw
just one too many of the ads with the AT&T clown sweeping up to the
charming background voices singing, "Dial One, Plus the Area Code (if
different from your own), then the Number!" to believe that
1+NPA+Number was prohibited anywhere, at least in the last fifteen or
twenty years, for calls to other area codes.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

P.S. Just my $0.000002 worth on "correct way to write phone numbers":
I prefer (NPA) NXX-XXXX because it allows easier visual "chunking" for
memory purposes.  It is also the way that the vast majority of all
phone numbers I have ever seen printed have been formatted; using
periods between the numbers is almost unheard-of in the U.S.

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 91 16:31:19 GMT


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

>  On a somewhat related note, I'm curious ... how many area codes are
> there out there (like PacBell territory in 408) that don't require a
> 1+ for *any* call, local, long-distance, or otherwise?

That's only in the Santa Clara valley.  408 area code in Santa Cruz,
which is ALSO PacBell, requires the 1+

No, I don't know why.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 08:55:33 -0500
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: "Jerry K. Wagner    Internet: [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier?


In TELECOM Digest V11 #167:

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

> On two pay phones in Newark, Delaware, I have discovered that the
> default long-distance carrier is listed as RCI Corp., 180 So.  Clinton
> Ave., Rochester, NY 14646, telephone [phone].  The zipcode turns
> out to be the same as Rochester Telephone Corp.

In the Rochester Telephone White Pages, 1991, in the long distance
carrier information section, RCI is listed as:

    RochesterTel
    RCI Long Distance

complete with the Rochester Telephone logo.  I believe RCI is a
subsidiary, but I could be mistaken about the specific legal
connection between the two.


Jerry K. Wagner  [e-mail]     716 722 9532

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

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 09:27 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier?


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

> On two pay phones in Newark, Delaware, I have discovered that the
> default long-distance carrier is listed as RCI Corp., 180 So.  Clinton
> Ave., Rochester, NY 14646, telephone [phone].  The zipcode turns
> out to be the same as Rochester Telephone Corp.


RCI Corp. is a subsidiary of Rochester Tel.  As many of you know from
reading Telecom Digests, Rochester Tel has been diversifying itself by
buying a lot of small telephone companies throughout the nation,
operating a long distance carrier, and a cellular phone company.

Rochester Tel is the largest independent telephone company and its
financial situation is very good in comparsion with other telephone
companies.

They recently filed a tariff with New York Public Services Commission
to offer Caller-ID services to begin on April.  I have yet to hear
wether the PSC approved it or not.


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

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

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 1991 17:37:28 EST
Subject: Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier?


In Digest V11 #167, Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> asked about
Rochester Tel and RCI.

Yes, indeed, one of Rochester Tel's divisions is RCI Long Distance.

I use RCI on occasion when I need to segregate LD calls for business
(their code is 10211).

Their rates are a bit lower than AT&T. For example, a one minute call
to 619-673 (RANCHOBNRD CA) on AT&T was .24, and a five minute call on
RCI was 1.18 (.236 per minute). Sound quality is excellent, and calls
seem to complete quickly.

I'm assuming that RCI leases capacity from other carriers for their
network.

For those who don't know, Rochester Tel now owns 250ish small
telephone companies around the country.


Jeff

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Feb 28 17:19:38 EST 1991
Subject: RCI Long Distance

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

 |  On two pay phones in Newark, Delaware, I have discovered that the
 |  default long-distance carrier is listed as RCI Corp. [Rochester
 |  Telephone Corp.]

Rochester Telephone does have a long-distance branch.  The access code
is 10211.  This does not work from my home phone; I believe the
company isA~ regional.  I have never seen the access code listed in a
Bell of Pennsylvania or United Telephone book.

I found out about RCI a few weeks ago when I was in Rochester visiting
the Rochester Institute of Technology (on my quest for higher
education after high school.)  By the way, has anyone ever attended
this school?  I had a good impression of it during the tour /
interview.


Sean E. Williams                        | attmail.com!seanwilliams
333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227        | [e-mail]
Duncannon, PA 17020-0227  USA           | voicemail: [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 09:17:20 cst
From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Large Local Calling Areas


[e-mail] (Scott Hinckley) writes:

> This is true. To give an example, when I lived in Atlanta I was able
> to make local calls to places that were a good hour's drive away. The
> local calling area spans several counties.

> Here in Huntsville the longest local call would take about twenty
> minutes to drive to, and many places that are within a fifteen
> minute's drive are long distance.

> [Moderator's Note: Do you think driving in city traffic has anything
> to do with it?  Here in Chicago I can't go five miles in fifteen
> minutes during the rush hour.    PAT]

Ok, let me try this in miles (as best as I can remember, I usually
think of distance in terms of time :-)

I could make a call from North of Roswell Georgia to some 20 miles
south of Atlanta locally. I believe that is >= 50 miles. It seems like
you could call 20-25+ miles in any direction from downtown Atlanta.

Here in Huntsville it is about 22 miles (not straight line, but driven line.
It would be more like fifteen straight) from the south end of Huntsville out
to the edge of the Madison County local area. Now, from the downtown
there is nothing like a 'calling radius' the local area goes some three
miles in one direction, eight miles in another, and fifteen in another.


Scott Hinckley  Internet:[e-mail]
UUCP:.!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!huntsai!scott
[phone]

DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not
represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 14:16 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Large Local Calling Area


Arnold Robbins <[e-mail]> writes:

> code.  The Atlanta LATA is apparently the largest free calling area in
> the world, from what an adjunct professor who works for Southern Bell
> once told me.

I heard somewhere that the "Big Island" in Hawaii might also be a
candidate for largest free calling area, as in Hawaii, each island is
a LATA.  Anyone know for sure?

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

Subject: Re: Large Local Calling Areas
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 28 Feb 91 22:00:34 EST (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>> The Atlanta LATA is apparently the largest free calling area in
>> the world...

> Similarly, New York City's local calling area spans five counties
> (each borough of NYC is a separate county), ...

I suspect that NYC has the largest number of phones that are a local
call.  There may be larger cities, but not larger cities with such a
density of telephones.  The only other place in the U.S. with so many
phones is Los Angeles, but it has rather small local calling areas.

I have heard that the geographically largest local calling area is the
big island of Hawaii.  Hawaiian Tel has an extremely simple rate
structure: calls on the same island are free, calls to any other
island are expensive (all the same rate, no matter which pair of
islands), calls to the mainland are very expensive.  Someone who cares
could try comparing areas.  A quick look in the almanac suggests that
the big island is in the vicinity of 5,000 sq. mi.

If water counts, I note that the entire US Virgin Islands are a single
local calling area, even though a boat from St. Croix to St. Thomas
takes most of the day, and the flying boat about half an hour.

Regards,


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

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

Date: 28-FEB-1991 21:49:28.05
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Do Network Interface Devices Make Fraud Easy?


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
com (Peter da Silva) asks:

> ... RJ11 plug ... RJ11 socket ... Why bother with a knife switch?

Easy -- I had the socket and a knife switch, and _didn't_ have an RJ11
plug (leastwise not one I could fit on the ancient 8 gauge solid
copper wires :-) ).

And I can use alligator clips or test prods on the knife switch
contacts for that rare time I want to use a VOM on the line -- I don't
have any test prods fine enough to slither into the contact slots on
an RJ11 plug.

Or, as the Moderator noted, "it really comes down to ... style".


Fred E.J. Linton  Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.  649 Sci. Tower  Middletown, CT 06457
E-mail:  <[e-mail]>  or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com>
Tel.:         [phone] (home)   or   [phone] x2249 (work)

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

Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 18:17:40 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: And You Thought COCOTs Were a Problem
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


 From L.M. BOYD's column, February 28 (sort of a strange facts
column):

  "History records that some of the world's first telephone booths
were mistaken for elevators. Others for restrooms."


[Moderator's Note: They are still used as public bathrooms here in
Chicago, and places to leave public messages of the 'to whom it may
concern' variety regarding places and people to call.  :)     PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #168
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14917;
          1 Mar 91 6:13 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13278;
          1 Mar 91 4:15 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13543;
          1 Mar 91 2:55 CST
Date:     Fri, 1 Mar 91 2:46:01 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #169
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 1 Mar 91 02:45:43 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 169

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Persian Gulf Telecom [Floyd Davidson]
    COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges [Robert L. Oliver]
    Re: Early Color Television [Bill Vermillion]
    FM Radio in the 1930's [Richard Budd]
    Re: How to Hook up a Phone For a Play [Floyd Davidson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Persian Gulf Telecom
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 1991 12:15:36 GMT


Sometime back there was a discussion of satellite communications in
Saudi Arabia relating to the free fax transmissions to the troops.  I
promised the Moderator that when the time was right I would post more
information about communications satellite use in the Gulf War.  It
appears to be all but over, so the time is right.

Within hours of the decision to send troops to the Persian Gulf there
were plans made for temporary and mobile satellite communications
centers.  Within days the first of several transportable earth
stations owned and operated by Alascom, Inc.  was on its way, complete
with a crew, to the Gulf.  The crew for the first unit was actually
headed up by the VP for operations.

The first unit was leased by AT&T, and was the system that provided
facilities for the AT&T fax transmissions.  Later units were, as I
understand it, leased directly to the US government.  AT&T manages the
network, and Alascom manages the deployment and operation of stations.
Two other companies each supplied two earth stations.  MCI was one,
and I do not know the name of the other.  My understanding is that
there are a total of eleven, the rest all coming from Alascom.
Alascom is also manning all the the stations, though the other two
companies also have technicians at their stations.

There may be other companies, stations or networks also operating, but
I have not heard anything to indicate so.

The transportable earth stations are basically two types, both have a
van for electronics, but different antennas are used.  Some units have
a trailer mounted five meter dish that is folded for transport.  This
particular unit can be moved rather easily, with a typical deployment
time of less than one hour.  It is equipped with its own generator for
AC power.  I am not familiar with the transport used for the other
type, the setup time, or the power equipment.  I understand the other
type all have seven meter dishes.

A relatively good indication of how the systems look and the service
provided is in the current issue of {Newsweek Magazine}.  The picture
of military personnel lined up for moral calls shows one of the units.
The electronics van is located to the left of the dish, and is mostly
obscured in the picture.  Inside the tent there are probably about 40
phones that tie directly to the US network.  From what I've heard the
picture shows a normal situation (a *very* long line).

At least one station is used purely for military communications.  That
particular one is filled with crypto gear, etc.  Others have as many
as 500 trunks using IAC (Integrated Access Communications) compressed
packet (5:1) T carrier equipment from AT&T.  (Normal configuration,
pre-Persian Gulf war, was either 24 or 48 channels of SCPC analog
carrier.)

The stations are located strategically in Saudi Arabia.  One of the
tech's was telling us weeks ago that he could see Iraqi installations
from his location.  As far as I know only one station was that close.
Tomorrow they may all be in Kuwait.

A few interesting things have happened during the operation of these
stations.  One bit of strange behavior took our technicians by
surprise: sun outages in Alaska are a twice annual occurrence for
several days in a row at about mid-day.  Sun outages for Saudi Arabia
were calculated and started shortly after the first stations were in
place.  But no one expected the outages to also happen just after
midnight, exactly twelve hours later too!  Here in Alaska we only
worry about the sun pointing at the dish, in Saudi Arabia it can hit
the antenna on the bird.

One anomaly that I can't explain was a technician who called the
Fairbanks testboard several times, over a week's time, asking us to
patch him to various places, all back into Saudia Arabia.  After this
happened a few times, I asked him why he was doing it.  The answer: he
got better connections calling through Fairbanks than any other way.
I have no explanation for why.  (Maybe he was getting too much sun...)

We also did have at least one soldier who had trouble dialing his
parents home phone.  This young man is from Alaska, and as a matter of
fact he grew up literally next door to ME.  When he heard there were a
bunch of Alaskans in his compound, he and some friends went to visit,
and of course the supervisor handed them a phone and said "Call home."
The rest of them did with no problem, but the Alaskan soldier couldn't
get his call to go through.  He was dialing it in exactly the same way
the others were, but that didn't work for an Alaska number.  The
supervisor told him to just think of it as a phone on a street corner
in Anchorage (in effect it was) and dial accordingly.  He did, and
then it worked.  (That is how it was described to me, by the
supervisor.  He didn't say why it didn't work, but I assume our PBX
trunks in Anchorage don't like area code 907).

It may also interest people to know that the first unit shipped is
commonly called "The Batmobile" and has seen previous duty during the
hurricane in Puerto Rico, during the invasion of Panama, and on an
island near Bligh Reef during the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska.  I
think they repainted it (camouflage?), but normally it looks like a TV
news van with company slogans all over it.  The other units are on
permanent lease to the military in Alaska, and hence are of course
painted white (camouflage!).


Floyd L. Davidson  |  [e-mail]   |  Alascom, Inc. pays me
Salcha, AK 99714   |    Univ. of Alaska      |  but not for opinions.

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

From: "Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges
Organization: Rabbit Software Corp.
Date: 28 Feb 91 16:57:07 GMT


Here in Bell of PA land, something VERY bad has started happening.
I'm trying to find out if this happens elsewhere, and more details on
the tariffs which apparently allow it to happen:

Using a COCOT (the only thing available at the time) in Phila. I
placed calls to a phone in Phila.  These calls were LOCAL calls.
Would have cost a quarter if I had the change and only stayed on a
minute.  However, I used my Bell of PA/AT&T Calling Card number
associated with my home phone number.  Later, in my home phone bill, I
found a page from some "carrier" which has the standard disclaimer
that

 "This portion of your bill is provided as a service to Integretel, Inc.
 Toll charges are computed based on the rate schedule of Integretel, Inc."

As would be expected, these rates were approximately 500% of the Bell
rates.  Instead of roughly .45, I was charged $2.95.

When speaking with Bell, Integretel was consistantly referred to as a
"carrier" meaning a long distance carrier.  When I protested that my
calls were WITHIN Phila., I was informed that any calling card calls
were classified as "long distance."

So, while COCOTS are required to tell you who the long distance calls
are handled by, I wasn't aware that a local credit card call was
considered long distance.  Furthermore, I don't know how I'd have
avoided the rip-off long distance company.  Could I have used 10ATT to
force AT&T long distance service on my Intra-LATA call?  How could I
have forced Bell of PA to handle the call?  Would 10BPA have worked?
There *IS* such a 10xxx code; it's normally only used to force BPA on
Phila./Southern Jersey calls in the specially tarriffed corridor.

Is this a common problem, or unique to PA?  How do we get it changed?
I *WAS* going to write to the PA PUC, but was told by Bell that the
PUC doesn't have jurisdiction on long distance calls (again, even
though this was really intra-LATA), and that I'd have to write to the
FCC.  Bleh.


Robert Oliver
Rabbit Software Corp.        215 993-1152
7 Great Valley Parkway East     [e-mail]
Malvern, PA  19355        ...!uunet!cbmvax!hutch!robert

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

From: Bill Vermillion <bilver![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Early Color Television
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 18:50:18 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]> bilver![e-mail]
> (Bill Vermillion) writes:

>> There were NO commercial video tape machines available before about
>> 1961.

> Two corrections:

> As for VTRs, Ampex rolled out its first machine at the NAB convention
> in 1953.  CBS bought the first for something in the neighborhood of
> $100,000.

They may have shown that early, but none were availaale until about
1960 on a commerical basis.

> Bing Crosby was a major force behind the invention because
> he hated doing his show live on the West Coast and having it sent on
> kine to the East.  I was recently digging through old copies of
> "Broadcasting" and came across an article describing how the first
> machines would work.  At the time this article was written, Ampex had
> not yet been chosen as the manufacturer.

Right man, Crosby, but the wrong machine.

Crosby was instrumental in the development of the first AUDIO tape
recorder.

He would broadcast a RADIO program for the east coast, and then re-do
it live for the west coast three hours later.  The 16" transcription
format was not up to his standards.  He funded a lot of research into
that market.  Memory is just a bit hazy here, but I seem to remember
the company was called "Crosby Associates".

There was an old Russian Inventor/Researcher named Alexander M.
Poiniatoff (sp?) who was working on the same thing.  He founded a
company that used the initials of his name A.M.P and added EX for
"Execellance" and called the company AMPEX.

I believe Crosby merged with them.

In those days the disk recorder manufacturers were also moving into
audio tape machines.  I have seen reel to reel machines from Presto
and RCA.  Scully came along much later.

I don't have to dig through old magazines for that stuff.  As a kid I
was fascinated by audio, having first heard my voice recorded on an
home disk recorder with paper based acetate discs in the mid-40s.  I
watched the equipment development and wanted a recorder of my own more
than anything.  I almost built a disk recorder using the GI home
mechanism and the schmatics in (what WAS it called) Radio-Television
Electronics (?)?

First tape recorder I got to use was an old Brush Sound-Mirror about
1950-51 in school.  Bought a wire rerorder with hard saved money in
1953.

Ampex's first commercially successful machine was the 200, and it was
almost the size of their first 2" vcr.  HUGE floor mounted console.


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

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

Date: WED, 27 FEB 91 23.41.47  EDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: FM Radio in the 1930's and More...
Organization: Marist College & IBM


Donald E. Kimberlin <[e-mail]>writes in TELECOM Digest
V11 #156:

> It was (retired) Major E. H. Armstrong (to whom
> we owe credit for the superheterodyne receiver that made broadcast
> radio really a practical medium for the general public) who in 1935
> aired the first broadcast FM transmissions in 1935, from a transmitter
> atop the Empire State Building to receivers in New Jersey. (Sorry,
> Chicago.) Both CBS at New York and Zenith at Chicago were early
> promoters of FM broadcasting.

And the Moderator asked:

> Was the station in New York on the air continuously on a regular
> schedule in the 1935 => 1941 period?  Zenith's claim was they were the
> first on the air with regularly scheduled, commercial programming on
> the FM band.

I now have the 1943 book on the development of radio and television in
front of me and it confirms that WEFM in Chicago in the autumn of 1941
was the first FM station with regularly scheduled programming.  By
January, 1942, there were twenty-nine in the United States.

Donald Kimberlin's article just about covers everything about the
early days of FM Radio.  A couple of side-notes.  Major Armstrong's
demonstra- tion of FM Radio took place from the Empire State Building
in December, 1933.  However, RCA decided to pursue their research in
television and they dropped their support of Armstrong's project.  The
impetus for FM Radio came five years later when Armstrong developed an
experimental FM transmitter not far from Boston, Massachusetts for the
Yankee Radio Network.  It permitted FM programming from Boston to be
relayed tothe 22 stations and affiliates of Yankee throughout the
Northeast.  That development produced a demand for FM radio sets and
encouraged Zenith to launch their FM station in Chicago.

Paging through the book, I discovered something that IMHO the news
services might have missed during General Electric's takeover of RCA
in 1988.  GE actually created RCA in 1919 when the federal government
urged GE to purchase the American branch of Marconi for national
security reasons.

In 1927 however, the FCC ordered GE to divest itself of RCA or else
face an antitrust suit from the Justice Department.  I believe the
courts never ruled on the antitrust implications of RCA being part of
GE, since such a ruling would have prohibited GE from making any offer
for RCA in 1988!  BTW GE's role in RCA was acknowledged by NBC in
their station ID ID chimes <G> <E> <C> (for General Electric Company).


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

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How to Hook up a Phone For a Play
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 1991 07:28:40 GMT


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

> The REAL issue is not the voltage applied but the ability of the
> source to provide current limiting.  10,000 volts at .00000001 ma is
> not dangerous (static electricity).  100V, 20HZ and 117V, 60 HZ are
> both deadly if they are not current limited.  The wall socket that
> provides the 117V certainly is NOT current limited (to any practical
> degree) without a device in series to accomplish that.  A suitable
> current limiting device would make 117V, 60 HZ suitable for use to
> ring the phone with little danger.

To a degree, the last sentence is correct.  It is no more dangerous
than 20Hz ringing current.  But...

>  The 88-100V, 20 HZ normally used
> to ring a phone on the network is current limited at the source AND by
> virtue of the loop resistance between the CO and the phone (typically
> 200 to 500 ohms or greater).  Standard telco ring voltage will give
> you a nasty surprise but is not (usually) dangerous because it IS
> current limited.

Don't believe it.

The current required to ding the ringer is enough to kill you dead.
Both from electrocution and by triggering a heart attack.

The current limiting is protection against damage to the physical
plant.  A direct short will not burn up the wires.

In the first article I posted on this subject I suggested current
limiting using a common 120vac lamp, and in email to the person who
requested information to begin with I provided exact details down to
the math to calculate maximum current for a given size of lamp.  And
enough detail and emphasis to convince anyone that it is NOT optional.

The one real safety feature of a normal 20Hz ring supply is that it is
interupted, which lets you loose if you get across it on your phone
line.  However, there were several suggestions to use a subcylce ring
generator, which are not necessarily interupted.  Likewise most of the
20Hz ring current which I am exposed to on private line circuits is
NOT interupted.


Floyd L. Davidson  |  [e-mail]   |  Alascom, Inc. pays me
Salcha, AK 99714   |    Univ. of Alaska      |  but not for opinions.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #169
******************************






DUE TO TRANSMISSION ERROR, THE NEXT SEVERAL ISSUES ARE FILED OUT OF
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

169,174,175,176,170,171,172,173,177,178,181,182,179,180,183,184
THEN, A SPECIAL MAILING FOLLOWS 184.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01342;
          3 Mar 91 16:47 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac23587;
          3 Mar 91 8:07 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad25765;
          3 Mar 91 7:00 CST
Date:     Sun, 3 Mar 91 6:17:05 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #174
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Mar 91 06:16:37 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 174

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges [John Higdon]
    Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart [Rolf Meier]
    Re: Early Color Television [Scott Dorsey]
    Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [Steve Pershing]
    Re: And You Thought COCOTs Were a Problem [Bob Yazz]
    Re: 1+206 Dialling Coming to Washington [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart [Paul Elliott]
    Re: Automatic DA Call Completion [John Nagle]
    Updates to the 800,900 and 10xxx Lists [Bill Huttig]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:53 GMT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges


"Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]> writes:

> As would be expected, these rates were approximately 500% of the Bell
> rates.  Instead of roughly .45, I was charged $2.95.

I have heard reports of this sort of thing from all over the country,
and have personally experienced it on a call from San Francisco to San
Jose (intraLATA--normally $0.65 on Pac*Bell calling card). After
getting a bill for nearly $4.00, I, too, complained bitterly to no
avail.

The only advice I can offer is: AVOID COCOTs. Consider the presence of
a COCOT to be the absence of a phone. If you are reading this, the
following conditions are probably true: 1. You know the difference
between a COCOT and a utility phone; 2. You can afford alternative
means, such as a handheld cellular phone; 3. You are literate enough
to write to your state's PUC equivalent and the FCC; and 4. You are
smart enough to remember where utility phones are when you really need
them.

I am pleased to report that utility phones are making a comeback in
California, in both public and semi-public settings. At a 7-Eleven not
far from my home, the two COCOTs were recently replaced by Pac*Bell
phones. This is a trend that has emerged hopefully because COCOTs have
been unprofitable. I am looking at COCOTs now to simply be a temporary
shortage of real pay telephones. Except for calls that I know will be
absolutely free, I NEVER use them.

> Could I have used 10ATT to force AT&T long distance service on my
> Intra-LATA call?  How could I have forced Bell of PA to handle the
> call?

In PA, I don't know. In CA, there is no way.

> There *IS* such a 10xxx code; it's normally only used to force BPA on
> Phila./Southern Jersey calls in the specially tarriffed corridor.

I have yet to see 10XXX work on ANY COCOT ANYWHERE. I would travel
within a 100 mile radius to see and try one. To my knowledge, they do
not exist -- at least in California.

> Is this a common problem, or unique to PA?  How do we get it changed?

It is a common problem. It will be changed when COCOTs disappear, or
start using coin-COS lines.

> I *WAS* going to write to the PA PUC, but was told by Bell that the
> PUC doesn't have jurisdiction on long distance calls (again, even
> though this was really intra-LATA), and that I'd have to write to the
> FCC.  Bleh.

All the AOS has to do is claim that they ship the call out of state
and back in and it becomes the FCC's problem. You should write the
FCC, if for no other reason than to complain that its regulations are
not worth the paperbacks they are printed in.

There are two points to remember about your specific problem. The
first is that COCOTs exist at all because of the MFJ and Federal
mandates (some states have successfully outlawed them). The second is
that Federal regulations prohibit the overcharging that you
experienced. Good luck.


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

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

From: Rolf Meier <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart
Date: 3 Mar 91 01:14:02 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

> Where would I look for a current chart/table/etc of EM spectrum
> allocations?

For the Canadian allocations, call 613-990-4842 and ask for "Radio
Spectrum Allocations in Canada".  This is a multi-colour 2'x3' chart
covering 3 kHz to 300 GHz.  The catalog number from the Ministry of
Supply and Services is Co22-33/1989. Also known as ISBN 0-662-56923-7.

Hopefully, someone can give the source of the U.S. allocations.  There
will be a lot of common allocation, though.


Rolf Meier    Mitel Corporation

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

From: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Early Color Television
Reply-To: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1991 00:44:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> bilver![e-mail]
(Bill Vermillion) writes:

>>> There were NO commercial video tape machines available before about
>>> 1961.

>> Two corrections:

>> As for VTRs, Ampex rolled out its first machine at the NAB convention
>> in 1953.  CBS bought the first for something in the neighborhood of
>> $100,000.

> They may have shown that early, but none were availaale until about
> 1960 on a commerical basis.

   This was the early Quad format VTR.  It was B&W only, and used 2"
instrumentation tape.  For more details on Ampex's development of the
format, take a look at the article on the history of magnetic
recording in {Broadcast Engineering} magazine (sometime late in '89).

   While Ampex did make a Quad machine in '53, and while it was very
popular among the networks for cross-country time delay, it was
extremely expensive.  The heads had to be replaced on a regular basis
and it ate up 2" instrumentation tape at an amazing rate.  If the tape
jammed (as it did quite frequently), a vapor cloud of oxide would
quickly appear around the head drum as the tape coating disintegrated.
Because of the price, it didn't appear in local stations that quickly.
The quality wasn't all that much better than the kinescopes that it
replaced, though it didn't require several hours of processing.  While
Ernie Kovacs showed that the tape could be edited, it was very
difficult to do, required frequent resplices, and made the format
almost impossible to use for program production.

   Basically, there were two types of programs.  Some were done live,
and others were produced on film for later broadcast through flying
spot scanners.  (Anybody else ever used a Rank Telecine out there?)
The programs produced on film didn't move over to video production
until the late sixties when good electronic editing became available
(if there can be such a thing).  The programs done live for
cross-country broadcast began using tape for delay in the later time
zones as soon as it became available.

   Very few programs are done live anymore.  This is more a change due
to creative evolution than technical developments.  Slickness is very
much valued in modern production.

   Actually, producing programs on film and then scanning them for
broadcast stayed on for a long time, because of the difficulty of
editing, and the fact that the film resolution was (and still is) much
better than videotape.  16mm Kodachrome has 12,500 lines of resolution
(equivalent to a TV image with 25,000 scanlines).  A lot of programs
are still created on film, though they are distributed on tape or over
network feed.

>> Bing Crosby was a major force behind the invention because
>> he hated doing his show live on the West Coast and having it sent on
>> kine to the East.  I was recently digging through old copies of
>> "Broadcasting" and came across an article describing how the first
>> machines would work.  At the time this article was written, Ampex had
>> not yet been chosen as the manufacturer.

> Right man, Crosby, but the wrong machine.
> Crosby was instrumental in the development of the first AUDIO tape
> recorder.

> In those days the disk recorder manufacturers were also moving into
> audio tape machines.  I have seen reel to reel machines from Presto
> and RCA.  Scully came along much later.

The Ampex 200 recorder became available in 1949.  A lot of folks
bought them.  Basically, once the idea of AC bias became known, it
became easy for anyone to build a pretty good recorder.  The Ampex 300
was introduced a year or two later; I still use an Ampex 350 (the
"portable" version of the 300) for recording.  The 300 really became
popular; there wasn't a radio station in the country that didn't buy
one, and many of them are still using them.  Scully, RCA, Presto
(ugh), etc. came out with their own machines, usually licensing the
Ampex and Rangertone patents.  They were all great improvements over
the awful transcription discs.

> First tape recorder I got to use was an old Brush Sound-Mirror about
> 1950-51 in school.  Bought a wire rerorder with hard saved money in
> 1953.

I have great pity upon you.   Did you ever get it to keep a constant speed?


scott

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

Subject: Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it
From: system administrator <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 02:18:43 GMT
Organization: Questor::Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC::+1 604 681.0670


[e-mail] (David Gast) writes:

> The arguments they make on TV about how CID will protect your privacy
> is just propaganda, designed by their marketing staffs to affect the
> biggest emotional appeal.  Do you really think they would sell service
> that will allow you block telemarketing calls?  Those people are some
> of their best customers.

They may well be "some of their best customers", but the "little
people" make up the bulk of the system, don't they?  If each of us
were to write to the appropriate regulators (public service commission
or equivalent), then our voices might just be heard.


Steve Pershing, System Administrator

The QUESTOR PROJECT - Free Usenet News/Internet Mail; Sci, Med, AIDS, more

Usenet:  [e-mail]      |  POST: 1027 Davie Street,  Box 486
Phones:  Voice/FAX:  [phone]  |        Vancouver, British Columbia
         Data/BBS:   [phone]  |        Canada  V6E 4L2

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: And You Thought COCOTs Were a Problem
Date: 3 Mar 91 02:42:32 GMT


[e-mail] (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

>  From L.M. BOYD's column, February 28 (sort of a strange facts column):

>   "History records that some of the world's first telephone booths
> were mistaken for elevators. Others for restrooms."

> [Moderator's Note: They are still used as public bathrooms here in
> Chicago :)     PAT]

If I might joke about junkies for a moment, I'll point out that
they're still used by some as elevators too.


Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: And, as New York Telephone indignantly pointed out
a couple years ago, they are *NOT* to be used as Confessionals. This
was right after the scandalous 'True Confessions' 900 line first
started operating, and the proprietor of same ran an advertisement of
a man kneeling in a phone booth, hands folded, looking up at the
phone in a meditative state. Anyway, would *you* want to kneel in front
of a filthy toilet?  :)   PAT]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1+206 Dialling Coming to Washington
Date: 3 Mar 91 00:17:53 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


In article <[e-mail]> hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook writes:

> My personal guess is that they will make King and Snohomish counties
> 206, and the rest of Western Washington something else, or they will
> draw an east-west line somewhere between Seattle and Tacoma, and
> divide it there.

    If they make King and Snohomish 206 and the rest something
else, an interesting situation would ensue - namely, there would be
two geographical pieces of something-else, and in order to get from
one to the other, you would have to drive thru 206 (or take a ferry
across the Sound). Remember, King and Snohomish both run east to the
current 206/509 boundary (does anyone know for sure whether the two
coincide - for example, aren't all the ski resorts at Snoqualmie
summit - including the ones in King County - in 509?).

    The east-west line would IMHO not be the best choice. No
matter where you draw the line between Seattle and Tacoma, most future
growth would be taking place north of the line.

    I can think of two other possibilities - one would be to draw
a line around Seattle, Tacoma, and possibly Olympia (with the line
running down the middle of Lake Washington - leave Mercer Island in
with Seattle). This would isolate the bulk of the existing subscriber
base from the suburbs, which is where most future growth will occur
(like it or not).

    The other would be to enlarge 509 (how much of its capacity is
being used?)


Jeff Carroll    [e-mail]

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

From: Paul Elliott x225 <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart
Date: 3 Mar 91 03:47:03 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Guy Hillyer)
writes:

> [e-mail] writes:

> > Where would I look for a current chart/table/etc of EM spectrum
> > allocations?

Here's another one:

"USA Frequency Allocations 10kHz to 4GHz"

This is a nice multi-color chart, about 15" x 37" from Motorola It
shows the allocations for these catagories:

Part 15
Standard Frequencies
Distress, Calling, Search & Rescue
Amateur Radio
Broadcasting
Fixed and Mobile Services
Military
Aeronautical Communication and Navigation
Maritime Communication and Navigation
Scientific & Space

Best yet, they have an (800) number on the chart!  Call Motorola
Semiconductor at 1-800-521-6274.  If you sound like you might someday
buy some components, they might send you one (I'm not sure though, I
got mine at a trade show).  *Don't* tell Motorola I sent you!


      Paul M. Elliott      Optilink Corporation     [phone]
            {uunet, pyramid, pixar, tekbspa}!optilink!elliott

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

From: John Nagle <decwrl!fernwood!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automatic DA Call Completion
Date: 3 Mar 91 00:12:33 GMT


[e-mail] (Ron Hood) writes:

> Automated Directory Assistance Call Completion (ADACC) is a new
> service that could potentially be offered by telephone companies
> whereby a caller to Directory Assistance could have their call placed
> automatically by the DA operator.  This differs from today's
> environment, where the number is read back to the DA caller (or sent
> via a voice announcement) who must then dial the number to place the
> call.  There would most likely be a fee associated with the automatic
> call completion.

      The fee discussed here in Pac Bell territory is $0.35, plus the
regular directory assistance charge, plus tolls in some circumstances.

      I've previously suggested in TELECOM Digest that phones be built
which have a voice recognition capability good enough to decode the
automated DA announcements.  Recognition of clear, separated numeric
digits against a quiet background is well within the capabilities of
existing low-end voice recognition systems.  I'd been thinking in
terms of desk phones with menu-based dialing, but the mobile
application makes more sense commercially.  And if you have to redial,
the local hardware approach eliminates the need for a second call to
directory assistance.

      Some equipment manufacturer should pick up on this.


John Nagle

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

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:25:51 GMT
From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Updates to the 800,900 and 10xxx Lists


You may send updates to the list to me [e-mail].


[Moderator's Note: Bill has already sent one update to the Archives.
The 10xxx file in the archives now has two versions; the original and
the updated one so you can compare the two and make changes in your
records as needed. I will also point out that Carl Moore has forwarded
an updated copy of 'areacode.guide' and 'areacode.script' to the
archives, as has Mr. Dupuy who wrote one of the original scripts for
us.  You might want to visit the Archives soon and review all of these
updated versions of files which have been there awhile.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #174
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01502;
          3 Mar 91 16:59 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07363;
          3 Mar 91 9:13 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ai23587;
          3 Mar 91 8:08 CST
Date:     Sun, 3 Mar 91 7:39:07 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #175
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Mar 91 07:39:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 175

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CarterFone Inventer Dies; Age 67 [TELECOM Moderator]
    Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business [Stephen Bulick]
    Who's Living in a Cave? [George L. Sicherman]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Mark Steiger]
    Can 50 Conductor Phone Cable be Used For LAN? [Jeff Sicherman]
    Calling an Out-of-Area 800 Number [David E. Wallace]
    Re: Equal Access / 800 NXX Assignments [Bill Cerny]
    Re: International 800 Numbers? [David Leibold]
    Re: International 800 Numbers? [Robert Michael Gutierrez]
    Re: Making a Telephone Ring for a Play [Sean Williams]
    An Old Instrument Develops Bell-Tap [Tom Perrine]
    LD Dialing Without the "1" (was Re: NXX Count ...) [Wally Kramer]
    Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy [Clive Feather]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 7:26:34 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: CarterFone Inventer Dies; Age 67


Thomas F. Carter, the enterpreneur who won a major landmark lawsuit
against AT&T is dead at age 67.

Mr. Carter died February 23 of lung cancer at Presbyterian Hospital in
Dallas, TX.

TELECOM Digest readers will no doubt recall that Tom Carter patented
the CarterFone in 1959, and as 'they' say, the rest is history. The
Carterfone was a device which connected telephones with two-way radio
systems. Although greatly improved upon over the past thirty years,
the Carterfone is still in use by many people.

Soon after his invention, AT&T threatened to discontinue service to
customers who used CarterFone, prompting Mr. Carter to sue Ma Bell. It
took several years to resolve, but in 1968 a federal judge ruled in
his favor, and the next year, MCI became the first private company to
hook its long-distance network into local phone service.

In fact, as just another Chicago-area bit of trivia, MCI's first links
were between Chicago and St. Louis. MCI finally was able to get IBT
and SWBT to agree to the connection after much negotiation. By about
1971, MCI had begun its first public offering, "Execunet".

Once his lawsuit had been settled, Mr. Carter went on to found the
North American Telecommunications Association in Washington, DC. He
also served as president of NATA.

He is survived by his wife, Helen; two daughters and four grandchildren.

Services were held in Mabank this past week. NATA is considering a
memorial service in the future to honor Thomas Carter.

Another era passes ....


PAT

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

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:13:49 GMT
From: Stephen Bulick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business


I read in the Business Section of the {New York Times} for 3/1/91 that
the FCC is allowing cable television companies to test what seems to
be a microcellular telephone system as a prelude for entry into the
local exchange carrier business. As soon as I saw the headline ("Cable
TV in Phone Challenge -- F.C.C. Allows Test Of Local Networks In a
Number of Cities") I wondered whether this meant that telcos would now
be able to argue more effectively for an entry into the cable TV
business. In fact, the article mentions this possibility without
drawing any conclusions.

This seems like an issue for discussion in this forum. I'd like to
start the thread and see what discussion ensues -- there are a lot of
thoughtful, well-informed posters in this forum. I can't wait to hear
what Donald E. Kimberlin has to say about this, for example. I always
read his stuff with great interest.


Steve Bulick    U S WEST Advanced Technologies   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun,  3 Mar 91 00:20:23 GMT
From: George L Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who's Living in a Cave?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In <[e-mail]>, Randy Borow writes:

> From buses to trains to airports to flyers to radio and TV ads --
> you name it, they advertised it. Fairly well, I might ad [sic]. ...
> ... The most frequent complaint about the area code split was: "Well,
> nobody ever told ME about it!"

> To which we all wanted so badly to respond: "Where the HELL have you
> been -- in a cave or something ...?!?" ...

Such arrogance reminds me of the vogon's response on the subject of
demolishing Earth:

   "There's no point in acting all surprised about it.  All the
   planning charts and demolition orders have been on display
   in your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty
   of your earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge
   any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making
   a fuss about it now."  (Doug Adams, _The Hitchhiker's Guide
   to the Galaxy_)

The authorities tend to assume that whenever and however they talk,
people will listen.  But to us who ignore TV, radio, newspaper and
magazine ads, and billboards because practically everything they say
is useless or deceiving, it's the others who are living in a cave --
the cave of the mass media, sometimes called the "Cave of the Winds."
We're out here in the real world, enjoying the company and the
scenery.

The Moderator's advice to telephone companies is sound.  Telling it to
the public is _not_ the same as telling to people!  For me, N.J.
Bell's NOTICE insert in my phone bill worked fine.  For others, the
company had better be prepared to talk, voice to voice.


G. L. Sichemman    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Steiger)
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Date: 3 Mar 91 02:36:15 GMT


In-Reply-To: message from [e-mail]

Up here, I know of two or three companies that are too stubborn to get
an 800 number and still have Zenith numbers.  Every now and then I
call them, and if I get a new operator, I have to explain to her what
I want done.  Training them in with the new and forgetting the old
stuff. :)


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

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

Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 02:04:54 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Can 50 Conductor Phone Cable be Used For LAN?


I would appreciate information on whether a 50-conductor phone cable,
presently serving a 1A2 system, would be appropriate for shared use as
the wiring of a LAN. Is one use likely to interfere with the other and
under what conditions (ringing affect LAN, LAN affect voice or modem
calls, etc.) and what could be done to eliminate or minimize these
effects. Performance limits on the LAN with such wiring are also of
interest.


Jeff Sicherman

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

Subject: Calling an Out-of-Area 800 Number
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 02:15:23 GMT
From: "David E. Wallace" <[e-mail]>


Is there any way to place a call to a limited-area 800 number from out
of that area at my own expense?  I have had two occasions when I
needed to call such a number and was unable to do so.  The operators I
spoke to were not particularly helpful.  On one occasion, I was able
to call someone who lived in the area in question and have her make
the call for me, but this is not a general solution.  Does anyone have
a better idea for future use?


Dave W.        ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: There is no legal (that is, per tariff authority)
way to do it. The people with limited service 800 numbers quite
frankly *do not want or appreciate* your call on their 800 line; that
is why they have it specifically limited.  What you are free to do is
look up their regular number and call them on that instead.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: Re: Equal Access / 800 NXX Assignments
Date: 3 Mar 91 00:41:39 GMT


Moderator's Note:

> Remember, AT&T had that service for many years before MCI came on the
> scene, and as a result, a very large (lion's share, really) arbitrary
> selection of codes assigned by themselves.  Following the breakup,
> AT&T kept the ones they had and took more as well.   PAT]

On January 1, 1984, AT&T was providing service on 182 800-NNX's.
Bellcore, which took control of the North American Numbering Plan
(NANP), attempted to "level the playing field" by placing 74 of AT&T's
NNX's in moratorium.  I learned this recently when a client requested
a particular number and was told, "Yes, this is an AT&T prefix, but we
can't give you a number with this prefix."

When AT&T's non-frozen prefixes are filled, Bellcore will begin
releasing frozen prefixes for assignment.  I'd like to see a summary
of new 800-NXX's in this Digest when Bellcore releases them.


Bill Cerny   [e-mail] | attmail: !denwa!bill

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

From: [e-mail] (woody)
Subject: Re: International 800 Numbers?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (woody)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:14:58 GMT


"International" 800 numbers just seem to be domestic toll-free numbers
that get call-forwarded to their international destination. Canada has
agreements with some countries for such service. However, each country
has its own toll-free system (North America 1-800, UK 0800, and the
Netherlands with 06-0/4). Numbering plan setups require different
numbers in different countries.

There was a posting in TELECOM Digest not too many months ago about
some noises that a CCITT study group was making so as to provide a
toll free country code so that a consistent dialing number may be had
through the overseas dialing system.

One flaw was that the proposed country code would be 800. While the
idea of patterning the country code after the common 800 code (North
America, UK), that in fact would be confusing for the existing
domestic 800 services. Anyone with connections with the CCITT should
push for a toll-free country code, but make it something other than
800 (like 991, which could see the 99X country codes used for special
purposes; an international 900/976-style service, anyone? ;-))


[e-mail] ... in April, watch for postings from Florida

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

From: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International 800 Numbers?
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 03:55:30 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center


[e-mail] (Hans Mulder) writes:

> Are you sure international 800 numbers exist today?  If so, why do
> televised ads aiming at an international audience contain those
> screens full of national 800 numbers, when a single international 800
> number would do the job?

True international 800 numbers don't exist, unfortunately.  Wasn't
CCITT working on a dialling plan to institute an international 800
system???

Consequently, here at NASA/NSI Network Ops, we have to have seven
national 800 numbers (USA, France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands,
Switzerland and the U.K.), with seven different numbers to deal with,
depending on where on this planet you are.

> For what it's worth, auto-reverse charge numbers in the Netherlands
> start with 06-0 or 06-4.

That's right.  Our Netherlands number starts as 06-022-XXXX.


Robert Gutierrez - NASA Science Internet Network Operations.
           Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.


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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, Mar 3 00:34:40 GMT 1991
Subject: Re: Making a Telephone Ring for a Play


We have been talking for weeks in the Digest now about how to make a
telephone ring on cue for a play.  Well, I was at school today and
decided to do some research on the topic.

I looked in the "Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature", Volume 49, 1989,
and found the following reference:

 |    "Making a Telephone Ring [theater special effect]" K. Ruling  il
 |    _Theatre_Crafts_  23:92+  Ap'89

Which means that in _Theatre_Crafts_ magazine, April '89, on page 92,
there is an article by K. Ruling.  And it includes illustrations, too!

My school library doesn't subscribe to _Theatre_Crafts_, so I couldn't
look up the article.


Sean E. Williams                        | attmail.com!seanwilliams
333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227        | [e-mail]
Duncannon, PA 17020-0227  USA           | voicemail: [phone]

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

From: Tom Perrine <tots!tots.Logicon.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: An Old Instrument Develops Bell-Tap
Date: 3 Mar 91 00:45:16 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barton F.
Bruce) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 167, Message 1 of 11

> The traditional ringer IS sensitive to the polarity of pulses!  Aside
> from adjusting the bias spring, the 'proper' cure for BELL-TAP
> (tinkeling as a rotary extension or other party dials or even just
> goes on/off hook) is to have the phone's two wires connected properly
> to TIP and RING.

> There may be a bias spring that can be hooked to a stiffer notch that
> will help.

I am asking this question because the original article meseems to be
talking about TT phones and their ringers.

My father-in-law has a real Bell rotary phone that was installed in
1960.  It has, of course never been serviced. In the last ten years or
so, it has developed what sounds like bell-tap; when you dial, the
ringer makes one "ding" for every pulse in the number.  When an
extension was added (by TPC), we discovered that dialing the extension
(a cordless, set to pulse-dial) also causes the original phone to
"ding".

Is this "bell-tap"? Is it a matter of reversing the polarity on the
pair, or is it due to wear in the electro-mechanical ringer? After
thirty years, I would assume that it could be a *little* out of
adjustment :-).

Inquiring minds want to know!


Tom Perrine (tep)        |Internet: [e-mail]
Logicon - T&TSD          | UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep
P.O. Box 85158           |GENIE: T.PERRINE
San Diego CA 92138       |Voice: [phone]
                         |  FAX: [phone]

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

From: Wally Kramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: LD Dialing Without the "1" (was Re: NXX Count ...)
Date: 3 Mar 91 00:02:50 GMT
Reply-To: Wally Kramer <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR


[e-mail] (Steve Watt) writes:

> On a somewhat related note, I'm curious ... how many area codes are
> there out there (like PacBell territory in 408) that don't require a
> 1+ for *any* call, local, long-distance, or otherwise?

Northern New Jersey 201-XXX didn't when I was there in 1982.
Particularly annoying as I was unfamiliar with the area and with
little money, so I would have really liked having to dial a 1 to
protect me from accidental spending.  This is probably the
intent -- after all, Bell 'owns' New Jersey.


Wally Kramer    contracted from Step Technology, Portland, Oregon 503 244 1239
[e-mail]        [phone]

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

From: Clive Feather <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 0:30:20 GMT


In v11i160m3, John Higdon, talking about stored value cards, says:

> For the plan to work, there would have to be one card
> that would work in any card phone nationwide. With the zillion COCOT
> owners, not to mention many different local utility coin phones, the
> prospects for a universal system are slim.

In the UK, we have two major telephone companies: BT (the former
government telephone system) and Mercury. Both provide public
payphones.  Each produce a stored value card, and have phones that
take them.  Neither will accept the other's card.

For information, the BT card holds 10p units, and whole units are
always used at a time (they are literally burnt out of the card when
used). The Mercury card deducts 1p at a time, with a minimum call cost
of 5p.  (I posted a list of BT charges a while ago; I don't have
Mercury charges to hand).

A Mercury phone will not accept 144 (the access number for BT credit
card calls).


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
(USA: 1 800 XDESK 57)  | United Kingdom

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #175
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01710;
          3 Mar 91 17:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25160;
          3 Mar 91 10:19 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id al07363;
          3 Mar 91 9:15 CST
Date:     Sun, 3 Mar 91 9:05:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #176
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Mar 91 09:05:18 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 176

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell [TELECOM Moderator]
    Digital Phones for SLIP Circuits [Everett .F Batey]
    Re: InterLATA Call Forwarding [Steven S. Brac]
    Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line? [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Where Do You Live? In a Cave? [Andy Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 8:04:55 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell


Illinois Bell will open its switching offices to non-Bell competitors
in a move expected to enhance competition in the arena of local
telephone service in Chicago and improve the reliability of telephone
networks that specialize in high speed data transfers.

The new policy, effective April 7 pending final approval by the
Illinois Commerce Commission, will allow Teleport Communications and
Metropolitan Fiber Systems to interconnect their systems with Illinois
Bell.  Teleport and Metropolitan Fiber are waiting now for approval,
but other competitors may be on the way.

The tariff filed by IBT this past week would allow rival companies to
resell Illinois Bell services to customers. By allowing this, Teleport
and Metropolitan Fiber will both be able to offer packages that would
otherwise be uneconomical.

For the time being, the competitors will limit their offerings to
business services, particularly in the area of high speed data
transfers.

The agreement grew out of negotiations between IBT and Teleport, which
had filed a suit with the Illinois Commerce Commission over IBT's
earlier reluctance to allow interconnection.

According to Scott Bonney, director of regulatory affairs at Teleport,
" ... a lot of telephone companies say they favor increased local
competition, but it is mostly just lip service. With Illinois Bell
though, the situation is different. Illinois Bell has always been a
very enlightened organization; we feel they will be fair in dealing
with market rivals."

James Smith, director of regulatory affairs for Illinois Bell
confirmed that the company will install and maintain switching
equipment in its offices that meets the specifications of its
competitors, most notably Teleport and Metropolitan Fiber. He would
not commit to a specific start-up date but said 'later this spring' a
routine will be in place for handling interconnect requests.

Bonney also said that interconnection will increase the already wide
diversity of telecom services in northern Illinois. "In a big way,
interconnection will improve survivability of the communications
infrastructure for Chicago," he noted.

What other communities and/or local telcos are entertaining the idea
of competition in local exchange service?  What others are actually
implementing it at this time as is Illinois Bell?


PAT

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

From: Everett F Batey <elroy!suned1![e-mail]>
Subject: Digital Phones for SLIP Circuits
Date: 3 Mar 91 00:07:46 GMT
Reply-To: Everett F Batey II <elroy!suned1![e-mail]>
Organization: NSWSES 4A05, Port Hueneme, CA 93043 - Opinions: Mine Alone


Confronted with an urgent need to run SLIP between two Sun3s (OS 4.1
and 4.1.1) and some easy to comeby telephone assets AND NO money for
modems, we are trying to pick the most trustworthy and easy to
accomplish SLIP link.  Sites are within three miles, wire, 1/2 mile
crow flight.

- We have Meridian phones for which we can get 9600 baud RS-232
interfaces.  DOES ANYBODY know if with handshaking and async over
digitized phone line, these data phone options WORK SUCCESSFULLY for
this purpose?

- We have access to a four wire metallic circuit, not conditioned.  Is
there an economical, recent or old, technology four wire modem YOU USE
to support 9600 baud SLIP ?

- We have some available Telebit modems, no two alike and NO T2500.  I
don't think any are the newer of V32/V42, which ever that is.  The
last neighbor we knew using these with a 200 mile dialup phone path
spent lots of time restarting the circuit.  Is there a good way to use
these locally over an analog delivered voice grade phone line ?

- How would YOU rate from YOUR PERSONAL experience these options, for
cost effectiveness and ease ( idiot-proof-ness ) of installation ?

- Remember in answering these questions, the right answer leads to the
most efficient use of tax dollars.  Thanks /Ev/


 [e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail]
 [e-mail]   WA6CRE    Gold Coast Sun Users   Vta-SB-SLO DECUS  gnu
 Opinions, MINE, NOT Uncle Sam_s | b-news postmaster xntp dns  WAFFLE

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

From: "Steven S. Brack" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: InterLATA Call Forwarding
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:40:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:

=> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve
=> Shimatzki) writes:

=>> Would it be possible to use Call Forwarding, to call long distance, and
=>> not pay for it?

   ... Describes method of hopping from one phone to another ...

=> [Moderator's Note: You mention your uncle is saving a little money
=> each month from this arrangement. Have the savings yet been sufficient
=> to amoritze, or pay for the initial installation cost of the line
=> being permanently forwarded and for the monthly charge for the phone
=> sitting there doing nothing but forwarding calls?  PAT]

To amplify: He saves very little money, before extra charges for the
extra line and call forwarding.  But, the way he sees it, it has paid
fore itself by preventing lost business.  People are very averse to
paying even minor tolls, a fact which cost my uncle some business
before he got the other line.  So, if it weren't for his special
situation, Call Forwarding would not make good economic sense.


Steven S. Brack  [e-mail]
[e-mail] (Avoid sending here, if possible)

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Should Projects be Connected to the Phone Line?
Date: 3 Mar 91 11:11:56 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> Macy Hallock <fmsys![e-mail]> writes:

>> Somewhere in my basement I have a couple of KS-20721s

> A final note: to its credit, the CPUC eventually ordered Pac*Bell to
> refund ALL money EVER paid by customers for "network protection"
> devices. This included installation and montly charges plus interest.

The really neat part of this was that they still took orders for these
devices (we always called them "couplers") after they announced that
anyone could get this refund for the asking.

Knowing this, I ordered a ton of RDMZR (KS-20721) and RDL (KS-19522)
couplers.  A few months later I called for my refund.  And sure
enough, a check arrived covering all costs plus 7% simple interest.
And because, as John described, there was a lot of equipment in the
field that required that the coupler be there, Pacific Telephone let
you keep the device in place.

My friends and I used the RDMZR for multi-line conferencing (we just
tied the audio pairs together and used the control leads for various
control functions).  But I always liked the RDL.  I have always liked
to fiddle with phones and electronics, but I have also always been a
bit lazy.  Why design my own telephone interface circuit when the RDL
will do it all for you.  It signals you that the line is ringing, you
tell it when to answer.  It then allows outgoing audio.  When you are
done with your outgoing announcement, you short a pair of wires and
the RDL automatically provides a beep tone, reverses the direction of
audio, and throws a relay to stop your outgoing tape and start your
incoming tape.

Despite what John Higdon says about audio loss, I still say that the
answering machines I built with RDLs sounded better than most
commercial machines on the market today (and definitely better than
voice mail [which I now use]).

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy
Date: 3 Mar 91 11:40:08 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


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

> If you stop to think about it, why have there
> been no attempts to establish a stored value card system for public
> telephones? They are found in a number of other countries, including
> Japan. Most Americans that I talked to there liked the system and used
> it. I do not believe that it would be rejected by the American public.

I must admit that I find the public telephone debit cards to be
convenient, and for tourists and other transients they are great.  But
I disagree that America should try to emulate them.

First of all, I have problems with the whole idea of stored-value
cards.  The fraud potential is way too high when you leave the balance
in the hands of the consumer.  I even saw a TV program here in Japan
about a year ago that showed exactly how to beat the system.

Telephone cards have been extremely successful here, but I would say
that other stored-value cards have not.  There are now cards for
several of the convenience stores (7-11, etc.), department stores, and
even cards that work only in Coke machines.  I don't think I have ever
seen anyone using any of the other cards.

Telephone cards worked because telephones only take one or two types
of coins, no bills, one must continually dump coins in while one
talks, and they don't make change.  Having a telephone card prevents
this hassle.

Why would one want to have a 7-11 card?  7-11 stores take any coin,
any bill, and they give change.  And the whole idea of having to carry
around a different card for each store or vending machines starts to
undermine the idea of a universally accepted currency.  I heard a
while back of an effort to create a card that would be accepted by a
variety of merchants.  They talked of the problem of how to disperse
the payments.  I have not heard any mention of this plan since.

In the U.S. we already have such a system.  It's called the banking
system.  Even if we exclude cash and credit cards, one can pay with a
check (bank draft) or one can pay with one's ATM card.  Japan would do
better to allow the use of ATM cards as has been done in the U.S.  The
system is in place and would work, but probably only after 24-hour ATM
operation was established (ATMs in Japan close at 7 PM and only
recently started operation on Sundays) because the system must always
be on line.

And of course, your bank account balance isn't stored on your ATM card.

Which brings us back to the call for such a stored-value card system
for use on U.S. phones.  Just like the above, I would say that we
already have a better system in place; credit cards and calling cards.

Stored-value telephone cards are also popular because using one costs
no more than using cash.  I call on U.S. telephone and long distance
companies to eliminate calling card and credit card surcharges.
Almost everyone has a credit card or has (or can get) a calling card.
I would never put cash in a phone again if there were no surcharge to
use my calling card.

There is no reason to start a whole new currency when we have a far
superior system already in place.  It just needs to be properly
implemented.


Jim Gottlieb    Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan
E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
Fax: [phone]   Voice Mail: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: It is a little-known fact that 60-75 years ago,
there was an unusual way of handling pay phone calls: the merchant
slug, which you purchased from the clerk in the store for use in the
pay stations ONLY in that store.  If a store was part of a chain, then
the telephone slug would work in any of the payphones in any branch of
the store, but never in the payphone of a competing store.

The Walgreen's Drug Store chain started here in Chicago. In 1920, they
had about a dozen outlets here, all of which had convenient payphones
for public use. The telephones would not work on coins, and had to
have slugs puchased from the Walgreen's cashiers. Local payphone calls
were five cents each, which was the value of the individual slug; but
you could buy a packet of ten slugs for 45 cents, and use them for any
combination of local or long distance calls.  Both Sears, Roebuck and
Montgomery Ward, two large chains with their roots here also used the
slug-style payphones, and their phones would not accept Walgreen
slugs.  Neither would Walgreens accept slugs from Sear, Wards or the
Boston Store.  Most merchants discounted the slugs, selling a packet
for 45 cents. Some sold them for 44 cents, etc.

The payoff to the telco (Chicago Telephone Company in those days, the
predecessor of Illinois Bell, which came along in the middle twenties)
came when the collector came to empty the coin boxes. He would empty
the box and take all the slugs back to the cashier. The cashier paid
four cents each for them, meaning a one cent profit or commission per
payphone call, or nine-and-a-half / ten cents profit per ten calls,
depending on if the merchant chose to sell several at a slight
discount. The idea was if you needed to make a phone call and only had
Walgreen slugs you had to go to Walgreen's to make the call, and while
you were there you might as well do some shopping, etc.  The same
slugs kept circulating over and over, the customer buying them; using
them and the telco selling them back to the cashier for re-use.  They
finally quit using slugs sometime around 1930.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 06:50 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Where Do You Live? In a Cave?


The new GTE phone books just came out on the westside of L.A. This is
that wonderful part of town that will be switched entirely to NPA 310
on November 2 of this year. The phone book will be current to March of
next year.

The entirety of what GTE says about the new area code is limited to a
tiny note on the bottom right of the cover of the book, saying only
"Introducing new area codes 310 and 510 -- see information pages", and
one page, after the civic, first aid, and earthquake info at the very
end of the information pages that preface the book. This page is
separate from all other telco related stuff, and is so vague, it
doesn't even mention when permissive dialing ends for this area. It
appears to be a poor rip off of the page in the PacBell directories in
this state, but with GTE's usual less information. The only other
reference I could find is the 310 region on the countrywide LD map,
but not on the state map, which says in bold letters "YOUR AREA CODE
IS 213**", the asteriks refering to a tiny note at the bottom of the
page about 310.  Otherwise the phonebook says nothing, and has 213
this and that all over it. There is no mention of any changes in the
material about calling zones and rates, even the list of all prefixes
in the area code makes no mention of any changes.

Randy Borow writes:

> Well, when the permissive dialing was stopped on Feb. 9th last year
> and the 708/312 codes became mandatory, IBT had to open several
> operator services centers which were normally closed at the time just
> to handle the flood of calls.

So far there has been no publicity whatsoever. The only info available
to the public was a newspaper article a while back. If their phone
book is any indication of what they will do, GTE will be in big
trouble. Period.


Andy Jacobson<[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #176
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02980;
          3 Mar 91 18:23 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07329;
          3 Mar 91 3:41 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31078;
          3 Mar 91 2:31 CST
Date:     Sun, 3 Mar 91 2:00:30 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #170
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Mar 91 02:00:27 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 170

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card [Bill Huttig]
    Are Surcharges Legal on 800 Calls? [Pankaj Mayor]
    Data Switch Needed [Mark Steiger]
    Re: PacTel Long Range Cordless [Mark Steiger]
    MCI Preferred Customers [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments [Leonard P. Levine]
    Are Cellular Phones Treated Differently Than Normal Phones? [Mark Poulson]
    California Tariff Question [Linc Madison]
    Re: In A Corner of Our Bedroom [[e-mail]]
    Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom [John A. Weeks III]
    Re: Good News: Allied Lives [Thomas D. Graham]
    Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? [Robert Freimer]
    Airphones and TDD? [Curtis E. Reid]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:1:09:40GMT
From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


What I understand about the various long distance companies would lead
me to believe that 950/800 access is different from 10xxx.  950/800
calls require you to have an account with that long distance company
and have one of their calling cards.  10xxx calls can be billed to the
telephone you are calling from.

Therefore most LD Companies need both 950/800 and 10xxx. In the case
of AT&T it would be the same calling card since the BOC data base is
shared with AT&T (When you ask for an AT&T card they ask the BOC for
the number).  I don't know why the other companies can't check their
calling card data bases like AT&T checks their Universal Card database.

When 10xxx started here you had to use the card from that company.
They could say something like press 1 to use you Local Phone Company
Calling Card press 2 to use your MCI Card or whatever.

Now the problem with the Call Me card is that some LD companies other
then AT&T do not check the type of card and will accept it for any
call.  The good thing about 800 personal service is that it is
available from phones were there is blocking of 950 and 10xxx dialing.
There is no need to have touch tone (If you don't have tone you would
have to read you card number to the operator and people could overhear
you).


[Moderator's Note: Actually, with 10xxx service, neither 800 or 950 is
required. After the 10xxx of choice is entered, you can then dial
using 1+ or 0+. Everything 950/800 can do, 10xxx can do better. In
addition, 10xxx allows billing to the phone being used, something you
do not get with 950/800.  The main reason these guys do not want to
have 10xxx available is because (a) some people would actually use
AT&T thus depriving the phone operator of a commission structure they
like better than what AT&T will pay, and (b) they would have to
program their switches to disallow 'sent-paid' calls over AT&T (if
that was their choice) while still allowing 'sent-paid' on the carrier
they did want to use. I'd say that's their problem. 10xxx is the
method preferred by AT&T.  PAT]

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

Subject: Are Surcharges Legal on 800 Calls?
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 02:53:25 GMT
From: Pankaj Mayor <[e-mail]>


I was placing a call from a pay phone the other day and noticed that
it had no identifying phone number.  It also charged $0.50 for 1-800
calls.

So I called up the operator (I think from Payline communications) and
complained to her.  She told me that it was legal for privately owned
pay phones to charge for 1-800 calls. Was she right?


Pankaj


[Moderator's Note: If such charges are legal, they should be billed to
the recipient of the 800 call. That person has, after all, agreed to
pay the charges associated with connecting the caller to him.  I
really do not think they are legal however, but I'm not sure.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Steiger)
Subject: Data Switch Needed
Date: 3 Mar 91 03:56:09 GMT


Is there something that works like an auto fax switch for Data lines?
And I don't want one that uses custom ringing.  Not available up here.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Steiger)
Subject: Re: PacTel Long Range Cordless
Date: 3 Mar 91 03:56:07 GMT


In-Reply-To: message from [e-mail]

Talking about long range phones, a company in Canada was offering a
phone with the range of 200 Kilometers.  I saw that ad about a year
ago.  It said it hadn't been approved by the US FCC, so wasn't
available.

Was this the forerunner (or the reason of installation) of cellular in
Canada?


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

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Preferred Customers
Date: 28 Feb 91 02:53:09 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I just got off the phone with a confused MCI rep. She said that there
was/is an MCI product/promotion where certain customers get $3 checks
and then they will get 10% off of calls to one certain number.  The
customers are chosen by the computer. Maybe this promo was a test for
the March 18 product.

Most of the MCI services reps are under the impression that the March
18th product is brand new. Maybe the person who thinks it is a VPN is
correct.  It would be nice.

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments
Date: 3 Mar 91 03:24:43 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Many of us do not know that the cost of mailing a nine-digit bar coded
envelope that has the five virtical stripes is $0.27, not $0.29.  The
nine digit code decreases postal cost, the window save sorting and
searching and you save $0.02.

Maybe someone will post this someday where various people can see it.

By the way, there is at least one program available (for the PC) that
will permit the appropriate bar codes to be printed on an envelope by
a laser printer as a part of the addressing mode.

Program costs $50, savings $0.02; so you have to use it 2500 times to
make it pay off.


| Leonard P. Levine                    e-mail [e-mail] |
| Professor, Computer Science             Office [phone] |
| University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee       Home   [phone] |
| Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A.              FAX    [phone] |


[Moderator's Note: The thing you overlooked was the *minimum pieces
per mailing* requirement to get the 27 cent rate. You must mail (I
think) 500 pieces or more at a time. The mail has to be taken already
sorted by zip code to the post office. You cannot just drop it in a
mailbox. I think the postage has to be affixed by meter rather than
postage stamp. There are a lot of catches; essentially only very large
mailers (this includes telco's outbound mail) are eligible to get the
27 cent rate or find it worth their time.  PAT]

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

From: Mark R Poulson <![e-mail]>
Subject: Are Cellular Phones Treated Differently Than Normal Phones?
Date: 3 Mar 91 01:31:05 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA


The Caller*ID debates have seemed to spread to many newsgroups and I
have come realize many of the issues people are worried about. Some
seem to worry that calling from a phone that is not (or cannot be)
blocked will give people their number. If you were using a cellular
phone, would Caller*ID still provide your number? Are there any
residence addresses associated with a cellular phone (i.e. the address
of the owner or business, or can it be NONE)?

I haven't seen much on cellular phones in this group so I hope this
isn't a redundant question. Thanks!

        Mark @
        ...uw-beaver!ssc-vax!simnet


[Moderator's Note: CNA in Chicago returns 'cellular phone, no other
information available' in response to queries on cell numbers. They
tend not to give any information that Caller*ID can use either.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 03:14:07 GMT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: California Tariff Question


I just got my phone bill, and I'm rather upset about some of the
charges, but, before I go fuming to Pac*Bell about it, I wanted to see
if maybe they managed to sneak a new tariff by me without my noticing.
Specifically, the charges relate to some calling card calls made in
ZUM Zone 2 (Zone Usage Measurement; Zone 2 is 8-12 miles).

After some mathematical dissection, I've figured out the charges as
shown below:


Item                    published tariff       actual charge
====                    ================       =============
Calling card surcharge      $0.40                  $0.60
First minute (daytime)       0.17                   0.08
Additional minutes (day)     0.07                   0.02

These calls were made from a Pac*Bell payphone within my LATA,
specifically from San Francisco Central Zone to Berkeley.  Gee -- some
of the charges are only inflated 50%, while others get inflated a
whole 250%.  I wonder why they didn't just charge me $50 and claim
they've been taken over by an AOS company....

If anyone has any info on any recent tariffs (say, last seven months
or so) involving calling card surcharges or zone charges, please
e-mail me.

I placed these calls on my calling card because when I attempted
to make them sent-paid, the computer quoted me an incorrect rate (75c
for the first three minutes, when the tariffed rate is .25 + .08 +
2x.02 = .37, round down to .35).  However, it isn't just a single
glitch in the rate tables, because the calling card surcharge also
appears in some calls from Santa Cruz to Oakland and Berkeley.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: In A Corner of Our Bedroom
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 01:06:23 GMT


John Temples <jwt![e-mail]> responded to a posting of mine
that mentioned the fact that there is a demarc in my bedroom
crawlspace with 25 lines, including the lines for the other units in
my townhouse.  He wondered what would happen if someone else wanted
service on their line while I was out of town or otherwise unavailable
to let Telco in to do the work.  I wonder about it too.  I sure didn`t
know about this when I bought the place.  Fortunately for me, no one
seems to be adding to their phone lines around here as I have not been
bothered (knock on wood :-) ) in the two years that I have lived here.

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

From: "John A. Weeks III" <newave![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: In a Corner of our Bedroom
Date: 3 Mar 91 03:57:33 GMT
Reply-To: "John A. Weeks III" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Eden Prairie, MN


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

> Amazingly enough, *ALL* the demarcs for the building are in MY bedroom.

Do you like making free long distance phone calls?  Or how about
making crank calls to 911?  Being a total paranoid, I could never
tolerate having my phone wires available to someone else.  Do your
neighbors know about this?


John A. Weeks III               [phone]               [e-mail]
NeWave Communications                 ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john


[Moderator's Note: You had better start tolerating having your phone
wires available to everyone else ... if most people knew how phone
pairs are multipled a bunch of places along the cable run, they would
revolt. All you have in his case is *easier* access to the pairs in a
relatively private setting. But believe me you, between you and the CO
your pair shows up in a few basements along the way or on a few poles.
In the building where I used to live, the big inside terminal block
had oh, maybe three hundred pairs. The building used less than a
hundred of them. The apartment building across the street also had a
box where all of ours came up, etc.

What happened was both apartment buildings used to have switchboard
service for the tenants years before.  Each switchboard had maybe a
dozen trunks. When the owners of the building got tired of having to
hire desk clerks to run the boards, they had the board pulled out.
Telco had to somehow find pairs in the cable for each apartment (to
have its own phone line).  The results were sometimes pretty weird. My
case was not unique. In all older urban areas with (older) high rise
apartment buildings the buildings used to have cord/plug type
switchboard service. Maybe five percent of the switchboards are still
around; the rest are gone with the apartments wired straight through
to the CO, multipled to beat the band up and down the street with
every other apartment high-rise in parallel on the cable run. See my
article in the Archives 'find.pair' for more details.  PAT]

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

From: "Thomas D. Graham" <arcturus![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Good News: Allied Lives
Organization: Rockwell International
Date: Sun,  3 Mar 91 01:13:56 GMT


Goodnews - Allied lives!!!  Well, I'm not sure, have you done business
with them yet???  I re-discovered them about two years ago.  They have
an impressive catalog and you call in orders regionally.  That was my
first obstacle, they had to assign an account rep to me; great for my
$20 worth of business???  Then, they would tell me that an item was in
stock, I'd order it, but wouldn't get it, they explained that they're
local terminal was not always current with the Chicago warehouse.  So,
the item is back-ordered and when I get it they have charged again for
shippping and minimum order charge, about $9 for a $2 item that they
had left out of my original order.  I now go to them as last choice.
I've had nothing but good vibes with DigiKey.  Your mileage may vary.

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Freimer)
Subject: Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier?
Date: 3 Mar 91 00:09:48 GMT
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept. Ithaca NY


Yes, RCI is Rochester Telephone's long distance subsidiary.  I have
been using them for over a year, since they have much better
intrastate rates for NY.  They have an all digital network from
Chicago to NYC and Boston.

Rochester Telephone set itself up as a mini AT&T, but never had to
divest.  Besides long distance, they provide local service, and also
sell equipment.


Robert Freimer

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

Date: 3 Mar 91 09:33 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Airphones and TDD?


A thought struck me as I was reading the thread on Airphones mentioned
in several Digests ago.

Someone mentioned that you can't use cellular phone or radio while
airborne, right?  What about use of other electronic equipment like a
laptop, GameBoy (Yes, I do play it!), or a TDD?

I will be flying transcontinental soon ... I am curious whether the
TDD would work if I make a call from the Airphone?  I don't know about
the sound quality (static)?

Before I do this, I need to know if any electronic equipment is
prohibited on an airplane while airborne?  Could someone tell me
excatly what are the rules for operating such equipment on an
airplane?  Thanks!!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #170
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03029;
          3 Mar 91 18:25 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01940;
          3 Mar 91 4:46 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07329;
          3 Mar 91 3:41 CST
Date:     Sun, 3 Mar 91 3:14:55 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #171
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Mar 91 03:14:43 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 171

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Call-Forwarding Across the Nation [Scott Hinckley]
    AT&T Ready to Hook Up Again [Tom Coradeschi]
    Re: Armstrong and Ma Bell [Bert Cowlan]
    Re: "Most Accurate Clock" [Kerry G. Forschler]
    Getting Account/Billing Information by Phone [Rich Zellich]
    MCI Preferred 800 Details [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History [Alan Barclay]
    Microwave / Optical Links for Audio [Eric Weaver]
    Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? [Tad Cook]
    Re: GTE and Pac Tel Cellular in Los Angeles [Brent Chapman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 03:49:31 GMT
From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call-Forwarding Across the Nation


>Would it be possible to use Call Forwarding, to call long distance, and
>not pay for it?  Heres the Scenario: I call a friend who is right
>between me and an area that is LD for me. His number then forwards
>to another number, but into the LD area. Do I get the local call, or

>[Moderator's Note: Addressing #2, each phone line only is billed for
>what it dials. Therefore you would pay for a call to your friend in
   ...
>somewhere around 12 cents a minute on Reach Out ... how many local
>connections linked together with chain-forwarding would it require to
>cover the same distance, and how many local calls in the path would
>cost five or ten cents each?  And who would pay the intermediate

This may be a completely mute pont anyway. At least in Atlanta (in
1988) you could not re-call-forward a call-forwarded call. The
call-forwarded call to a call-forwarded number would result in a
normal ring, rather than a re-forward. This may be to stop such plans.


Scott Hinckley
Internet:[e-mail]|UUCP:.!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!huntsai!scott
DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not|[phone]
represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management|  BTN:461-2073


[Moderator's Note: We used to have some prefixes like that here. A
call forwarded to a number would ring on that number regardless of
where the call-forwardee was forwarded to. But now the only time that
happens is if there is a loop: A forwards to B and B forwards to A.
The incoming call enters the loop at either end and stops after the
first hop. Otherwise, chain forwarding works okay here, but the first
time it hits a loop, or a number already in the chain, that is it.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun,  3 Mar 91 00:44:00 GMT
From: Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Ready to Hook Up Again


 That was the headline above a short blurb in today's (28 Feb 91)
Newark, NJ {Star-Ledger}. The story read:

   America Telephone & Telegraph will re-establish long-distance
telephone service with Kuwait by the weekend, the company said
yesterday.

   In cooperation with the Kuwait Ministry of Communications, AT&T
will be setting up long-distance equipment for the first time since
the Iraqi invasion in August.

   A spokesman for the communications giant said it was moving a
portable satellite earth station and electronics equipment from Saudi
Arabia to Kuwait City and expected it to be installed and operating by
the weekend.

   The first long-distance service will be via 120 lines on telephones
to be installed at a site designated by the Ministry of Communications,
an AT&T spokesman said. The company and the Kuwait government also are
discussing ways to restore ground communications within the war-ravaged
country.

   As a side note, an article in yesterday's {Wall Street Journal}
discusses the heated (frenzied!) bidding for contracts to rebuild the
infrastructure within Kuwait. AT&T is certainly not the only firm
looking for work there.


tom coradeschi    <+>    [e-mail]    <+>    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:38:49 GMT
From: cdp![e-mail] (Bert Cowlan)
Subject: Re: Armstrong and Ma Bell
Organization: EcoNet <pssc>


It is with some trepidation that I seek to reply to an item about
Major Edwin Howard Armstrong, the inventor of FM.  The trepidation
stems not only from dusty brain cells but from my lack of certain
knowledge as to how to send a reply to a conference.  My memory, like
that of <winslade> who posted the original, is not quite so dusty,
though, that I do not clearly recall that Armstrong's suicide, which
has been documented, was as the result of his battles with RCA and
"General" Sarnoff and not - repeat not - with AT&T.

My recollection also is that his transmitter tower was located in
Alpine, New Jersey (although there may have been one either before or
after at the Empire State Building).  At least, it was there at the
time that as a twelve or fourteen-year old (circa 1939, 1941) a ham
friend and I roller-skated about eight miles north of the George
Washington Bridge to visit it and to our delight and surprise were
taken on a tour of the facility by Armstrong himself.

Further, I remember that, when I ran WBAI-FM, New York in 1957-1960
and we went on the air with the country's first experimental stereo
transmissions, our assigned call letters were W2XHR which, I was told
at the time, were the call letters that had been used by Armstrong in
Alpine.  That stereo system was based on one he developed.  Again,
straining brain cells, I think that his experimental transmissions may
have been in the "old" FM band that existed prior to the end of WWII,
below 88-108MHz, usurped by TV.

Documentation: There is a book, written some time in the late '50s,
titled "Man of High Fidelity."  When I get home tonight I will look up
the publisher and date of publication and cheerfully share same with
anyone who asks me.  The author, whose name is still in my ancient
Rolodex, Lawrence Lessing, since deceased, was at the time a Senior
Editor of {Fortune Magazine} and he flat-out accused Sarnoff of
contributing to - even causing - Armstrong's suicide.  That he was
never sued for libel speaks well for the quality of his research and
scholarship.  I remember, having met him during the WBAI period (then
a commercial station), that he had expected some legal action to be
directed against him and that {Fortune} (in which I think part of the
book was published first) was prepared to back him to the hilt.

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

From: "Kerry G. Forschler" <bcstec!tahoma![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Most Accurate Clock"
Date: 3 Mar 91 00:27:03 GMT
Organization: The Boeing Co., BCA FSL, Seattle, WA


In article <[e-mail]>, Robert.Savery@iugate.
unomaha.edu (Robert Savery) writes:

> In a recent message, Steve Shankman ([e-mail]) writes:

> > A while ago I was at the planetarium at our university, and I saw an
> > interesting clock made by Heathkit. The clock was called "Most
> > Accurate Clock" and had a shortwave receiver built in which monitored
> > 5, 10, and 15 MHz (WWV?).

{Popular Electronics} magazine, March 1991, page 73, gives a hands-on
review of the Heathkit Most Accurate Clock.

Here's what I gleaned from the article:

o  the author was impressed with it,
o  keeps time to within 10 ms or better of WWV,
o  has an RS-232C output which provides time and date data in ACSII format,
o  the RS-232C output is standard with the pre-assembled unit, but
   must be bought as a separate unit for the kit,
o  Heath/Zenith interfacing software is extra ($49.95),
o  requires from 4 to 30 minutes to calibrate itself the first time turned on,
o  has a built-in telescoping antenna,
o  has an option for an external antenna,
o  a highly-suitable tuned-dipole outdoor antenna can be bought for $99.95,
o  if signal strength is too weak to always receive WWV it uses its
   own internal crystal-controlled oscilliator to control time,
o  runs on a 12-volt battery or 117/220 VAC,
o  has a built-in speaker so you can listen to the audio portion of WWV,
o  the audio is controled by a volume control and can be turned off,
o  has options for 12/24 hour format, daylight savings time, etc,
o  the year is set by a DIP switch and must be changed each year.

I hope this is helpful.

Disclaimer: I have no connection with Heath Co. or {Popular Electronics}
magazine.


Kerry G. Forschler            |  Voice: 206-237-1274 (work)
Boeing Commercial Airplanes      |  Voice: 206-235-1435 (home)
P.O. Box 3707, M/S 96-02         |  UUCP: ..!uunet!bcstec!tahoma!kgf2173
Seattle, WA  98124-2207          |  Boeing net: kgf2173@tahoma

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

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 03:01:01 GMT
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting Account/Billing Information by Phone


Bob Yazz <[e-mail]> writes:

> I dumped Sprint in favor of AT&T after verifying that Sprint had
> programmed their computer to reveal my billing info to anybody who
> called them knowing my phone number.

Yesterday I received my Southwestern Bell Tel. bill here in the St.
Louis, MO area.  In the usual insert, they announce a new account-
info-by-touch-tone-phone service.

All I have to punch in is my account number, which is my ten-digit
phone number PLUS a three-digit suffix.  They do not, apparently, try
to use ANI to match the calling number with the account number (as is
only right, since you could be calling from a different phone, of
course).

I suppose if I were *really* paranoid, I could worry about someone
demon-dialing my phone number and suffixes from 111-999 (or 000-999 to
be thorough), but I'm not worried about it.

It is interesting to note that sometime in the past, they thought to
add a three-digit suffix to [one of] the phone number[s] to make the
account number, instead of simply using the raw three-digit phone
number.  I wonder what other reasons there were besides the new one of
enforcing account privacy for their info-by-phone service?

Cheers,

Rich


[Moderator's Note: For many years there has been a three digit part to
your phone number (where the bill was concerned) called the RAO, or
Regional Accounting Office code.  This dates back to pre-divestiture
AT&T accounting practices. You might want to detirmine that everyone
who uses the new service in your area does not have the same three
digits as part of the input!  It is quite likely they do, and that the
three digit suffix is not a PIN, but rather an accounting code.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 3 Mab 91004:31:59GMT
From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Preferred 800 Details
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


Under $50/mo usage - $7.50
Private 800 (ie.. Personal 800 four digit pin's) - free
Classic 800 - $10/mo
Account Codes - free (Varified ones at addtional cost)
10% discount to most frequent called area code (The one with the higest call
     cost)
10% discount at $200
Can include home phones MCI Preferred Card with seven digit calling
     card number (I assume 800 access #.)

          Voice News
          Message Services
          Speed Dialing
          (The standard TELECOM*USA star card features)


All calls billed in six second increments with a thirty second
     minimum.

Day .235
Evening .16 (5-10PM)
Night/Weekend .12

Info number  [phone]
Cust. Serv   [phone]

It seems that the billing and things will be handled by Telecom*USA.

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

From: Alan Barclay <ukpoit![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Amplification on Color TV and FM History
Organization: iT - The Information Technology Business Of The Post Office
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:16:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Donald E. Kimberlin) writes:

>        Credits for the first color televison date to a Scot, Charles
>Baird, in 1927 experiments to produce color images by mechanical
>scanning methods.  Baird was expanding on 1880's work that began with
>Senlecq's lab work on the photoelectric properties of selenium and
>Nipkow's development of image scanning with a perforated rotating
>disk. (In fact, there is some history showing facsimile by purely
>electric means dates to about 1847.)

It was actually John Logie Baird, the inventor of television, who also
invented colour televison, and it was because he was working on the
colour system at the time of the first experiments in broadcast TV
that Baird's system was not adopted as the B/W broadcast system.

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

From: Eric Weaver <[e-mail]>
Subject: Microwave / Optical Links for Audio
Organization: Peninsula Radio Foundation
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:14:13 GMT


I need to run a stereo audio signal from our studio to a cable
company's head-end about two miles away.  A four-wire non-directional
phone line is $55/mo + 760 to set up, and will certainly require some
serious EQ (loading coils are probably present).  I'm wondering if
there's a good way to get two 15KHz audio channels (or a single 53KHz
one) over commercially available microwave or optical links.  Can
anyone suggest vendors and at least make a guess at prices?  Thanks.


Eric Weaver <[e-mail]>
Sony Advanced Video Technology Center     677 River Oaks Pkwy,  MS 35
Beautiful Industrial San Jose, CA 95134  [phone]

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

Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play?
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 3 Mar 91 00:34:34 GMT


One important factor when comparing the danger of 20 Hz 100vac with 60
Hz 117vac: The ringing voltage from the phone company is going through
a loop that is anywhere from a few hundred to a couple of thousand
ohms.  You don't have that with the power line.  Also, the telco loop
is set up to stop sending ringing current immediately when it detects
some current draw.  Hooking the power line to a wire pair to the phone
on stage, you don't have that advantage.

Play it safe and do what many film and TV production companies have
done ... use a Proctor 46220 Ringdown circuit.  With this product, you
can even TALK to the actor on stage from an offstage phone, and feed
him his lines!

The 46220 is $179 from:

Proctor & Assoc.   15050 NE 36th St.  Redmond, WA  98052-5317
206-881-7000   internet: [e-mail]


Tad Cook  Seattle, WA  Packet: KT7H @ N7ENT.#WWA.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]   MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad   or, [e-mail]

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

From: Brent Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE and Pac Tel Cellular in Los Angeles
Date: 28 Feb 91 22:25:19 GMT
Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation; San Jose, CA


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Javier
Henderson - TMS Group) writes:

# I have Pac Tel for my cellular carrier, and GTE (in the 714 area code)
# at home.  Since my cellular number is in the 213 area code, when my
# wife calls me, we have to pay toll charges (plus airtime of course). I
# called Pac Tel yesterday to find out if I changed my cellular number
# to the 714 area code, would there be any toll charges.

# The service representative said that only Pacific Bell customers get
# toll free service to Pac Tel Cellular customers, but that they do
# reimburse GTE customers for calls placed from their homes to their
# cellular phones, as a courtesy. In fact, she even guessed the reason
# for my asking and suggested the above instead of changing the number,
# which has a $15.00 fee.

I have kind of the opposite situation here in the San Francisco Bay
Area.  I have Pac Bell at home, and GTE as my mobile carrier.  GTE
MobilNet makes a major selling point that calls _from_ GTE cellular
numbers from anywhere in their Bay Area service area (which covers
parts of at least four area codes (415, 408, 707, and 916) and an area
roughly 150 by 50 miles on a side) are "local" calls.  Further, they
state that calls placed _from_ cellular phones to anywhere in their
Bay Area service area are "local" calls, regardless of the home area
code of the cellular phone and the area code of the number being
dialed; there are probably some perverse cases where using a cellular
phone to call somewhere else in the service area is cheaper than using
normal PacBell service.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #171
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03046;
          3 Mar 91 18:25 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19940;
          3 Mar 91 5:53 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aj01940;
          3 Mar 91 4:47 CST
Date:     Sun, 3 Mar 91 4:22:20 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #172
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Mar 91 04:22:03 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 172

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing [Alan Millar]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Jim Breen]
    What Causes These Strange Calls? [moocow![e-mail]]
    COCOT Tip [John Higdon]
    German Authorities Find Illegal Phone Networks [Doug Faunt]
    Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? [Michael Ho]
    Re: Information Wanted on X.25 [Lang Zerner]
    When to Use / Not Use '1' [Claus Tondering]
    Re: Large Local Calling Areas [Douglas Scott Reuben]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Area Code 408 and 1+ Dialing
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:42:08 GMT


>> I once heard a rumor that 408 was the last area code in the NANP
>> that allowed ten digit (real ten digit, not 1 + ten) dialing.

> This is sometimes confusing.  I work in AC 408 where the 1 before the
> AC is NOT PERMITTED (this is in Santa Clara county), and I live in 415
> (in Alameda county), where it IS required. Sometimes it takes a few

In most of the Santa Clara - San Jose area, the 1 prefix is not
required, but it is allowed.  I can call from home (North San Jose,
408-945 prefix) with or without the 1.  Possibly your PBX at work is
programmed to not allow the 1?

I'm still used to dialing without the 1, and had an interesting run-in
with a COCOT at the Black Angus in Sunnyvale.  I picked up the handset
and started dialing 800-XXX-X and as soon as it got the seventh digit
it told me to insert 20 cents.  I read the label, which said to dial 1
+ 800 + xxx xxxx.  I dialed the 1, and the phone took it.  I know,
what can you expect from a COCOT, and I should learn to dial 1
anyway, but you know how it goes... :-)


Alan Millar  [e-mail]

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

From: Jim Breen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 1991 21:58:10 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu (Eric THOLOME) writes:

> Until five years ago, France was .......

> To phone in the same area, you had to dial only the last six digits. To
> phone in another area, you had to dial 16, get a tone, and then dial
> the full phone number.                     ^^^^^^^^^^

Was this process of having to wait for a tone peculiar to France?

I never encountered it anywhere else. In fact it caused me acute
discomfort the first time I was in Paris (1982 je crois) and I tried
to call Australia. I was ignorant of the fact that I was supposed to
wait for another tone after dialling the international access code
(019?). The first 20 or so times I dialled straight through and ended
up with message in French telling me the number was not connected. On
the 21st try I paused for some reason, and "Voila!" there was a click,
whirrrrrr, and I had another dial tone. All was explained. I was
furious that NOWHERE in the phone book was this mentioned. I later
found out that the French took it for granted.


Jim Breen     AARNet:[e-mail]
Department of Robotics & Digital Technology.
Monash University. PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia
(ph) [phone] (fax) [phone]

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

From: Doctor Math <moocow![e-mail]>
Subject: What Causes These Strange Calls?
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:50:24 GMT
Organization: Brown Cow Software (a licensed Waffle developer)


Perhaps the Digest readers can shed some light on these strange phone
calls:

Phone rings. Answering machine picks up. "This is the Chicago
long-distance operator with a voice telegram. To hear your voice
telegram, press the number 5 on your phone. Yes, to receive your voice
telegram, press the number 5 on your phone, now." At this point, the
call terminates. It only happens on one of the two voice lines in my
house, and calls to various operators in Chicago have thus far shed no
light on the subject, i.e. they have no idea what I'm talking about.
Am I being sleazed by some AOS? Will pressing the number 5 imply my
consent to be charged for a voice telegram that may not be for me, or
worse yet, just some piece of advertising? I'm _real_ curious.


[Moderator's Note: I doubt there is any such thing as the 'Chicago
long-distance operator' in telco parlance. There are various store and
forward services, including AT&T's and the one operated by Telecom*USA
which play legitimate pre-recorded messages to you, but they begin by
saying what they are, then immediatly playing the pre-recorded text.
They do not say 'press the number 5 on your phone', and they certainly
do not say 'YES, to receive your voice telegram', etc. I've heard
about these 'voice telegrams' from other sources and there is a good
chance you will wind up with a charge on your bill for some worthless
message, so caution is advised. Legitimate store and forward services
give their name plainly and require nothing of you except in the event
of 'personal delivery', in which case a Telecom*USA live operator
comes on the line first to learn your identity.  Has anyone taken the
bait on this yet, and if so, can you advise the rest of us?   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:10 GMT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: COCOT Tip


Some time ago, I recounted the experience of trying to place a call to
Pac*Bell from a COCOT. Pac*Bell's public numbers are of the 811-XXXX
format and are free from Pac*Bell, GTE, and most independent
telephones in California. I ended up talking to a "repair" person at
the COCOT company who after browbeating by me placed the call.

Today when picking up the mail, I discovered that Pac*Bell had
neglected to send some things I had requested so I decided to call on
the spot. The Meridian Ave. branch of the post office has two of the
most vile COCOTs ever seen. They deny everything: cut off the pad on
800 numbers (so you cannot use Sprint), deny 950, deny 811-XXXX, and
you cannot check your voice mail. There is no complaint number posted,
but the card indicates that you can do all of the legally required
things (you can't).

Just for the helluvit, I pushed '0' for the Pac*Bell operator. This is
usually a pointless exercise since the console indicates "COCOT" and
there is nothing he/she can do for you. I said, "I would like to call
811-XXXX." She said, "Thank you", and the number immediately rang.

How about that?


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

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

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 01:39:29 GMT
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: German Authorities Find Illegal Phone Networks


A note in the February 23 issue of {The Economist} reported the German
postal ministry discovered 23 illegal, private telephone networks in
eastern Germany, including one formerly controlled by the secret
police, the Stasi.  And yet, because of a shortage of telephone lines
in the old east, and even though the government has a legal monopoly,
it will allow the networks to go on operating for at least another
year.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier?
Organization: Daily Nebraskan, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:51:25 GMT


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

> On two pay phones in Newark, Delaware, I have discovered that the
> default long-distance carrier is listed as RCI Corp., 180 So.  Clinton
> Ave., Rochester, NY 14646, telephone [phone].  The zipcode turns
> out to be the same as Rochester Telephone Corp.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when Judge Greene barred Baby Bells from
ever providing long-distance service, he did *not* mention the
independent local carriers.

As a result, there's nothing to stop such a local carrier from
operating a long-distance division.  Here in Lincoln, Neb., our local
carrier (Lincoln Telephone) operates Lincoln Telephone Long Distance
and promotes it pretty heavily.

Of course, Lincoln Telephone *was* one of the first local companies to
be successfully sued for blocking a third-party carrier.  I believe it
was MCI and its "Execuline" or "Executone" -- heck, Execu-SOMETHING --
back in the early 1980s.

(For what it's worth, Lincoln Telephone has informally dropped the "& Tele-
graph" from its name in most correspondence, but its official name still
includes it.  We call LT&T, alternatively, "Let's Try and Talk" or "Lincoln
Tinkertoy.")


Michael Ho, University of Nebraska    Internet: [e-mail]
Disclaimer:  Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be
applied to the Daily Nebraskan or any university department.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on X.25
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 03:49:08 GMT


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

> I'm considering setting up a multi-line BBS that's accessible over
> Datapac (Canada's X.25 service, analagous to Tymenet or Telenet).

Contact Galacticomm ([phone]).  Their flagship product is
called the Major BBS.  It is a self-contained, multi-tasking,
multi-user BBS designed to run on a single CPU under MS-DOS.  With a
regular 386 machine, you can support up to 64 users.  They also offer
an X.25 option that will let you support up to 256 simultaneous
connections on a standard MS-DOS machine with an X.25 card.

I operate a small Major BBS-based system, and I'll be happy to answer
any technical questions you'd like answered by someone who doesn't
turn a profit when you buy.

Be seeing you,


Lang Zerner

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

From: Claus Tondering <[e-mail]>
Subject: When to Use / Not Use the 1
Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:40:58 GMT


Could somebody in the US please inform me about the rules for when you
have to dial an initial 1 in front of American telephone numbers?  I
used to think that if you were dialing a local (seven-digit) number
you shouldn't start with a 1, whereas if you were dialing an area
code, an initial 1 was required. However, during a recent visit to
Florida while dialing certain seven-digit numbers, I was informed by a
talking machine that I should dial an initial 1. This prompts three
questions:

1) Why do you need a 1 in front of certain 7-digit numbers, but not
   in front of others?

2) If the telephone system is smart enough to inform me that I need to
   dial an initial 1, why is it not smart enough to connect me even if
   I haven't dialed the 1?

3) Are the rules the same everywhere in the US?


Claus Tondering
Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark
E-mail: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: In summary, no, the rules are not the same
everywhere in the USA. In almost every case you need a '1' before a
ten-digit number. In the case of seven-digit numbers it varies
according to the numbering scheme used by the local telco. The telcos
usually begin using '1' in front of seven digits when their supply of
prefixes without a one or a zero as the second digit begins to run
short. A one or zero in the second digit of a three digit number here
usually indicates an area code instead of a local exchange code. Using
'1' first allows an extended set of exchange codes. There are other
reasons as well. The reason they are 'smart enough' to catch the error
but unwilling to correct it is because it is possible you actually
knew what you were doing but misdialed, reaching a combination that
normally requires '1' first. Rather than second-guessing what you
might have meant, they toss it back to you to do over.   PAT]

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

Date: 3-MAR-1991 03:39:59 GMT
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count)


Yoram Eisenstadter of the Columbia University Department of Computer
Science wrote:

> NYC wasn't always a single local calling area; I remember several
> years ago there were parts of Queens that were local to Manhattan (25
> cents from a payphone) and some that were not (40 cents from a
> payphone).  I think that the PUC mandated uniform local calling rates
> throughout NYC when the 212/718 split occured.

I think this only goes for non-coin phones. There are still many
payphones that demand 40 cents for calls within 718/212, depending on
how far they are. Little Neck to certain areas of NYC (err..I mean
Manhattan) are 40 cents, (and Little Neck is in Queens, NOT
Nassau/516). Calls from most of Queens to Staten Island are 40 cents,
although I can't say this is still true; it was two years ago. I think
calls from southern Brooklyn to Riverdale (The Bronx) may also be 40
cents. I am sure about the Little Neck to Manhattan thing, though. In
June, 1989 I had to make a call from Little Neck to 212-373, and to
my surprise, the payphone asked for 40 cents. (They have a recording
that says "40 cents please", rather than the NYTel local automatic
operator coming on and saying "Please deposit 40 cents for the next 5
minutes.").

This of course may have changed, but the uniform rates became
effective in August, 1988 I believe, which was about four years after
the split, but BEFORE I tried a lot of this out when I went down to
NYC.

Interestingly, some exchanges are the SAME in both area codes. I am
not referring to "choke" prefixes for radio stations (955 for
212/718/516/and maybe 914), nor to special feature numbers (950, 976,
970, 540, 550).  There is a "230" exchange, and you can use that from
either the 718 or 212 area codes, and you get connected to the same
number. I've seen this advertised on NYC busses for some sort of
shelter (maybe for the homeless?  I dunno ...). I think there may be
other exchanges set up this way as well.

I'm not sure about how this works in other area code split cases (LA,
Chicago, etc.) where cities have been split up, so I'm not sure if
this is unique to NYC or not. We manage to pick up WBBM-780 Chicago
quite well in Connecticut in the evening, and I always hear them give
some number which works BOTH in the 312 AND 708 area, so perhaps this
is the same thing?  (Pat?)

In any event, even though the specific number (230-xxxx) may have
INITIALLY been a 40 cent call before the split, they are all 25 cents
now. Also, calls to 976 numbers, which are 27 (?) cents on a residence
line, are only 25 cents from any NYC (or NY Metro LATA for that
matter) payphone.

> Note that geographically, NYC is only a small part of the LATA that
> also encompasses Nassau and Suffolk counties (area code 516),
> Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties (914), and the part of
> Connecticut (203) that is served by NY Telephone.

Which means that people in these areas of CT get FREE Directory
Assistance in BOTH CT and NY! (from payphones).  Compare this to the
Providence/Sekonk,MA area, both served by NETel, but where you can't
get DA for a place across the street unles you put in 60 cents.  (It
is free for Massachusetts residence phones, though...)

Also, some people on or near the Queens/Nassau line get free (or
untimed) service to a local Nassau communities, and to all of NYC!
Neat place to set up a remote-call-forward site into/out of NYC. A
friend of mine who goes to NYU but lives in Manhasset does this.
According to him, it saves money, and he leaves his terminal on all
day.


Doug

[e-mail]    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago the only exchanges in common are
the choke (591), CNA (796), and Phone Programs (976) exchanges. You
can dial seven digits on these from 312 or 708. What is offered
otherwise is *remote call forwarding* for a tidy sum. You get your
number in whichever area (312 or 708) you happen to be in. If you want
the same number in the other area you can have it provided it is not
already taken by someone else. The number is set up on the other side
to simply terminate in the CO and remote-forward to your number on
your side. You pay a monthly fee plus a fee for each call forwarded,
of course. Some businesses like this because it is more convenient for
their customers on the 'wrong side' of town  :) to reach them with
seven digits and no concern about which area code to dial, etc.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #172
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03066;
          3 Mar 91 18:26 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25765;
          3 Mar 91 7:00 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ai19940;
          3 Mar 91 5:55 CST
Date:     Sun, 3 Mar 91 5:25:16 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #173
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Mar 91 05:24:47 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 173

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Large Local Calling Area (Horizontal and Vertical) [Mike Newton]
    Enterprise / Zenith (was: The Correct Way...) [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Why 900-STOPPER [Macy Hallock]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Macy Hallock]
    Re: FM Radio in the 1930's and More... [Dion Messer]
    Sprint Responds to Privacy Complaint [David Ptasnik]
    Re: International 800 Numbers? (was Re: Evolving Phone Number) [P. Anvin]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Toby Nixon]
    Two Word Exchange Names [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 04:57:33 GMT
From: Mike Newton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Large Local Calling Area (Horizontal and Vertical)


This seems to come up every few years...

As of when I was last living there (1.5 years ago -- and Hawaiian Tel
doesnt move too fast ..) all of the Big Island (4000+ sq. mi.) is one
calling area.

It also has one of the greatest vertical calls.  The observatories on
top (14 k feet) have Hilo prefixes (sea level and 15 miles away).
Also, Hilo is the wettest US city (average of 160 in/yr rain in Hilo).

Long distance was amusing.  I could call Mass. (at night, possibly
during the day too, but I've forgotten for sure) far cheaper than I
could call Oahu (Honolulu).  (With _Long_ Reach out America).  But,
all calls to the mainland did something like:

   me --> local-switch --> u-wave station --> u-wave xcvr (oahu) -->
   oahu CO --> '2 block long' cable to ATT --> [usually:] satallite
   xmtr --> satallite xcvr (near San Fran.)  [the last few could be
   replaced with cable to mainland ... making cnversations _much_
   easier due to the lack of delay].

It gave even newer meaning to the phrase `phase shift' ...

We never did get our PEP telebit modems going above 600 cps ...


mike ([e-mail])  Beach Bums Anonymous, Pasadena President

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Enterprise / Zenith (was: The Correct Way...)
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:25:23 GMT


The Moderator Notes:

> I think the Bell companies called it "Enterprise" and GTE and many
> independent telcos preferred "Zenith". But the database was the same.

I'd like to know what the difference between "Enterprise" and "Zenith"
might have been, but this isn't it.  I distinctly remember a number of
"Zenith" entries in the little phone book in Logan, Utah (both in the
"number, please" era and after the advent of dialling and DDD).  And
Mountain Bell, part of AT&T, was definitely the phone company.


JBL

nets: [e-mail]    |    BBN Communications
  or: ...!bbn!levin    |    M/S  20/7A
POTS: [phone]  |    150 Cambridge Park Drive
FAX:  [phone]  |    Cambridge, MA  02140


[Moderator's Note: There was no difference between them. All the
operators from whatever telco -- Bell, GTE or independent -- called
the same database (AT&T's Rate and Route Bureau) to get the
translation number for any Enterprise/Zenith code not common enough to
be in the operator's reference flip-chart at hand. When you ordered an
Enterprise/Zenith number, the same thing happened then that happens
now when you order an 800 number: Someone at the telco originating the
order had to send word to Rate and Route (then) to update their
records.  When a new 800 prefix opens up the other telcos have to be
told how to handle thee call and where to send it, etc.  I think there
were a few places that had an actual ENterprise exchange; to avoid
confusion with it those telcos probably used Zenith instead. Maybe
Mountain Bell fell in this category. I've never known what the rule
was on the name used for the automatic reverse-charge service. Canada
seemed to have lots of "Zenith" and little or no "Enterprise".  A file
in the Telecom Archives gives more detail on this obsolete service.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:18 GMT
From: Macy Hallock <fmsys![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA [phone]


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

> The Moderator claims that 1-900-STOPPER is worthless because any trace
> need merely trace through their system; this adds one step, it doesn't
> stop anyone.

When I do not want the orginating number of a call recorded (or wish
to make a call that will not contain any reference of the call on the
calling number's bill) ...

I use Litel's (a regional carrier) 950-XXXX access number.  ANI is not
passed on most Feature Group B trunks.  Of course, the call will show
on the credit card bill, and the originating point of presence will be
idenitfied for billing purposes, but the number I called from will not
show ... and there is really no way to scan all the possible carriers
for a near random FG B call, I think.

This is considerably safer than a 1+ or 0+ call because the telco
never captures the digits once the 950-XXXX is dialed.  Therefore, the
telco cannot be the means of determination.

I've also been known to use a PBX DISA local number for the same
thing, with much the same effect ... although I suspect the FG B is
more secure.

Of course, no phone call is really secure ... random use of payphones
is always the safest way to protect your security/anonminity.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr. [e-mail]
[e-mail] uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy


[Moderator's Note: You make a good point. There are several ways of
doing what STOPPER does for much less money, including using a pay
phone.  My eyebrows raised only once during your article, and that was
you mention of using someone's DISA. I *assume* you are authorized to
be on there; and if so, what kind of protection do you think it gives
you?  The owner of the phone will get back-audited, and if he keeps
any sort of traffic records for the PBX the call will come back to the
DISA and your password for the use of same, no?  And even if he does
not keep any traffic records, do you want your employer (whoever; you
*said* you were authorized to be there, right?) to get the grief as a
result of your call?   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:52 GMT
From: Macy Hallock <fmsys![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA [phone]


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

> I have always wondered why people write phone numbers with parenthesis
> around the area code, as though it were incidental to the entire
> number, i.e. [phone]?

Actually, Pat, this is the way I was taught to do it at The Phone
Company back in 1967.  The explaination given was: use parens to
denote the area code was separate from the phone number, since it was
only required for calling from outside the area code.

I recall reading this in some type of official documentation, probably
training material of some type.

I asked why a 1 was not shown, and was told that some areas did not
use 1 for toll access (e.g. NYC) ... only later did I find out about
Stromberg Carlson "circle digit" and other oddball toll access code
schemes used by the independant co's ... and then there was AE SATT.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr. [e-mail]
[e-mail] uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy

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

From: Dion Messer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FM Radio in the 1930's and More...
Reply-To: Dion Messer <cadman![e-mail]>
Organization: Motorola Inc., Austin, Texas
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1991 00:15:32 GMT


On the subject of Major Armstrong, my favorite communications book has
"A Historical Note" on Armstrong.  The book is titled "Modern Digital
and Analog Communication Systems", by B. P. Lathi.  It does confirm
that he committed suicide in 1954 by walking out a window on the 13th
floor of a building.  The pages to look at are 301 and 302, and the
note is quite interesting.

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Responds to Privacy Complaint
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 00:01: GMT


Some weeks ago I found the US Sprint 800 number that gives the balance
of any Sprint customer's bill to any caller with an interest.  I
whined to Sprint that I thought this was insecure and a violation of
my privacy.  They sent the following reply:

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

Dear Mr. Ptasnik:

I appreciate the time you took to express concerns about the access
method we use in our automated response system.  I have forwarded your
complaint to our Corporate office for review and consideration.

The information that can be accessed with the area code and phone
number is balance and payment history.  To add a FONCARD to an
account, it is necessary to provide the account number.  The
convenience of accessing information with the telephone number is
offered to customers only on non-service affecting transactions.
Besides informational announcements, all other contacts are handled by
customer service representatives.  Screening techniques are in place
to ensure that only account holders have access to the most sensitive
information.

I agree with you that the methods we use do not provide "absolute"
security.  Unfortunately, even the most elaborate security system can
be penetrated given the right amount of determination and skill.
Please be assured that most local telephone companies and other long
distance carriers utilizing this technology are employing the same
access method.

We value you as a customer and appreciate your business.  Your
comments and concerns will be given serious consideration by our
Corproate office.  Again, I thank you for taking the time to provide
us with your opinions.

Sincerely,

Kathleen Mc Mahon
Customer Service Manager

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

Any typos in the above were my fault.

While I appreciate the response to my complaints, I intend to pursue
it further.  I don't want "absolute" security, just some.  I really
doubt the idea of AT&T using so insecure a method.  It is my general
understanding that AT&T has a call back system, requiring you to be at
a predetermined phone number, ready to enter a security code.  I'm not
sure if this is for long distance balances, or just equipment purchase
balances to larger users, but it is more secure than Sprint.  The
suggestion that "screening techniques are in place to ensure that only
account holders have access to the most sensitive information" implies
that my account balance is not sensitive.  It is to me.

I'm going to write them again, and keep you all informed of the
continuing saga.


[e-mail]

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

From: Peter Anvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International 800 Numbers? (was Re: Evolving Phone Number)
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1991 00:17:58 GMT


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

> [Moderator's Note: Some 800 numbers are international, but relatively
> few in comparison to the total. The European versions of 'USA Direct'
> operating in this country (allowing residents of other countries
> visiting here to 'call home' and speak with an operator in their home
> country in their native language, just like USA Direct in reverse) all
> have 800 numbers assigned to them. And, there are a few others.  PAT]

Those 800 numbers aren't international at all!  You cannot dial them
outside the NANP.  They are *national access numbers*, accessing an
international gateway, but you can only dial them from one
country/region.  For example, in Sweden all such numbers have Swedish
020-XX XX XX numbers, even if they terminate in Sweden, Belgium or the
USA.

The question is, when can we dial:

  011-800-45-XX XX XX  from the USA,
  009-800-45-XX XX XX  from Sweden,
  00-800-45-XX XX XX   from the EEC,
  010-800-45-XX XX XX  from the UK,
  990-800-45-XX XX XX  from Finland,     (hope I am correct about this one)

all to reach the same number, terminating in Norway?
That way one number, +800 45 XX XX XX would do for all countries.

  (I think Norway is 45, but I am taking it off the top of my head.)


hpa = H. Peter Anvin (in case you wondered) * Heja Sverige!
INTERNET:   [e-mail]   FIDONET:  1:115/989.4
HAM RADIO:  N9ITP, SM4TKN             RBBSNET:  8:970/101.4


[Moderator's Note: Sorry I misunderstood the original question, I
guess. If the above is how you are defining it, then no, there is no
such thing as 'international 800'.    PAT]

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Date: 3 Mar 91 02:42:21 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(KATH MULLHOLAND) writes:

> What is CCITT?

CCITT is the abbreviation for Comite Consultatif International
Telegraphique et Telephonique, or, in English, International Telegraph
and Telephone Consultative Committee.  It is a part of the
International Telecommunications Union, which is part of the United
Nations.  CCITT is based in Geneva, Switzerland.

The members of the CCITT are the "Administrations" -- the Postal,
Telegraph, and Telephone (PTT) systems in each country.  In the USA,
we don't have a nationalized system, so the US Department of State is
the official US representative (and there are communities in the State
Dept. to formulate US positions on CCITT issues; I serve on one of
these committees).

Also members of CCITT are "Recognized Private Operating Agencies"
(RPOAs), such as AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc.; "Scientific and Industrial
Organizations" (SIOs) such as modem manufacturers, telephone equipment
manufacturers, fax machine manufacturers, etc.; and "Liaison
Organizations", which are other parts of the UN and other
international organizations such as ISO (International Standards
Organization) which have an interest in the work of the CCITT.  Only
the Administrations and RPOAs have a VOTE on CCITT issues, but all
four membership classes can participate in meetings and make
contributions -- and pay dues (a modem manufacturer's dues run about
$15,000).

CCITT is organized as fifteen "Study Groups", each on a particular
area of telecommunications:

    SG I    Definition, operation, and quality of service
        aspects of telegraph, data transmission and
        telematic services (facsimile, Teletex,
        Videotex, etc.)

    SG II    Operation of telephone network and ISDN

    SG III    General tariff principles including accounting

    SG IV    Transmission maintenance of international lines,
        circuits, and chains of circuits; maintenance of
        automatic and semi-automatic networks

    SG V    Protection against dangers and disturbances of
        electromagnetic origin

    SG VI    Outside plant

    SG VII    Data communication networks

    SG VIII Terminal equipment for telematic services
        (facsimile, Teletex, videotex, etc.)

    SG IX    Telegraph networks and terminal equipment

    SG X    Languages and methods for telecommunications
        applications

    SG XI    ISDN and telephone network switching and
        signalling

    SG XII    Transmission performance of telephone networks
        and terminals

    SG XV    Transmission systems

    SG XVII    Data transmission over the telephone network

    SG XVIII  Digital networks including ISDN

CCITT is, therefore, the focus for agreements between countries on how
international telephone, telegraph, and data networks are to be
interconnected, how accounts are settled, how modems and facsimile
work, and a lot of other subjects.


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

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

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 01:43:39 GMT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two Word Exchange Names


The Moderator writes about HYde Park (in Chicago?) and that some
people dialed HP when they should have dialed HY.

In the cases I know about where an exchange name was two words, the
two letter prefix was taken from the beginning of the FIRST word.  On
the east coast, I have heard of MUrray Hill in New York City, MOunt
Vernon in the nearby town in Westchester by that name, and CHestnut
Hill in Philadelphia.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #173
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13069;
          4 Mar 91 3:14 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04232;
          4 Mar 91 1:29 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02987;
          4 Mar 91 0:23 CST
Date:     Mon, 4 Mar 91 0:01:50 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #177
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 4 Mar 91 00:01:31 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 177

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell [Peter Marshall]
    Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell [John Higdon]
    Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business [Steve L. Rhoades]
    Re: MCI Preferred Customers [Brian Crawford]
    Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart [William Degnan]
    Re: Sprint Responds to Privacy Complaint [Peter Marshall]
    Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access [Everett F. Batey]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 02:33 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell


In Digest v11, iss176, our Moderator opens with news from Chicago:

> Illinois Bell will open its switching offices to non-Bell competitors
> in a move expected to enhance competition in the arena of local
> telephone service...

> The new policy, effective April 7 pending final approval by the
> Illinois Commerce Commission, will allow Teleport Communications and
> Metropolitan Fiber Systems to interconnect their systems with Illinois
> Bell.  Teleport and Metropolitan Fiber are waiting now for approval,
> but other competitors may be on the way.

> What other communities and/or local telcos are entertaining the idea
> of competition in local exchange service?  What others are actually
> implementing it at this time as is Illinois Bell?

        Actually, Pat, it's among the first visible cracks in a
curtain the FCC has been pulling away at local Telcos as another facet
of its drive to break the local Telco monopoly.  It's part of Open
Network Architecture (ONA) with an FCC requirement to provide
Comparably Efficient Interconnection (CEI) to other providers in the
local arena.

        Within the past week, New York Telephone announced it would
provide similar opening of its premises.  The "work" of forging this
crack has been underway for quite a few years, and only now is it
becoming visible. (I worked on a local fiber job in Los Angeles a year
and a half ago that had entrances from others planned into the Los
Angeles PacBell Building on its Grand Avenue cable vault side.
Everybody close to the business knows (and knew) it was just a matter
of time.)

        Another operative buzzword of these actions is "co-location,"
meaning the provision of a space inside the Telco building for the
obviously needed terminal gear of the "Alternative Access Carriers,"
or AAC's as the Teleports and Metropolitan Fibers are coming to be
called, at least from the interstate point of view.  The actual means
of doing this are Draconian at best.  It seems to be evolving into a
typical scene in which the "other parties" have to rent square feet of
floor space, enclosed within a locked screen at the insistence of the
local Telco to "protect" against accusation that the Telco's people
ever meddled with the gear.  Further, the Telco provides only AC
power, not any of its already-present DC power, so the "other firms"
have to duplicate a function, providing their own rectifiers and back-
up power.  Then, the "other parties" have to provide building heat
laod information on their equipment in order to arrange a charge for
the space, power consumption and cooling load.

        So, nobody is welcoming these interlopers into the Temple of
the Telco.  Fortunately, fiber technology is such that interconnection
of DS-1's and DS-3's are what the Telco will accept, and the physical
requirements can be met with today's technology.

        As to the Chicago scene, a local fiber carrier called Diginet
is actually longer established and probably is in the fray as much or
more than the others.  Diginet actually operates all the way from
Chicago to Milwaukee and has done so for a half decade already.

        So it's quiet in your town?  That doesn't mean there's no
activity.  Just don't expect your Telco to announce it in your bill
stuffer.  They'd rather you didn't know about it.

        And while we have the topic of Alternative Access open, let's
take note that MCI bought the transmission portion of Western Union a
year or so back.  That acquistion included miles and miles of Western
Union conduits in the streets of more cities than any of us knew
about.  I knew of a list of 17 major cities where WUTCo had cables in
the street for years.  But I even heard of digging in the streets of
Oklahoma City that exposed _wooden_ conduits marked "Western Union"
just a year or so ago.  At the moment, MCI is so beleagured it's
doubtful they even know much about this asset, but you can expect them
to either: a.) sell it in bits and pieces to the others, or b.) have a
realization and announcement sometime in the future that MCI has a new
business area open.

        It is, without doubt, an important announcement and one we
will see much more of, grudgingly admitted to by the Telcos.  Free
market, here we come ... kicking, clawing and screaming the whole way!

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

Subject: Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell
From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 10:34:19 PST
Organization: de mini


Pat's 3/3 post poses an interesting question.  In Washington, LEC
competition is now potentially on the horizon, virtually for the first
time.

At the PUC here, this has become a question of "first impression" with
registration applications and/or competitive classification petitions
to the PUC by GCI Fibernet and Electric Lightwave. The former is
controlled by TCI, and the latter is being represented at the PUC by
an attorney for a state org. of large telecom users.

In context, the City of Seattle is reviewing proposals, including one
from ELI, for a partner to develop a fiber net, and the Port of
Seattle is developing a teleport project.

Interest seems high from the industry in the state, and there's also
been some press attention so far.


Peter Marshall

               halcyon![e-mail]
  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA

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

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 12:07 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell


On Mar 3 at  9:05, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> What other communities and/or local telcos are entertaining the idea
> of competition in local exchange service?  What others are actually
> implementing it at this time as is Illinois Bell?

I would swear that if a person walked the streets of San Francisco and
happened to utter the words, "Local Competition", a trap door would
open in the sidewalk and the individual would never be heard from
again. Pac*Bell, for good reason, is probably more afraid of LEC
competition than any other telco in the country.

Even as we speak, there are hearings covering the topic of competition
in intraLATA toll traffic. Pac*Bell is of course bad-mouthing this
with the argument that this "exclusivity" is what keeps "your
telephone costs down". The threat is that basic rates will have to
rise substantially to compensate for the loss of toll revenue.

But the handwriting is on the wall. It appears that Pac*Bell will get
its way in at least one aspect: the accessing of the intraLATA
carrier.  There will be no pre-subscription as there is with interLATA
traffic.  Each call will have to be prefixed with a THREE digit code,
otherwise the call will be carried by Pac*Bell. This is no problem for
those with dialers and smart PBXes, but, as usual, the Aunt Minnies of
the world will still be patronizing Mother.

Once again, Illinois Bell demonstrates why it is an industry leader
and Pac*Bell proves what it is.


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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 02:31 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business


In article <Digest v11, iss172>, Stephen Bulick <bulick@comanche.
uswest.com> posts:

> I read in the Business Section of the {New York Times} for 3/1/91 that
> the FCC is allowing cable television companies to test what seems to
> be a microcellular telephone system as a prelude for entry into the
> local exchange carrier business. ...  I wondered whether this meant that
> telcos would now be able to argue more effectively for an entry into
> the cable TV business.
> This seems like an issue for discussion in this forum.

        For my $0.02 worth, it's been a topic of discussion here for a
while now.  I expect the Baby Bells will howl, loud and long, but to
little avail, blowing more of the $27 million they spend a year
lobbying away in Washington.  (Yes, it's been documented they spent
$27 on their registered lobbyists in Washington.)

        The simple reason: Dating to the 1/1/84 execution of Ma Bell
and before, it's been a stated policy of the FCC to break up the local
telephone monopoly as well as the long distance one. Since then we've
seen the FCC get deeper and deeper into regulatory business that once
was the province of the state regulators, reducing the state roles as
handmaidens of local Telcos more and more.

        Observers of the technology can now obviously see that the
1913 notion of a "natural monopoly" by reason of a huge capital need
is no longer valid.  Can anyone on here raise any other argument to
maintain the "natural monopoly" other than the obsolete view of tons
of copper plowed into the ground or radio too complex and unstable to
deploy in the neighborhood?

        That's the gauntlet.  Who can post a reason _why_ the Telcos
should now be permitted to maintain a monopoly, in other than vague,
undefined language?  (Are we now supposed to be paying them for
decades of loyal and constantly profitable business?)

        Make no mistake.  I brook no favor for the cable TV people. We
all know how they have proved themselves to be hacks of the business
for decades. They've had the capability to step into competition with
the Telco for years; now the Feds have handed them an opportunity on a
silver platter.  I rather expect the cable interests to look this gift
horse all the way down to its gullet.  Let's see if they can blow the
opportunity in the process.

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

From: "Steve L. Rhoades" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 22:33:42 GMT


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

> I read in the Business Section of the {New York Times} for 3/1/91 that
> the FCC is allowing cable television companies to test what seems to
> be a microcellular telephone system as a prelude for entry into the
> local exchange carrier business. [...]

The system is called PCS - Personal Communications Service.  In a
nutshell, here's how it works:

In a service area, there are several small "cells" located atop existing
telephone poles.  The cell communicates back to a MTSO (probably at the
cable compnay's headend) and places the call over a POTS line.

The communication from the cell back to the MTSO is done over unused
bandwidth on the existing cable system.  (Usually in the T-Channel
range of between 2 Mhz and 50 Mhz and possibly above 500 Mhz).

A few conpanies were given permission by the FCC to test the system.
One of the companies is Continental Cablevision.  Here in California,
they'll be testing it on their Fresno system within two years.  (Why
does Fresno always get the new toys first ?)

I just read an in-depth article about the system but, of course, I
can't find it when I need it :-).


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

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Preferred Customers
Date: 3 Mar 91 15:01:18 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill
Huttig) writes:

> Most of the MCI services reps are under the impression that the March
> 18th product is brand new.

What exactly is the "March 18" product?  Sorry if this was mentioned
in the original message in this thread, but don't remember seeing it.


Brian Crawford INTERNET (current): [e-mail] PO Box
804 (permanent): [e-mail] Tempe, Arizona 85280
FidoNet: 1:114/15.12 USA Amateur: KL7JDQ

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

Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 18:39:13 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Spectrum Chart


U>[e-mail] writes:

> Where would I look for a current chart/table/etc of EM spectrum
> allocations?

{Communications Technology} ran a pretty one (30khz to 30 gigs) as a
pull-out poster in the March 1991 issue. You may reach them at 303
355-2101 (voice) or 303 355-2144 (FAX).

A footnote indicates that it was adapted for CATV from the NTIA/US
Dept. of Commerce "US Frequency Allocations" chart. Which sounds like
_another_ good lead.


Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock.
William Degnan                   | [e-mail]
Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
 -Independent Consultants        | [e-mail]
   in Telecommunications         | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan
P.O. Drawer 9530                 | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530            | Voice [phone]

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

Subject: Re: Sprint Responds to Privacy Complaint
From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 08:41:17 PST
Organization: de minimus


It's well that Mr. Ptasnik intends to pursue this matter further, and
it's also reasonable to do so with Sprint, as he plans; and it will be
interesting to see the results posted here.

On the other hand, it's interesting that the choice so far is confined
to communicating with Sprint. Might this reflect an assumption that
this is the only appropriate way to pursue these questions? Are there
others? To what extent does Mr. Ptasnik's approach here resemble that
of those who earlier communicated with Lotus, etc. over Marketplace?
Is there any similarity between the problems identified by Mr. Ptasnik
here and those suggested by this same company's "900 Neighbors"
service, for example?


Peter Marshall


               halcyon![e-mail]
  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA

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

From: Everett F Batey <elroy!suned1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Rule Changes; Equal Access
Date: 3 Mar 91 14:57:40 GMT
Reply-To: Everett F Batey <elroy!suned1![e-mail]>
Organization: NSWSES, Port Hueneme, CA


In article <[e-mail]> kabra437 commented upon by
Moderator:

Who is thoughtful enough to write ..

 <> failed to consider ... Green's order ... binding only upon ...
 <> companies that were a part of the old "Bell System".  None of the

No bad feelings, bro, but I am compelled as one who once raised my
right hand and promised to defend it ... Is/Was J. Green a strict
constitutionalist ... any sort of constitutionalist ... and has he read
US Constitution, re Equal Protection Amendment, and have you, Sir ?


[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail]
[e-mail]   WA6CRE    Gold Coast Sun Users   Vta-SB-SLO DECUS  gnu
Opinions, MINE, NOT Uncle Sam_s | b-news postmaster xntp dns  WAFFLE


[Moderator's Note: Good point, but I am not the person who made the
comments attributed to me. Those were the original author's, so I
shall leave it to him to respond direct to you if he wishes to do so.
I can't say I entirely disagree with you.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #177
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14482;
          4 Mar 91 4:15 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04162;
          4 Mar 91 2:35 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04232;
          4 Mar 91 1:30 CST
Date:     Mon, 4 Mar 91 1:22:35 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #178
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 4 Mar 91 01:22:24 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 178

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Nigel Allen]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Brian Crawford]
    Re: Digital Phones for SLIP Circuits [Syd Weinstein]
    Re: Are Surcharges Legal on 800 Calls? [John Higdon]
    Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy [Magnus M. Halldorsson]
    Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments [John R. Levine]
    Re: "Most Accurate Clock" [Bob Izenberg]
    Re: When to Use / Not Use the 1 [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count) [Yoram Eisenstadter]
    Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges [Michael Ho]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1991 19:23:00 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada


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

> [...] A recording of an obviously French voice
> gave me another number to call.  What's odd (at least to my American
> ears) was that the voice gave the new number as something like "area
> code 212, telephone number xxx-xxxx", as if the area code was not to
> be considered part of the phone number, but something extra, or as PAT
> puts it, incidental.

When a phone number has been changed to one in a new area code, I
distinctly prefer an intercept announcement that precedes the area
code with the words "area code" or "area". Otherwise, people will
think that the initial three digits are a local prefix, and get
confused by hearing seven more digits.

Bell Canada intercept operators normally would pronounce a new number
as "area 613 232-xxxx", but Bell Canada's automated intercept system
just gives the number as 613 232-xxxx.


Nigel Allen   [e-mail]

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Date: 3 Mar 91 15:06:32 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jim Breen) writes:

> Was this process of having to wait for a tone peculiar to France?

I remember having to do this a few years ago in Zimbabwe to get to an
international trunk to dial the states.  A prefix was dialed, and you
had to wait for a second dial tone before dialing the country code+.
It was in a small town, and if memory serves correct, this wasn't
required in Harare, one of the largest cities.


Brian Crawford               INTERNET (current):   [e-mail]
PO Box 804                            (permanent): [e-mail]
Tempe, Arizona  85280        FidoNet:              1:114/15.12
USA                          Amateur:              KL7JDQ

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Digital Phones for SLIP Circuits
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1991 17:37:49 GMT


elroy!suned1![e-mail] (Everett F Batey) writes:

> Sites are within three miles, wire, 1/2 mile crow flight.
> - We have access to a four wire metallic circuit, not conditioned.  Is
> there an economical, recent or old, technology four wire modem YOU USE
> to support 9600 baud SLIP ?

With that short a circuit, you can run LADD modems (Local Area Data
Distributors) which are meant for four wire metalic circuts.  Over
three miles of wire you can easily do 19.2kb.  Modems of this type are
rather in-expensive.  I ran two offices tied together by this method
for several years and it worked just fine (Note, LADD modems come in
both sync and async models.)


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

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

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 09:54 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Are Surcharges Legal on 800 Calls?


On Mar 3 at  2:00, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: If such charges are legal, they should be billed to
> the recipient of the 800 call. That person has, after all, agreed to
> pay the charges associated with connecting the caller to him.  I
> really do not think they are legal however, but I'm not sure.  PAT]

They are legal in some states, including California. The only thing
that keeps them from being universal, even when allowed, is that when
a phone wants money for what everyone knows is a "free" call, COCOT PR
sinks even lower.

As far as billing the recipient is concerned, this is impossible.
There are as many 800 number billing arrangements as there are hairs
on your head. None of them have any provision for "charge backs" from
COCOT operators. My 800 number bill says in essence, "X hours--Y
dollars" and that is all. No detail of any kind; and certainly no
provision for slimy COCOTs. Besides, when I signed up I only agreed to
the market hourly rate -- not the possibility of "extra charges".


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



[Moderator's Note: When someone calls you collect from a COCOT, the
AOS handling the calls figures out some way to bill the recipient,
don't they? They work through the local telco in many cases. So let
them do the same thing with their bogus handling charges for 800
calls.  PAT]

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

From: Magnus M Halldorsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy
Date: 3 Mar 91 21:01:20 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


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

> I must admit that I find the public telephone debit cards to be
> convenient, and for tourists and other transients they are great.
> But I disagree that America should try to emulate them.

Well, I disagree with you. Your first sentence has already stated one
important reason.

> First of all, I have problems with the whole idea of stored-value
> cards.  The fraud potential is way too high when you leave the balance
> in the hands of the consumer.

A while ago, somebody overheard my wife giving her card number to an
operator. Somebody and his friends went on a major phoning spree,
including Moscow and Ivory Coast, rolling up a $6000 bill. I didn't
have to pay a dime, but the fraud potential argument of phone debit
cards somehow doesn't impress me.

> Stored-value telephone cards are also popular because using one costs
> no more than using cash.  I call on U.S. telephone and long
> distance companies to eliminate calling card and credit card
> surcharges.

Good. That's argument number two. Yes, if the long distance companies
would eliminate the surcharges that wouldn't hold, but I don't see
that on the horizon.

Some more disadvantages of telephone credit cards:

  - You need to apply for it. Whereas you could buy debit cards in a
store or an automat, you must wait for your snail mail.

  - You need to have a fixed residence with a phone. The times when you
don't have a phone, are exactly the times when you really could use a
phone card.

  - It's a credit card. It has all the disadvantages of
"spend-first-pay-later" mentality; plus you must be in good credit standing.

  - It requires long keystrokes. Given Murphy's law, the phones you
find always use the other long-distance carrier, and you must
therefore type in between six and nine digits before entering the nine
digit number, followed by the thirteen digit card number.

Of course, we could agree on allowing the advantages of both.


Magnus

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

Subject: Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 3 Mar 91 22:22:27 EST (Sun)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

> mailing a nine-digit bar coded envelope that has the five vertical
> stripes is $0.27, not $0.29.

> [Moderator's Note: The thing you overlooked was the *minimum pieces
> per mailing* requirement to get the 27 cent rate.

The 27 cent rate applies to single barcoded pieces -- it is
specifically intended for customers mailing back bill payments and
such.  Mailings of 500 pieces suitably marked and bundled are cheaper,
about 24 cents.

The implementation of the 27 cent rate is "deferred," allegedly
because of the need for public education, but also largely because
there are no 27 cent stamps printed.  It's not clear whether at this
point a barcoded envelope on which you put 27 cents would be
considered to have enough postage.

On another topic of interest here in recent days I note in passing
that as well as Enterprise and Zenith prefixes for the old
auto-collect service, I've seen them called WX numbers in New Jersy
and Pennsylvania.  They're not totally obsolete, since you can target
a much smaller area than you can with 800 numbers, though I suspect
that at an extra dollar or so per call for the collect billing you'd
be better off taking a few random 800 calls.

Regards,


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

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

From: Bob Izenberg <dogface![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Most Accurate Clock"
Date: 3 Mar 91 21:19:55 GMT


bcstec!tahoma![e-mail] (Kerry G. Forschler) writes:

> {Popular Electronics} magazine, March 1991, page 73, gives a hands-on
> review of the Heathkit Most Accurate Clock.

Unix types might want to try out Bill Kennedy's code to use this
"clock" to update a Unix system's clock, as posted recently to
alt.sources.

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

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 16:26:50 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When to Use / Not Use the 1


> [Moderator's Note: In summary, no, the rules are not the same
> everywhere in the USA. In almost every case you need a '1' before a
> ten-digit number. In the case of seven-digit numbers it varies
> according to the numbering scheme used by the local telco. The telcos
> usually begin using '1' in front of seven digits when their supply of
> prefixes without a one or a zero as the second digit begins to run
> short. A one or zero in the second digit of a three digit number here
> usually indicates an area code instead of a local exchange code. Using
> '1' first allows an extended set of exchange codes.

I'm confused by what the Moderator is saying here.  When an area code
runs out of NNX exchanges and starts introducing NXX exchanges, it
seems that changing intra-area long distance dialing from 7D to 1+7D
is exactly the *wrong* thing for the telco to do, because it
introduces ambiguity.  Timeouts would thus be needed to distinguish
between, say, 1-312-4567 and 1-312-456-7890.  Have any telcos actually
pulled such a stunt?  Why didn't they just go directly to 1+10D
dialing, which has no such ambiguity?  It would be a shame if some
places were converting from 7D to 1+7D at the same time when many
other places are "doing the right thing" and converting from 1+7D to
1+10D.

In answer to our Danish friend, no, the rules are not *currently*
uniform.  But it appears that all non-conforming telcos will have to
change by 1995 at the latest, when NXX area codes start appearing in
the NANP.  There will then be only two ways to direct-dial a number:
NXX-XXXX, and 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX (*).  Most of the NANP already seems to
use these rules, but there are still a lot of exceptions.

As far as intra-area toll calls go, there appears to be some variation
allowed even under the new plan.  Some telcos require NXX-XXXX, and
some require 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX.  Anyone out there know of any telcos that
accept *both* forms?  Which one is recommended by Bellcore (if it
cares)?

(*) There is currently at least one place (Dallas & Ft. Worth, Texas)
    where NXX-NXX-XXXX dialing is allowed for calls which cross an
    area code boundary but which are local; LD calls there use the
    usual 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX format.  I don't know if this setup will be
    permanent, or if it will (or has) spread to many other areas.  In
    such areas, of course, the telco must take care not to introduce
    any exchanges that use the same three digits as the
    adjacent-but-local area code.


Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation        [e-mail]
62 Alexander Drive            ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA


[Moderator's Note: We seem to be back to where we were a couple weeks
ago on this: What you think about the '1' on the front depends on what
your telco has pomoted with /without it over the years.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 3 Mar 91 20:17:34 EST
From: Yoram Eisenstadter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count)
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science


In article <[e-mail]> Doug Reuben wrote:

(I had originally written):

>> NYC wasn't always a single local calling area; I remember several
>> years ago there were parts of Queens that were local to Manhattan (25
>> cents from a payphone) and some that were not (40 cents from a
>> payphone).

> There are still many payphones that demand 40 cents for calls
> within 718/212, depending on how far they are. Little Neck to
> certain areas of NYC (err..I mean Manhattan) are 40 cents, (and
> Little Neck is in Queens, NOT Nassau/516).

OK ... I'll check this out tomorrow and report back.

> Also, some people on or near the Queens/Nassau line get free (or
> untimed) service to a local Nassau communities, and to all of NYC!
> Neat place to set up a remote-call-forward site into/out of NYC. A
> friend of mine who goes to NYU but lives in Manhasset does this.
> According to him, it saves money, and he leaves his terminal on all day.

This feature, which was called "border credits" by NYTEL, is being (or
has already been) phased out.  As an alternative, NYTEL is pushing a
new program called "Econopath", which is sort of like a local version
of AT&T's "Reach Out America" -- you pay a monthly fee and then get
reduced rates for a specified set of non-local rate zones that you
call frequently.  (This is, of course, a significantly worse deal...)

Actually, my CO is an interesting example of border-line effects: it
is a 1A-ESS that serves two prefixes in Queens (718/343, 718/347) and
two in Nassau County (516/352, 516/354).  Under the new rate
structure, I can call a number that is served by my own CO and be
charged for a toll call!

Cheers,


Y

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 91 21:42:05 GMT


In reading John Higdon's post, it occurred to me that I've never seen
a COCOT.  Now, I never use pay phones -- or at least, very rarely --
so when I sauntered up to a pay phone at a local bar last night, I
inspected it very carefully to see if it was, indeed, one of the vile
things.

Under long-distance information, it said something to the effect of
"This telephone supplies long-distance service which is provided by
LINCOLN TELEPHONE LONG DISTANCE, the absolute best long-distance
service in the world, cost-effective, clear, heck, why aren't you
using it at home???".  There was a big -- and I mean big, like 2" x
4", sticker by the dial that said the phone supplied access to all
carriers in compliance with all regulations.

The upshot: an LT&T phone.  No doubt.  But I've still never seen a
COCOT, and then came his post saying that some states have outlawed
them.  Is Nebraska one of them?  I would tend to doubt it, since we're
one of the most (if not *the* most) deregulated state for telephone
services.  Are Nebraskans just too nice to use the things?

What should I be looking for?  Do all COCOTs use AOSes, or do I have
to be more picky than that?  Is there some kind of "this is a COCOT,
run for your life" message I should be looking for?


Michael Ho, University of Nebraska   Internet: [e-mail]
Disclaimer:  Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be
         applied to any university agency.


[Moderator's Note: Actually, the more clever COCOT operators use
phones which very closely resemble the 'genuine Bell' style. They try
to make it very hard *from the phone's appearance* that you are not
using what you expected. Once they get your coin deposit in the phone,
well then that is another matter.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #178
******************************






DUE TO MIXED UP TRANSMISSION, SEVERAL ISSUES IN THIS AREA ARE FILED
OUT OF ORDER, THUS:
169,174,175,176,170,171,172,173,177,178,181,182,179,180,183,184.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13708;
          6 Mar 91 2:46 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00702;
          6 Mar 91 0:58 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19766;
          5 Mar 91 23:53 CST
Date:     Tue, 5 Mar 91 23:22:35 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #181
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Mar 91 23:22:04 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 181

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: An Old Instrument Develops Bell-Tap [Barton F. Bruce]
    MTS, IMTS, Motorola TLD1100 [Steve Pershing]
    How do Businesses Get ANI? And a 911 (711) Story [David Gast]
    Re: Can 50 Conductor Phone Cable be Used For LAN? [Bill Woodcock]
    Cellular Telephones on a Bicycle [Richard Budd]
    Sprint Complaint Followup [John Higdon]
    Re: Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count) [Jerry B. Altzman]
    Re: Calling Lebanon: Why Not Direct? [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card
Date: 4 Mar 91 01:24:16 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


950 access is over the older feature group B trunks, and it is really
silly to perpetuate what was ideally a temporary measure. It means
PHYSICALLY different trunks and switching equipment. This is wasted
dollars which translates to higher prices. The only valid reason 950
must exist is in the few places that don't yet have equal access.

10xxx access is over the same feature group D trunks that equal access
uses and should be ALL that is needed. If the carriers would arrange
for a suitable selection of screening codes to be universally
available FREE, it would be simple and safe to allow 10xxx0+ type
access, as you would KNOW that only "bill elsewhere" traffic would be
accepted. You would order the screening service that fits your needs.
Between the ones available for hotels and ski condos for weekend rent
and assorted others, there is a good start.

Perhaps a simple variant would be to ONLY screen if 10xxx is
explicitly dialed (even if it selects the default carrier), and this
would let a smart switch use the same trunks for all traffic. Any
10xxx0+ traffic would be safe. 0+ from restricted extensions would get
10xxx (of the default carrier) prefixed, and non restricted stations
can get 0+ to bill the BTN.

The big single group objecting to 10xxx universal access was the
lodging industry that has a LOT of older equipment that would be
expensive to convert to allow 10xxx codes. Their dumb-dumb mode
hardware sees 10xxx as some sort of billable call, and 950 as a
vanilla local like call.

If one flavor of screening simply disallowed ANYTHING on 10xxx access
except 10xxx0+ bill elsewhere traffic, a hotel could allow 10xxx
traffic without further understanding it because any attempt to bill
to them, even 10xxx1+ would be blocked. Normal 1+ could work
optionally, and would be handled by existing call accounting hardware.

I have been told that screening is 'honored' by the AT&T/MCI/SPRINT
class carriers, but what of telesleeze type ones?

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: An Old Instrument Develops Bell-Tap
Date: 4 Mar 91 02:09:35 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, tots!tots.Logicon.COM!
[e-mail] (Tom Perrine) writes:

> so, it has developed what sounds like bell-tap; when you dial, the
> ringer makes one "ding" for every pulse in the number.  When an
> extension was added (by TPC), we discovered that dialing the extension
> (a cordless, set to pulse-dial) also causes the original phone to
> "ding".

> Is this "bell-tap"?

Yes.

> Is it a matter of reversing the polarity on the pair,

The biased ringers are most immune to tap when connected properly
across the line. (Keeping it simple...) the green cord wire should go
to the line wire that is + (on any el-cheapo vom) in relation to the
other wire.

> or is it due to wear in the electro-mechanical ringer? After
> thirty years, I would assume that it could be a *little* out of
> adjustment :-).

Not much wear likely, but the little spring hooks in different
notches.  If set way up high, the bell may not ring if the loop is
very long.  If set too weak, the bell will tap especially on short
loops (where there is plenty of power to ring with the spring set
stiff).

BTW, I assume that TT/DP extension has been tried in TT mode even if
you don't pay for the service.

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

Subject: MTS, IMTS, Motorola TLD1100.
From: system administrator <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 91 15:08:27 PST
Organization: Questor::Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC::+1 604 681.0670


I recently revived my interest in VHF mobile radiotelephone service in
the USA and Canada.

It all started when I called the local telco (GTE's BCTel), and asked
about it.  I was informed that it was still available, but the CRTTC
(Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission) had
granted them permission to discontinue the service (!).  (It turns out
they can only discontinue it if there is something else to replace
it ... presumably "cellular".)

One thing led to another, and another, until I had much of the
information I was looking for.

IMTS service is still very popular in the USA.  It is almost non-
existant in Canada, however, where most of the VHF mobile radio-
telephone service supplied by the telcos is the manually-compatible MTS.

There was one curious anomaly that popped up: It seems that
Saskatchewan Government Telephones (SaskTel) now offers a province-
wide Touch-Tone dial service (over the existing MTS channels), called
"AutoPhone".  This service offers:

  - Direct dial calling to and from your car
  - Last number redial
  - Call forward
  - On-hook dialling
  - Conventional user in most North American areas

The coverage map shows a photo of what could be any standard cellular
handset with keys and a digital display on the back, labelled
"AutoPhone, ST4100".

I wonder what these guys are up to?  Is it a hybrid scheme integrating
two non-compatible signalling systems on the MTS frequencies?
Certainly appears to be.

If anyone can enlighten me, I would appreciate it.

On another, but somewhat related matter, I am still the proud owner of
a now obsolete Motorola TLD1100 IMTS radiotelephone.  When I got rid
of my old car, I did not manage to remove the transmitter housing and
the control/battery cable assembly.  Can anyone tell me where I might
be able to get these parts cheaply (read almost free)?

Finally ... is anyone aware of a hand-held VHF IMTS portable (either
full- or half-duplex)?  There are lots of frequency-synthesized VHF
hand-helds available which can be programmed to work with the telco
VHF radiotelephone service in a manual, dial-out only mode.  Are there
any that can receive and send either MTS or IMTS signalling?


Steve Pershing, System Administrator

The QUESTOR Project: FREE Usenet News/Internet Mail; Sci, Med, AIDS, more
Usenet:  [e-mail]      : POST: 1027 Davie Street,  Box 486
Phones:  Voice/FAX:  [phone]=6659  :       Vancouver, British Columbia
         Data/BBS:   +1 604 681=0670  :       Canada  V6E 4L2

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

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 23:29:18 -0800
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do Businesses Get ANI? And a 911 (711) Story


> [Moderator's Note: They [AMEX] get inter-LATA ANI for the same reason I get
> it: They have an 800 number. When you are paying for the calls you get
> told who you are paying for. If you accept a collect call, the
> operator will tell you what number is calling also, if you ask.   PAT]

With the price of the AMEX card, it's hard to argue that the customer
is not paying for the call; regardless, the topic of ANI for 800
numbers is open to some disagreement.

It is possible, however, that the poster was refering to some large
organizations that have ISDN and that get ANI information as part of
that feature.  Several PUCs, I think Washington's among them, have
ruled this service illegal -- at least at the present time.

I don't know if ISDN ANI is available in GTE land, but I called the
local branch of a national organization that has been reported in the
digest to have ISDN and about 10 days later I got an application to
join.  (As part of the application, I agree to abide by all by-laws
and regulations although none of these is specifically mentioned.
Obviously, I did not sign up).  Of course, the junk mail have just
been a coincidence.

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

From: Bill Woodcock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can 50 Conductor Phone Cable be Used For LAN?
Date: 5 Mar 91 02:48:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


> I would appreciate information on whether a 50-conductor phone
> cable, presently serving a 1A2 system, would be appropriate for
> shared use as the wiring of a LAN. Is one use likely to interfere
> with the other and under what conditions (ringing affect LAN, LAN
> affect voice or modem calls, etc.) and what could be done to
> eliminate or minimize these effects. Performance limits on the LAN
> with such wiring are also of interest.

I commonly run quarter megabit AppleTalk networks over unused pairs in
existing building telephone wiring.  There are hardware hacks which
increase the transmission speed of AppleTalk from 234Kbaud up to
600Kbaud and even one megabit, and having working telephone pairs
running in the same cables doesn't seem to affect these either.  Both
Apple and Farallon (the principal manufacturer of quarter megabit
AppleTalk networking components) explicitly state that there isn't a
problem with doing this.  (The phone lines, not the speed hack!)

In addition, most Macintosh-using offices with permanently installed
network cabling use the same RJ-13 jack for both voice (inside pair)
and AppleTalk (outside pair) which means that they're running side by
side on the modular flatwire between the jack and devices, without
benefit of pair twisting.

I'm more a networking person than an electronics one, but my
understanding is that the frequencies used are different enough that
crosstalk and induced current aren't a problem.

Similarly, 10BASET twisted-pair Ethernet will work in the same
situations, for the same reasons, in so far as it works at all.
<grin> You need twisted pair drop cables between your walljack and
transciever or card with 10BASET, instead of the (easier to terminate)
eight-conductor modular flatwire, though.


Bill Woodcock      BMUG NetAdmin
bill.woodcock.iv   [e-mail]
2355.virginia.st   berkeley.california
94709.1315

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

Date: MON, 04 MAR 91 22.27.57  EDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Telephones on a Bicycle


For the sixth year running, we are organizing this summer a bicycle
ride from Buffalo to New York City.  To allow members of the support
crew to communicate with each other, one of the organizers suggested
cellular telephones for each member of the crew.  We are interested in
answers to the following questions:

1) The telephones would only be needed for the duration of the bicycle
trip and due to budgetary constraints, we would prefer to either rent
them or accept a donation in exchange for promotion.  To whom should
we speak about renting cellular telephones for a ten day period (Radio
Shack, the cellular phone companies...)?

2) Two to three members of the support crew ride bicycles.  What would
be the set-up required to install a cellular telephone on a bicycle?

BTW, I've passed the BITNET address of TELECOM Digest over to the
Information Institute at the University of Warsaw so the system
administrators could communicate their local and wide area network
problems directly to the forum.  (Time to brush up on your Polish,
Pat:-})


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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 21:54 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Sprint Complaint Followup


It is only fair to point out that a person from US Sprint contacted me
regarding the bogus charges and subsequent dunning I was subjected to.
He did so after seeing my postings (gosh -- the Power of the Press)
about the matter last week.

He gave me an explanation of how it happened and he resolved the
matter more than equitably. I have to say that when when pressed hard
enough, Sprint has come through with solutions. Well, I have been with
it since it was Southern Pacific Communications. The company must be
doing something right.


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

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

From: Jerry B. Altzman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count)
Reply-To: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Organization: mailer daemons association
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 02:50:38 GMT


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

> Nassau/516). Calls from most of Queens to Staten Island are 40 cents,
> although I can't say this is still true; it was two years ago. I think

FYI, those going through NYC. On the coin-op devices, it's more
expensive to call "longish distance" -- e.g. from one borough to a
distant one.

It's US$0.40 to call from the Staten Island ferry terminal in
Manhattan (inside the turnstiles) to Staten Island, I believe the
opposite is true, as well.

On NYTEL pay phones, it's US$0.25 from anywhere in Manhattan to most
points in King's and Queen's counties. It's US$0.25 to anywhere in
212, as well (Manhattan and Bronx counties).

> Interestingly, some exchanges are the SAME in both area codes. I am
> not referring to "choke" prefixes for radio stations (955 for
> 212/718/516/and maybe 914), nor to special feature numbers (950, 976,
> 970, 540, 550).  There is a "230" exchange, and you can use that from
> either the 718 or 212 area codes, and you get connected to the same
> number. I've seen this advertised on NYC busses for some sort of
> shelter (maybe for the homeless?  I dunno ...). I think there may be
> other exchanges set up this way as well.

I'd imagine businesses can just "buy" into certain exchanges and have
the numbers auto-forward one to another -- I don't believe (and
haven't heard) of any special service offered.

> Also, some people on or near the Queens/Nassau line get free (or
> untimed) service to a local Nassau communities, and to all of NYC!
> Neat place to set up a remote-call-forward site into/out of NYC. A
> friend of mine who goes to NYU but lives in Manhasset does this.
> According to him, it saves money, and he leaves his terminal on all
> day.

Those kinds of services aren't uncommon at all--Chichester, Aston, and
Marcus Hook PA (as well as several others) are al local calls to most
of 312, which isn't surprising, since they are all a stone's throw
from the PA/DE border.

Likewise, I believe some communities in Chester County, PA may be both
local to 717 and 215, since they're served by some random independent
telco.


jerry b. altzman       [phone]
[e-mail]    jauus@cuvmb (bitnet)
NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET) ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!)

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

Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1991 19:13:40 EST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Lebanon: Why Not Direct?


A recent submission to the Digest asked:

> Does anyone know why one has to first call an AT&T operator, to call a
> number in Lebanon? Do telephone companies doubt the ability of people
> calling there to dial a number? And also, why are there so little
> lines to this country?  I know that in France, for example, it is much
> easier to get through to Lebanon , and you can dial by yourself.

Quite a few of the non-dialable (from the USA) international points
are in Africa.  There may be a little history here, but I am not sure
of all the angles. If you go back a *long* time ago, many African
countries were colonies of France and England. In the case of France
at least, they seemed to control the possible phone connections /
routings very closely. I recall well that through the 1950 - 60's era
when all international calls went through the operator, calls to many
or most places in Africa went from White Plains to Paris, *then*
south. White Plains had to 'book' their calls through the Paris
overseas operators who only accepted calls from the USA to Africa at
certain times of the day. Calls to African colonies of European
countries were always difficult and tedious. Calls were permitted to
(what was then called) the Belgian Congo three days a week only!  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #181
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15829;
          6 Mar 91 4:11 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26667;
          6 Mar 91 2:06 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00702;
          6 Mar 91 0:58 CST
Date:     Wed, 6 Mar 91 0:28:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #182
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Mar 91 00:28:12 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 182

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Watch for the COCOT Warning Signs! [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges [David E. Martin]
    COCOTs at Post Offices [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges [John Higdon]
    Local Competition - "Bypass Service" [Dan Herrick]
    Re: Airfones and TDD? [Bruce E. Howells]
    Re: When to Use / Not Use the 1 [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell [David Lesher]
    Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell [Robert Jacobson]
    Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business [Robert Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 05:50 GMT
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Watch for the COCOT Warning Signs!


[e-mail] (Michael Ho) wrote (on March 3, '91):

> In reading John Higdon's post, it occurred to me that I've never seen
> a COCOT. [...]

> What should I be looking for?  Do all COCOTs use AOSes, or do I have
> to be more picky than that?  Is there some kind of "this is a COCOT,
> run for your life" message I should be looking for?

I can think of several warning signs offhand ... perhaps other readers
can add to this list, but here's what I have (these are tests that
don't require money):

1) Pick up the receiver and listen to the dialtone.  If it's a COCOT,
   it may not sound quite like the dialtone supplied by telco...on at
   least one phone I used, it sounded entirely different from the usual
   dialtone.

2) Dial an 800 number that you know is correct.
   a) Does the phone ask for money before or after dialing your number?
     If yes: Definitely a COCOT.
   b) When dialing the digits, do you hear beeps instead of touch
     tones?  (If you hear touchtones, that's not necessarily a guarantee
     that you have a genuine phone, but if you hear beeps, you may have a
     COCOT.)

3) Generally, if you dial a number (without depositing coins) that you
   know is free on a genuine pay phone, and the phone asks for money,
   there's a good chance your dialing with a COCOT.

This is by no means an exhaustive list.  The point is that even if the
pay phone looks like the genuine article, it'll probably give its true
identity away the moment you pick up the handset (or very soon
thereafter).


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


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

Date: Mon,  4 Mar 91 18:18:42 EST
From: David E Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, IL


I have had a similar problem in Chicago on COCOT's.  I talked with
Illinois Bell and there is no access code for them.  In other words,
if you are at a COCOT and want to make a local call with Illinois
Bell, you can't.  The woman I spoke to said that she would make my
request for an access code known.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 11:32 PST
Subject: COCOTs at Post Offices


John Higdon wrote recently about some no-armed bandits at the Meridian
Avenue Post Office in San Jose.  There's a similar bandito at the
Parkmoor P. O. that I frequent (95126).  It's the closest one
physically to John's P. O.

I wonder how these COCOTs got there.  Who leased 'em and who gets the
royalties.  I first thought it would be the landlord, since Parkmoor
Station is located in a multi-use building, but the Meridian P.O. is a
free standing Postal facility, and I believe that the government owns
the building.

Nonetheless, the public is being raped at these beasties, and, while
the landlord of a building might be within his rights to put one out,
the concept of the US Government profiteering at our expense IN THIS
MANNER (yes, I know about all the other manners) seems inappropriate.

So who do I complain to (to whom do I complain?)  Getting answers out
of the P.O. is usually fruitless, and we know that most people have no
idea where the phone came from anyway.

Suggestions, anyone?


edg


[Moderator's Note: In the case of federal government-owned buildings,
the landlord is technically the General Services Administration.
They'd be the people you should speak with. To save a lot of time and
red tape, ask at the local post office to speak with the Postmaster or
Station Manager. In turn, ask that person for the name and phone
number of the building manager, or their contact at GSA. Don't even
get into a discussion of the phones themselves until you are speaking
with the right party, who would probably be a GSA supervisor with
authority over the property (where the post office is housed). When
you speak with the building manager at GSA for the specific location,
then in all likelyhood s/he got instructions regards the phones from
whoever is responsible for telecom services locally. As I implied,
don't bother asking the lady who sells postage stamps.   PAT]

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

Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1991 13:23:53 PST
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: COCOT *LOCAL* Toll Charges


On Mar 4 at  1:22, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Actually, the more clever COCOT operators use
> phones which very closely resemble the 'genuine Bell' style.

This is so true. In an effort to make its phones truly distinctive,
Pac*Bell changed the color of the little square by the slot, changed
the color of the instruction card, embossed the puckered*asshole logo
on the coinbox cover, and plastered PACIFIC*BELL all over the sidewalk
phone stands.

Not three months later so had a company called "PUBLIC*PHONE". They
changed the red square to blue, changed the card, embossed an
actionably similar to Pac*Bell logo on the coinbox cover, and put its
phones in enclosures that must come from the same company that
supplies Pac*Bell. These things are so close to the appearance of a
Pac*Bell payphone that I cannot spot one at a distance greater than
ten feet (with my glasses on!).

> Once they get your coin deposit in the phone,

or your calling card number,

> well then that is another matter.  PAT]


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


Moderator's Note: Something else you can always depend on -- and the
thing I examine first -- is the instruction card on the phone. Genuine
Bell will *always* make some reference to Bell on the card. Read how
it says to dial local and long distance calls. Read what it says about
repair service and directory, etc.  In fact I would say the
instruction card is a sure way of telling one from the other. Become
familiar with the instruction card on the phone.


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

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

Date: 4 Mar 91 20:01:00 EDT
From: "CONTR  HERRICK, DAN" <abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Local Competition - "Bypass Service"


Pat reported IBT access for Teleport Communications and Metropolitan
Fiber Systems to provide some alternative LEC services, reselling IBT
services and asked where else alternative service is actually being
implemented.

This data comes from a front page article, headed "Shakeout Looms
Over Bypass Mart by Bob Brown, Senior Editor in the 25 February 1991
issue of {Network World}, a weekly tabloid.  (Dallas dateline)

The dateline was for the annual meeting of the Association for Local
Telecommunications Services, a trade group of alternative access
carriers.

The mood at the meeting was "incredibly optimistic" according to John
Shapleigh, ALTS' new president.

Philadelphia Fiber Optic went out of business, losing a competitive
war.

Dallas based DFW MetroLink, Inc filed for Chapter 7 liquidation, but
is continuing to sign up new customers while looking for a buyer.

Some others, including Institutional Communications Co, and Eastern
Telelogic are looking for money.

Teleport Communications Group, the industry's only profitable player,
is being offered for sale by owner Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
Metropolitan Fiber Systems, Inc is not for sale, but has suitors.
These are the two Pat mentioned in the IBT story.

Foreign long haul carriers Cable & Wireless PLC, British
Telecommunications PLC, France Telecom, and Kokusai Denshin Denwa, Ltd
are in the bidding for Teleport.  (And others.)

Metropolitan Fiber Systems is operating networks in 11 cities.

Market revenues (all alternate companies) $60 million in 1989 and $90
million in 1990.

Market share in any city tends to be less than 2% of the business
business.

The article has a chart, credited to Susan J Champeny of The Yankee
Group, Boston, that shows investment in local fiber network by the
alternate access carriers and by the local exchange carriers:

                    1988   1989   1990   1991   1992
        alternate   $250   $350   $400   $450   $500
        LEC            0     40    100    250    300

Robert Atkinson, senior vice-president of regulatory and external
affairs at Teleport, says chances are good that carrier accessibility
will get better for the alternates now that Teleport has won a bitter
struggle with Nynex Corp. to collocate in New York Telephone Company
central offices.

Atkinson's comments suggested that the IBT agreement followed from and
was related to the successful conclusion in NY.  He says that the
Bells are givin in to the alternative access carriers on
interconnection in hopes of winning concessions from public service
commissions.  New York Telephone won more pricing flexibility as it
conceded central office access.

So, my suggestions here that we ought to compete are a few years
behind the market.  My report above names every company in the
alternate carrier market mentioned in the Network World article.


dan herrick          [e-mail]

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

From: beh@.mit.edu (Bruce E. Howells)
Subject: Re: Airfones and TDD?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Economics
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 04:32:36 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Curtis E. Reid) writes:

> Someone mentioned that you can't use cellular phone or radio while
> airborne, right?  What about use of other electronic equipment like a
> laptop, GameBoy (Yes, I do play it!), or a TDD?

> Before I do this, I need to know if any electronic equipment is
> prohibited on an airplane while airborne?  Could someone tell me
> excatly what are the rules for operating such equipment on an
> airplane?  Thanks!!

The quick, off the cuff answer is "whatever the pilot allows."  The
rules regulating aircraft permit the pilot full control over what
electronic equipment is allowed to be operated on board.  This was a
big issue back when laptops first started showing up - airlines,
unwilling to be a test case of avionics failure, simply banned their
use, not sure of interference problems.

The real answer is call your airline.  Especially for the TDD, explain
to them that you need the TDD, that you have special needs that you
need their assistance with.  They tend to be very receptive to such
requests.


Hope this helps,


Bruce Howells,   [e-mail]   (formerly [e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 17:57:49 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When to Use / Not Use the 1


> I'm confused by what the Moderator is saying here.  When an area code
> runs out of NNX exchanges and starts introducing NXX exchanges, it
> seems that changing intra-area long distance dialing from 7D to 1+7D
> is exactly the *wrong* thing for the telco to do, because it
> introduces ambiguity.  Timeouts would thus be needed to distinguish
> between, say, 1-312-4567 and 1-312-456-7890....

> [Moderator's Note: We seem to be back to where we were a couple weeks
> ago on this: What you think about the '1' on the front depends on what
> your telco has pomoted with /without it over the years.   PAT]

No, it has nothing to do with that.  It has everything to do with
ambiguity.  If the telco allows intra-NPA long distance dialing using
1+7D, and the telco also uses NXX exchanges (i.e., exchanges that look
like area codes) within that NPA, then how does the switch know how
many digits will follow "1-NXX-"?  Answer: the timeout kludge.  Yuck.
If the telco were reasonable, it would replace 1+7D with either 1+10D
or with 7D, both of which are unambiguous.


Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation        [e-mail]
62 Alexander Drive            ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 18:23:28 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


|        And while we have the topic of Alternative Access open, let's
| take note that MCI bought the transmission portion of Western Union a
| year or so back.  That acquistion included miles and miles of Western
| Union conduits in the streets of more cities than any of us knew
| about.  I knew of a list of 17 major cities where WUTCo had cables in
| the street for years.  But I even heard of digging in the streets of
| Oklahoma City that exposed _wooden_ conduits marked "Western Union"
| just a year or so ago.

Hmm,

This brings up a VERY interesting scenaro. WU used to have not just
cable, but pneumatic message tube virtually everywhere in many Eastern
US cities. A late friend of mine who worked for WU through both World
Wars talked about the seventeen-odd branch offices that they had in
downtown Cleveland alone - all interconnected by message tube.

Folks, you can stuff an awful lot of fiber bandwidth down just one of
those tubes. Heck, if you did it right, maybe you could get the fiber
pulled in by a carrier tube - no digging needed.

But don't worry, John. Pac Bell is safe. Chances are, California hadn't
been discovered when WU was putting in tubes;-]

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell
Date: 5 Mar 91 17:40:57 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle


Given that there are unavoidable overhead costs associated with
colocation, who picks up the tab?  And who sets it?  Do these new
providers of local service pay any sort of access charge, or are they
(1) creamskimming the business market and (2) providing telcos with a
foil for arguments that will deregulate "competitive" (i.e., read
"business") services and put the greater rate burden on residential
customers?

In California, the energy utilities were prodded by neoconservative
regulators into permitting competition, too.  The net result was much
lower rates for very big customers (the $10 million+/year sort) and
much HIGHER rates for the "core" customers, those unable to avail
themselves of competitive services (who don't want the overhead of
serving smaller customers).  Even small business, which finds itself
in a neither fish nor fowl situation pays -- in fact, in many
situations, it pays the most.

Local competition has a nice ring.  Like the cash register's...


Bob Jacobson

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business
Date: 5 Mar 91 17:47:43 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle


I'm sorry, perhaps I missed it, but who has refuted the argument that
the local telephone monopoly does indeed allow for rate averaging and
holding down local rates?  In eight years of telecom policy work, I
never heard a convincing argument to the contrary ... and, in fact,
energy regulation has proven precisely the opposite.  Throughout
California, the state with which I am most familiar, residential and
commercial (small-business) customers are paying billions more in gas
rates so that industrial customers can be cajoled away from
"competitive options" (many of which they created, for just this
purpose) with lower rates.  Competition just means more costs for the
"core customers" who can't get access to real alternatives.  I don't
see cable rushing to hook up the Aunt Minnies, or you, or me.


Bob Jacobson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #182
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14112;
          7 Mar 91 0:37 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09430;
          5 Mar 91 4:24 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07893;
          5 Mar 91 2:58 CST
Date:     Tue, 5 Mar 91 2:38:31 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #179
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Mar 91 02:38:22 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 179

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Big System Crash Here! Mail Lost [TELECOM Moderator]
    Alphanumeric Paging [David Dodell]
    Re: California Tariff Question [John Higdon]
    Home Telephone Tap Detector [Kevin Boyd]
    Question About Calling Cue Tariff [M. Bog]
    Re: Homebrew Caller*ID [Doug Faunt]
    Rotary Dial for Cellular Phones? [Steve Pershing]
    $2 Caller ID Chip [portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]]
    What Number Maps to Q or Z? [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: 1+206 Dialling Coming to Washington [Brian Crawford]
    Payment For no Connection? [Christopher Wolf]
    Re: Where do You Live? In a Cave? [Dave Levenson]
    Northern Telecom Maestro Sets [Louis J. Judice]
    Re: Many Software Designers ... [Peter Marshall]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 0:46:45 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Big System Crash Here! Mail Lost


On Monday afternoon, a MAJOR system crash here at eecs.nwu.edu caused
the loss of all mail which would have arrived here between about 2:00
AM Monday and the time of the crash early afternoon Monday.

It was not just my accounts -- it was system wide.  /var and other
directories on that disk all went poof!  The machine was down for
several hours as a result, and came back up shortly before midnight
Monday night. Understandably, our sysadmin Bill Lefebre is quite
disturbed about the loss of mail and interruption of service.

Where that leaves us:  What you see today is what I have. The queue
was mostly empty Monday morning .... but I suspect the usual 50-75
messages which would have arrived Monday morning/afternoon will never
be recovered.  ** You probably got a receipt for the mail **, but it
is not here now!

 ** Reciepts dated BEFORE about 1 AM Sunday and AFTER 11 PM Monday
mean I have the mail. It is only the stuff in the middle which is
lost. **

If your submission is (a) not in this issue or the one following or
(b) accounted for by a note from myself, you should assume the worst.
That would include any list-change requests for adds and deletions to
the mailing list, etc.  Obviously, mail you sent to my personal
account is also gone.


PAT

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

Date: Tue, 05 Mar 91 00:10:03 GMT
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alphanumeric Paging


My local paging company has started to offer Alphanumeric paging
using the newer style Motorola pagers (similiar in size to a large
Bravo digital pager) ... they want to rent me a Motorola terminal for
$10/month, but they did disclose the access number locally.

 From what I have been able to determine, it is a 1200 baud number,
7E1, needing half duplex operation, but I can't get anything pass
this.  When explaining I need to do this from multiple locations using
PC, the pager company claims that you need one of the Motorola
terminals due to some "special codes" ...

I find this hard to believe, any one know the format so I could write some
scripts.


David


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

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

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 00:04 GMT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: California Tariff Question


Linc Madison <[e-mail]> writes:

> Specifically, the charges relate to some calling card calls made in
> ZUM Zone 2 (Zone Usage Measurement; Zone 2 is 8-12 miles).

Remember that under the fabulous PUC Give-Away Streamlined Tariff
Provisions (tm), little things like rates can blow with the wind as
long as the telco plays by the Contest Rules. Or at least appear that
it is.

> I placed these calls on my calling card because when I attempted
> to make them sent-paid, the computer quoted me an incorrect rate (75c
> for the first three minutes, when the tariffed rate is .25 + .08 +
> 2x.02 = .37, round down to .35).

First, telco never rounds down. Second, an inside source has revealed
to me that the pay phone division is screwed up big time. I have had
my own major experiences in that arena (some posted here). Lately I
have found that the programming on Pac*Bell coin phones is more out of
date than a GTE central office. I would say that the division depends
upon customer complaints to keep things current, but judging from its
lack of response to my complaints it appears that no one really cares.


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

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

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1991 00:12 GMT
From: Kevin Boyd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home Telephone Tap Detector


In my latest issue of the Hammacher Schlemmer catalog, there is a
device called the "Home Telephone Tap Detector".  It's description
really sounds too good to be true, but Hammacher Schlemmer is a very
old(founded in 1848) and reputable company.

It is described as follows:

HOME TELEPHONE TAP DETECTOR: Used by law enforcement agencies around
the world, this home telephone tap detector detects and defeats
virtually all tap systems.  It employs four individual detection
systems to detect low and high impedance taps, wireless bugs, off-hook
extensions and automatic tape recorders.  Mode one scans the line for
any low impedance taps or off-hook extensions and, if any are found,
an indicator light goes out and your phone conversation is
automatically muted.  Mode two scans the radio spectrum for any
operating wireless taps within or in the vicinity of your telephone,
then automatically switches to mode three which actually deactivates
any taps or tape recorders.  Mode four nullifies any transmission
bugs.  Metal unit is RJ-11 compatible and can be connected in seconds.
Comes with an impact resistant carrying case, line jack cord and one
9-volt battery.  7/8"H x 3"W x 5 1/2"L.(.6lb.)  35664X..... $199.95

No manufacturer is listed.  Any opinions...  Is this too good to be
true?  (For anyone not familiar with Hammacher Schlemmer, they are a
rather upscale mail order company that sells everything from trench
coats to fax machines.)

Standard Financial Interest Disclaimer.

Regards,

Kevin Boyd                            | BITNET    [e-mail]
Marquette University                  | INTERNET  [e-mail]
Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A.                 | Phone     [phone]
Broadcasting and Electronic Media &   | FAX       [phone]
Computer Services Division            | "All views expressed are my own..."

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Question About Calling Cue Tariff
Date: 5 Mar 91 00:46:49 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


 A relatively new service named Calling Cue is being offered by
BOC's(at least by Southwestern Bell as far as I know).The tariff for
this is $3/month.I'm interested on how the telephone companies decide
on this tariff.Have they collected statistics as to how often this
service would be used by a subscriber?Would anyone knowing smt about
this or any other pricing criteria for this service provide some
information.I thank you for your response in advance.


M. Bog    The U. of Kansas

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

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 05:03:40 GMT
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Homebrew Caller*ID


Several people asked about this, and mail to a couple of them has
bounced, so...

AMRAD is the Amateur Radio Research and Developement Corp, PO Drawer
148, McLean VA 22106-6148.  The homebrew Caller*ID demodulator is in
the December, 1990 Newsletter.

You could try getting writing the publisher at [e-mail]


73, doug

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

Subject: Rotary Dial for Cellular Phones?
From: system administrator <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 91 00:49:46 GMT
Organization: Questor: Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC


Since many telcos (at least here in NorthAm) charge extra for
Touch-Tone dialling, I wonder if cellular users couldn't request
rotary dialling to reduce their charges?  :-) Why not?  :-)


    Steve Pershing, System Administrator

The QUESTOR Project: FREE Usenet News/Internet Mail; Sci, Med, AIDS, more
Usenet:  [e-mail]      : POST: 1027 Davie Street,  Box 486
Phones:  Voice/FAX:  [phone]=6659  :       Vancouver, British Columbia
         Data/BBS:   +1 604 681=0670  :       Canada  V6E 4L2


[Moderator's Note: Rotary dial will NOT work on cellular phones, since
there is no loop of wire to be opened and closed by the pulsing. In
any situation where there is not a direct hardwired link to a central
office switch, i.e. cellular, then rotary is not a valid service.  PAT]

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: $2 Caller*ID Chip
Date: Tue,  5 Mar 91 04:48:28 GMT


A press release just crossed my desk announcing a Caller*ID chip from
Sierra Semiconductor.  The SC11210 and SC11211 provide a differential
input buffer, four-pole bandpass filter, FSK demodulator, programmable
energy detection, and clock generator.  They decode FSK-encoded Caller
ID information sent on the phone line between the first and second
rings.  '210 is in an eight-pin DIP; '211 is in a fourteen-pin DIP,
and provides call progress outputs.  Both chips are 5V-only devices.
Price is less than $2 in 10K quantities.  Sierra Semiconductor is
[phone].

This sounds like it'd make a good construction article for a hobbyist
magazine.  The press release states that this form of Caller*ID
encoding is supported by the Caller Number Delivery (CND) feature of
the General Switched Telephone Network (GSTN).  Is GSTN just a fancy
name for an ordinary (i.e. non-ISDN) phone line?  When Pac*Bell offers
Caller ID, will it use this encoding?  At $2 a pop, I bet _every_
phone will have Caller ID in a couple years.  The press release
doesn't say what the digital interface is like, but it sure sounds
like something I'd like to hook into a personal computer.

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

Subject: What Number Maps to Q or Z?
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 00:40:49 GMT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


 From the March 11 issue of {Business Week}:

Quietly but zealously, entrepreneur Bernard Riskin has spent four
years on a zanily quixotic crusade to get the letters Q and Z onto the
telephone keypads. Now, he's zeroing in on his quarry. On Feb. 15, a
working group of the [ISO] - meeting in Quebec - endorsed Rifkin's
plan to put Q on the 7 key and Z on the 9.  [...] Final approval could
take a couple of years.

Riskins's quest has a business angle: He's president of FonEx Inc.  in
Lambertville, N.J., which is promoting its patented method to
recognize words entered by phone keypad by using a computer to analyze
the input. [...]

                             --------

Aside from the QZ thing, I thought this was interesting for another
reason. Note the wording "phone keypad" appears twice. It would
seem that "Dial" is starting to slip from our lexicon...


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


[Moderator's Note: I have one cellular phone where Q and Z are mapped
to the digit '1'.  Many voicemai systems with alpha-search directory
capability instruct the caller to press 1 for Q or Z.   PAT]

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1+206 Dialling Coming to Washington
Date: 5 Mar 91 00:22:55 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ


In article <[e-mail]>, ![e-mail] (Jeff
Carroll) writes:

>     I can think of two other possibilities - one would be to draw
> a line around Seattle, Tacoma, and possibly Olympia (with the line
> running down the middle of Lake Washington - leave Mercer Island in
> with Seattle).

What say make the line straight down the middle of the Puget Sound;
everyone to the west gets a new AC, including Friday Harbor,
Anacortes, and Oak Harbor; the line continues straight to
Olympia/Lacey; just south of Olympia, shoot the border as east as
possible to the mountains, and then follow the 509 border south to the
Columbia river.  This would release all of those small towns with a
prefix to themselves.  Gee, just hope the clan of my family in
Centralia/Chehalis/Aberdeen aren't reading this <nervous grin>.


Brian Crawford INTERNET (current): [e-mail] PO Box
804 (permanent): [e-mail] Tempe, Arizona 85280
FidoNet: 1:114/15.12 USA Amateur: KL7JDQ

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

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 00:14:18 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Payment For no Connection?

I have a friend who says that if he calls a long distance number and
lets it ring more than fourIK1q~ times, he has to pay for one minute of
connection time for each time he lets it ring beyond four.  Is this guy
all wet or is this true in some places.  I usually let phones a
minimum of six times, and have never seen any unwarrented charges.


Christopher Wolf


[Moderator's Note: No, your friend is not all wet; he's a subscriber
to one of the OCC play-phone long distance companies which do not use
call supervision to detirmine when a call has been answered or not.
They have no way (they are willing to pay for) to detirmine if a call
has been answered (or received a busy signal), so they give a grace
period of around thirty seconds from the time the call starts
processintg until an answer is to be received (or the call disconected
for no answer/busy). After somehwere between 30 - 45 seconds, the
timer starts running and the call is considered in progress.   PAT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Where Do You Live? In a Cave?
Date: 5 Mar 91 04:30:05 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


> [Moderator's Note: I think other telcos due for area code splits would
> do well to learn from IBT's example and assume the worst. They should
> plan to have their offices well staffed for at least two days
> following the change to mandatory dialing.   PAT]

NJ Bell has been advertising in bill inserts, and billboards, and
newspapers.  They've recently begun a set of radio ads -- very short
one-liners.  I heard one this morning: sounds of a train screeching to
a stop, a crowd, and a loud voice with a 'Jersey City' accent yelling:
'Somebody on this train hasn't taken a shower in 908 days!'

MCI's recent bill insert mentions the 201/908 split, also.  But they
got it wrong.  They listed among the NJ counties to be included in 908
both Morris and Sussex.  These two counties, however, will remain in
the 201 area code.


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

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

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 15:16:21 GMT
From: Louis J. Judice <[e-mail]>
Subject: Northern Telecom Maestro Sets


I seemed to recall reading here a while back about NT's Maestro phones
(which are designed for consumer use in CLASS service areas) being on
sale in New Jersey. I've looked around but not seen them.

Does anyone remember where there are offered, or if you have one,
what you think about them?

Thanks,

Lou  ([e-mail])

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

Subject: Re: Many Software Designers....
From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 91 00:48:25 GMT


The David Gast post to which Steve Pershing responds was quite
correct, but to call a spade a spade, David really seemed to be
talking about what should be termed "disinformation."

Now Steve also makes a good point, but if those "little people" he
correctly refers to aren't first sufficiently aware of the
disinformation campaign David seemed to have in mind, then their
voices will matter much less, one would think.


Peter Marshall

               halcyon![e-mail]
  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #179
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17231;
          7 Mar 91 3:04 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11722;
          5 Mar 91 5:40 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09430;
          5 Mar 91 4:24 CST
Date:     Tue, 5 Mar 91 3:00:11 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #180
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Mar 91 03:00:04 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 180

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Armstrong and Ma Bell [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? [Larry Lippman]
    A Very Sticky Situation [William Degnan]
    Calling Lebanon: Why Not Direct? [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 02:30 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Armstrong and Ma Bell


        We've had a thread going here about early FM and color TV; one
that shows signs of developing some real historical understanding of
how much of the technology we take so much for granted came to be.
Especially, we can, if we but see, what sort of person it took to be
the first to realize these processes without the aid of "cookbook"
electronics like IC chips; using balky and cantakerous devices to be
the first to ever assemble individual circuits into functioning
systems.

        One line of that thread has focused around the person of Edwin
H. Armstrong, a technologist finally driven to suicide by the money
powers of his time. It just happened today that while attending the
public opening of a new community college, I found a book bearing on
such topics in its library shelves.  The book is titled, "Radio's 100
Men of Science," published by Grosset & Dunlap in 1944, republished
1970.  In its 1944 setting, the book's piece on Armstrong doesn't get
into details of his patent battles that had certainly already begun
leading him toward that suicidal plunge a decade later.  However, it
certainly shows what a "child wonder" Armstrong had been and how he
mingled with other superheroes of early electronic telecommunications.
The 1944 piece does describe how significant his contributions were to
almost every "radio" device we now use in multiple ways daily.  I
think it is of sufficient interest and meaninf to this forum that I
hope our Moderator agrees it is worth posting.  Here it is in
entirety, from that 1944 book, "Radio's 100 Men of Science:"

                           EDWIN HOWARD ARMSTRONG
                 -Inventor of Extraordinary Radio Circuits-

Born: December 18, 1890
      New York City

        Edwin Howard Armstrong, American electrical and radio
engineer, specialized in development of radio circuits, which made for
revolutionary advances in the art.

        As a boy, Armstrong first attracted attention with his pioneer
amateur wireless station at Yonkers, New York, and became widely known
in amateur circles as early as 1906 <at age 16!>.  He was gradauated
from Columbia University in 1913 <at age 23!> with the degree of E.E.;
the honorary degree Doctor of Science was conferred upon him by
Columbia University in 1929, and the same degree was awarded him from
Muhlenberg College in 1941.  At Columbia he had studied under Dr.
Micheal I. Pupin <still remembered in Europe where "loaded" telephone
cable is called "pupinised" cable>, who encouraged his activities in
wireless and became a lifelong friend.  After Pupin's death in 1935,
Armstrong became professor of electrical engineering at Columbia.

        Recounting the story of Armstrong's achievements, Professor
Alan Hazeltine <speaking at the presentation to Armstrong of the
Edison Medal (1942) if the American Institute of Electrical Engineers,
January 27, 1943>, first called attention to the fact the that one
development in electrical technology which stood out from all others
during the preceding twenty-five years was electronics, and
specifically the application of the three-electrode vacuum tube.

        Said Professor Hazeltine:

        "The real foundation for the unlimited development which we
have witnessed was laid by the Edison Medal recipient, Dr. Edwin
Howard Armstrong, in an article published in the 'Electrical World' in
December, 1914. <Remember, this was just Armstrong's 24th birthday and
one year after his graduation from Columbia!> Here the common
engineering tool, the characteristic curve, was employed for the first
time to show how the tube amplifies; and the theory was substantiated
by oscillograms which Armstron had taken.  The previously mysterious
action of the tube as a rectifying detector with a good capacitator
<spelling from the book> was illustrated in the same way."

        Hazeltine said that he well remembered the impression this
article made upon him, and the conviction that it contained some great
possibilities.  He recalled the excitement produced a few months later
by Armstrong's first paper before the Institute of Radio Engineers, on
his feed-back circuit, which employed this theory to give undreamed-of
amplification of weak radio signals and promoted the general use of
heterodyne reception by proving for the first time a source of
continuous oscillation of frequencies as high as any then used for
radio transmission. <Curiously, Bell Labs workers were in this period
working on methods of inverse feedback to limit and control
amplification over wide bandwidths for their purposes in building
wireline carrier systems.>

        Hazeltine continued:

        "It is rather hard now to take ourselves back to conditions in
radio prior to Armstrong.  Attempts were being made at transoceanic
telegraph communication, but only with very restricted success, even
with enourmous receiving antennas and elaborate commercial apparatus.
The radio amateurs, who shortly were to be the mainstay of Signal
Corps and Navy radio in World War I and were later to supply the radio
engineering talent called out by broadcasting, could receive only
local signals.  Armstrong's work removed the barrier to regular
long-distance radio telegraphy.  By increases in the power of vacuum
tubes, it also provided an easily modulated high-frequency source for
radiotelephone transmitting, so that long-distance radiotelephony soon
followed.  And then came the great boradcasting development with its
far-reaching social consequences.

        "The early work of Armstrong, the experimental part of which
was done while he was still an undergraduate at Columbia University,
soon received recognition.  Its importance was appreciated by
Professor Pupin, who took Armstrong under his wing.  Together they
carried on several researches in radio.  In 1917 the Institute of
Radio Engineers awarded its Medal of Honor <in his 27th year!> to
Armstrong for the feed-back circuit, the presentation being made by
Professor Pupin, then president of that society.  I recall a remark of
Professor Pupin on that occasion: That inventions are sometimes
ascribed to luck, but that the best luck is to have a good head on
one's shoulders!  The correctness of Pupin's appraisal has been
demonstrated by Armstrong's subsequent career."

        Hazeltine recalled how Armstrong paved the way for his next
important invention -- the superheterodyne receiver -- by clarifying
the matter of heterodyne reception in a paper presented to the I.R.E.
in 1916.  Armstrong, using the vacuum-tube oscillator, changed the
incoming wave frequency to a lower intermediate frequency by
heterodyne action.  That is, he made use of the fact that when two
high frequency waves interact, they produce a lower frequency wave.
This wave has a frequency equal to the difference of the frequencies
of its parent waves.  He then carried out further amplification at
this intermediate frequency, thereby gaining additional receiver
sensitivity and signal strength.  He developed this method for
military purposes while he was an officer in the Signal Corps in
France.  Now the superheterodyne is employed almost universally in
radio reception.

        Returning to Hazeltine's remarks:

        "Armstrong never abandoned his first love, radio.  After the
war, he returned to his laboratory researches at Columbia; and there,
in an experimental set-up for another purpose, he happened to notice
an extraordinary amplification of a locally-generated signal.
Ninety-nine out of one hundred experimenters would have failed either
to notice the effect or to find its cause.  But Armstrong's
characteristic persistence and ability to analyze physical phenomena
tracked down the demon; and super-regeneration was added to the radio
art.  Although it was not of such wide utility as Dr. Armstrong's
other fundamental inventions, ti was found essential in pioneer work
at ultra-high frequencies and now is applied to certain military
purposes.  <An allusion, of course, to radar, which was still
classified in 1943.>

        "By this time, we were in the era of broadcasting.  Some of
the best analytical brains had been directed to the theory of radio.
It seemed that all the foundations had been laid, that no new
fundamental methods were to be anticipated.  Frequency modulation had
been considered, used to some extent, and then discarded.  The fallacy
of using it to narrow the band of transmitted frequencies had been
exposed.  It was rejected as useless and even harmful.  But Armstrong
had other ideas.  By going contrary to accepted notions and greatly
widening the range of frequency variation, he developed a system of
frequency modulation ideally suited to broadcasting, which was
announced in 1936.  Although facing the tremendous handicap of an
established broadcasting system, with thousands of transmitter and
many millions of receivers in use, none of which could employ it, it
already seems destined largely to supplant the conventional amplitude
modulation." <This in 1943, when it took FM until the 1970's to really
supplant AM!>

        Armstrong's contributions to the advance of the radio art are
reflected in the honors and medals bestowed upon him: The first Medal
of Honor of the Institute of Radio Engineers, 1917; Chevalier de la
Legion d'Honneur, 1919; the Egleston Medal of Columbia University
School of Engineering, 1939; the Holley Medal of the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, 1940; the Franklin Medal of theFranklin
Institute, 1941; the John Scott Medal of the City of Philadelphia,
1942; the Edison Medal of the American Institute of Electrical
Engineers, 1942.  The citation of the Natiional Association of
Manufacturers in selecting Armstrong as one of the National Modern
Pioneers in 1940 read:

        "First to make use of the 3-electrode tube for generating
continuous waves which made radio broadcasting feasible, inventor of
the long and widely used superheterodyne receiving circuit, and
inventor of the new broadcasting by frequency modulation that so well
avoids static as almost to defy the lightning.  He is one of the
leaders in accomplishing the miracle of radio communication, a reality
so inconceivably novel that the imagination of no poet, no author of
tales or fables, had ever anticipated it>"

        Armstrong was among the first recipients of the Chief Signal
Officer's Certificate of Appreciation, announced by Major General H.C.
Inlges, Chief Signal Officaer, on June 1, 1944.  The citation read:

        "For loyal and patriotic services rendered the Signal Corps of
the Army of the United States in the accomplishment of its vital
mission during a period of national emergency."

                             * * * * * * * * *

So ends the long litany of homages paid to Edwin Armstrong by an
apparently grateful nation and industry during World War II, to a man
in his fifties who obviously had potential to develop far more.

        It raises the question: How cold then can the money interests
be to drive such a proved national resource to the depths of despair
and suicide?  Are the resources of technology so meaningless to the
bankers, financiers and their accoountants that they can burn humans
the way they burn lumps of coal?

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

Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play?
Date: 4 Mar 91 00:45:51 EST (Mon)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tony L.
Hansen) writes:

> A group I'm associated with is putting on a play and a phone will be
> used on the set. How would I hook up the phone so that I can cause it
> to ring on demand? Preferably, I'd like to have some sort of switch or
> push button which I can push and have the phone ring.

    With all of the responses on this topic, and with there being
a not insignificant number of old-timers reading TELECOM Digest, I am
surprised that no one mentioned the "traditional" solution to this
problem: borrow a "Teletrainer".

    The Teletrainer was a Bell System device which would connect
two telephones so that they could ring and talk to each other.  One
feature of the Teletrainer was interrupted ringing which exactly
simulated that of a real telephone call.  There was also a provision
for an audience to listen to the conversation on a loudspeaker.  The
Teletrainer, which came in a few different models (the WECO KS-16605
was probably the most common) was about the size of a small bread box.
The Teletrainer had 4-pin jacks for use with two 500-type telephones.
The Teletrainer and associated telephones came in a custom carrying
case.  It was primarily intended for training presentations on
telephone etiquette and sales techniques put on by [former] Bell
System operating companies.

    There was once a time when any school or little theater group
could simply call their local Bell System business office and ask to
borrow a Teletrainer for the duration of a theater production.  There
was, of course, no charge, and this was obviously a public relations
gesture on the part of local telephone company.

    I suspect those days are long gone, but it won't hurt to call
the telephone company and ask.  They might say "yes", they might say
"no", or they might say "go ask Judge Green". :-)


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
VOICE: 716/688-1231       {boulder, rutgers, watmath}!ub!kitty!larry
FAX:   [phone]   [note: ub=acsu.buffalo.edu] uunet!/      \aerion!larry

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

Date: Tue, 05 Mar 91 00:29:30 GMT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Very Sticky Situation


 From the "Don't-try-this-at-home. I'm-a-professional." department:

One of our clients had a little problem with CocaCola and the keypads
of a Mitel SX-200 console attempting to occupy the same space. Yuck!

(The following was performed with the set disconected from the switch.)

I went through a full can of freon-tf cleaner which seemed to be about
90% better. It wasn't good enough, however.

Plan "B" was more successful. A solution of dish detergent and hot tap
water mixed in a spray bottle did the trick. I sprayed the stream
around the keys, while holding the keys down. After several
applications (using up about twelve ounces of liquid), I rinsed the
face of the keyboard and down into the keys with running (clear) warm
water. I then allowed the console to drain through various holes in
the case.

Then I sprayed a few ounces of freon-tf to displace some of the
remaining water and left the console on the attendant's desk with a
note that she could plug it in when she reported to work in the
morning. This allowed about twelve hours to dry.

She reported it to be was in good working order after the bath.

All this was done without breaking the seals, as the unit is still in
warranty another year. Cola drinks are not covered under warranty.


Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock.

William Degnan                   | [e-mail]
Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
 -Independent Consultants        | [e-mail]
   in Telecommunications         | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan
P.O. Drawer 9530                 | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530            | Voice [phone]

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

Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Monday, 4 Mar 1991 19:13:40 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Calling Lebanon: Why Not Direct?


Does anyone know why one has to first call an AT&T operator, to call a
number in Lebanon? Do telephone companies doubt the ability of people
calling there to dial a number?  And also, why are there so little
lines to this country?  I know that in France, for example, it is much
easier to get through to Lebanon, and you can dial by yourself.

Thanks for your answers.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #180
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18180;
          7 Mar 91 3:57 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16715;
          7 Mar 91 2:24 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05103;
          7 Mar 91 1:19 CST
Date:     Thu, 7 Mar 91 0:48:07 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #183
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Mar 91 00:48:04 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 183

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    State of Emergency Conditions at Rochester, NY [Curtis E. Reid]
    Rochester is a Mess [Jeff Wasilko]
    Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier? [M. Schoffstall]
    Rochester Institute of Technology [Sean Williams]
    New Telephone Numbers for Amsterdam (The Netherlands) [Dolf Grunbauer]
    California Citizen's Advocacy Group [Nuclear Warrior]
    900 Regulation Bill Filed [John R. Levine]
    Technology Behind Caller ID: Draft Bibliography [Bruce Klopfenstein]
    Wanted: Mariner 9 Photograph [Krister Valtonen]
    Telecom At Walt Disney World [Arnold Robbins]
    Ziggy Cartoon Mocks 900 Number "Easy Credit" [Matt Simpson]
    Information Needed About Long Distance Zone Tables [Paul Wilczynski]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 91 10:10 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: State of Emergency Conditions at Rochester, NY


This is a quick brief to let you know what's happening in Rochester,
NY.  I am writing this from my office at the Rochester Institute of
Technology which still has electrical power and heat.  I live only 1.5
miles from RIT and I don't have any electricity or heat for 55 hours
and still counting.

Last Saturday, we had a great weather.  Very sunny and warm in the
60s-70s.  Great day to be outdoors!

Then, Sunday evening (after 4 pm), things turned around for the
opposite.  We had a severe lighting storm and rain.  By 11 pm or so,
it had begun to freeze on trees, houses, poles, et cetera.  Around 1
am (Monday), the weight of the ice staggered many, many trees and then
nearly all power in the whole county went out at about 2 am.

Then, came the light, it was a devasting sight.  All the trees, grass,
houses, cars, and anything that was outside were covered with 1-INCH
thick ice.  Nearly all tree tops have toppled over spilting the trunks
in half, some with saps flowing out.  The bushes lay flat under ice.
The grass looked like a microbe under a manifying glass.

Monday morning, several counties declared states of emergencies.
Airports, businesses, food chains, malls, gas stations were shut down.
Almost 200,000 of 325,000 utility customers are without power!  Few
areas lost phone services.

The counities called on other electrical companies from Connecticut,
eastern and western New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and some other
locations to come here to restore several thousand miles of wires
destroyed by ice and trees.

The newspaper had a 1/4 page headline that said "ICED OVER!".  It said
that it was the most devasting ice storm of the decade and since 1957
when Rochester suffered a similar ice storm of this magnitude.

Now, come Tuesday.  The sun was out blazing full and increased the
tempurature to the 50s which caused a lot of ice to melt quickly which
is what the counties wanted.  But, there is a serious tradeoff.  The
trees that were freed from the weight of ice snapped back up pulling
the wires with it.  Thus, utility customers who had power restored
were once again without power.

I had to hire a guy with portable generator to operate the sump pump
in my basement since it is beginning to flood with the melted ice
water from outside.  Another night passed with only about 118,000
utility customers power restored.

Today is Wednesday morning at this time of writing.  The utility crews
have a long way to go to restore power and were issuing warnings that
power may not be restored until Friday or the weekend.  However, the
phone services continues to be very reliable although 911 received
something like 20,000 calls on Monday which quite bogged down the
center.  Rochester Tel is advising customers not to make any uncessary
calls.

The sun is out again and hopefully this will make it easier for the
utility crew to repair a lot of wires today but from the looks of how
devasting it is (that only one night can cause!), it will be some
time.

Signing off for now.

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

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

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1991 19:13:51 EST
Subject: Rochester is a Mess


Pat:

I'm not sure if you've heard, but Rochester was hit by a massive ice
storm late Sunday night. We've got over 100,000 people without power,
and at least 10,000 without phone service. Cable TV is also a mess at
this time.

Most of the people who don't have power now may have to wait until the
weekend to get service restored. Every street I saw had tree branches
down over cables (many of them live electric), and the problem was
made worse by downed main power transmission lines.

The phone network seems to be holding up well. For the few calls I
placed today, I had to wait five to ten seconds to get dial tone. Some
calls didn't complete or were very erratic (ringing changing to
reorder, or ringing changing to dead air).

The utilites are bringing in crews from as far as South Carolina and
Long Island to try to get people back on line. The city has been
shutdown for the past two days, but things will start to return to
normal as people return to work tomorrow (Wednesday). Our county and
the surrounding counties are still operating under a state of
emergency.


Yours in darkness,

Jeff

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

From: Martin Schoffstall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is Rochester Telephone Also a Long Distance Carrier?
Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc.
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 16:29:40 GMT


>I'm assuming that RCI leases capacity from other carriers for their
>network.

>For those who don't know, Rochester Tel now owns 250ish small
>telephone companies around the country.

RCI owns their own facilities throughout New York State (mostly
digital microwave) and in fact is pretty dense (ie they have a lot of
cities and towns covered with their own POPs).  They also have POPs in
places like Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, DC, Hartford, Newark etc,
which have a mixture of owned and leased facilities, Boston,Chicago,DC
represent the farthest extent of their "network".  The center of their
IXC web is New York State.

They have even built fiber facilities and done lease back arrangements.
For instance Rochester to Chicago was originally built by them but is
now owned by Litel.

RCI is one of the IXC's that PSINet uses to co-locate in. They provide
quality leased line service, and are good people to work with.


Marty

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Mar  6 23:32:42 EST 1991
Subject: Rochester Institute of Technology


Dear TELECOM Digest readers:

A few weeks back I posted a note to you explaining that I was a high
school senior looking for colleges offering courses in
telecommunications.  Many, many people responded to my inquiry, and,
while I did not have time to thank each and every one of you
individually at the time, you all deserve my honest thanks.  Your
messages gave me loads of useful information about jobs and courses in
telecommunications, and gave me a starting point in my search for a
school which would ultimately fill my needs.

Well, that's all in the past now.  I am writing this message to you
tonight to tell you that the first two steps in this process are over:
I have found a college meeting my needs, and have also been accepted.
As you have probably guessed by reading the header on this message,
that college is New York's Rochester Institute of Technology.

Starting this fall, I will begin my five-year Telecommunications
Technology course, finishing up in 1996 with a BS if all goes well.

Again, thank you to all who have helped out thus far!


Sean E. Williams            attmail.com!seanwilliams
333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227    [e-mail]
Duncannon, PA 17020-0227  USA        voicemail: [phone]

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

Organization: Philips Information Systems, P.O. Box 245,
From: Dolf Grunbauer <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Telephone Numbers for Amsterdam (The Netherlands)
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 16:55:40 MET


Hello Patrick,

Last weekend (on Sunday morning 3 March 1991), Amsterdam (in The
Netherlands) has had their six digit numbers changed into seven digit
numbers by prefixing the old number with a 6. The already existing
seven digit numbers are unchanged. With this change Amsterdam will
have enough free numbers available at least until the mid of the next
century. Amsterdam is now the third city in The Netherlands to have
seven digit numbers, the other two cities are: Rotterdam and Den Haag
(probably better known to you as The Hague).


Dolf Grunbauer  Tel: [phone] Internet [e-mail]
Philips Information Systems        UUCP     ...!mcsun!philapd!dolf

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

From: Nuclear Warrior <[e-mail]>
Subject: California Citizen's Advocacy Group
Date: 5 Mar 91 17:02:36 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA


A few months ago I got some mail from a group called TURN (Toward
Utility Rate Normalization) which is fighting the utilities here in
California on citizen's behalf.  They say they have won several court
battles and defeated several rate increases, saving California utility
customers over $7 billion since they were created in 1973.  If anyone
out there is interested in more information, their address is:

Toward Utility Rate Normalization
625 Polk Street, Suite 403
San Francisco, CA  94102

I have no connection to this group other than as a fellow oppressed
California telephone customer.


David Pletcher   [e-mail]

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

Subject: 900 Regulation Bill Filed
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 91 17:20:41 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


According to a syndicated article from the {Los Angeles Times}, Rep.
Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) has today filed a bill giving the FCC authority
over 900 service and regulating disclosure of costs and instituting
advertising standards.

His office says it was filed today and is referred to committee.
They're mailing me a copy of it, when it arrives I'll send along a
summary.


Regards,


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

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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Technology Behind Caller ID: Draft Bibliography
Date: 6 Mar 91 05:08:56 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


I am still looking for references about the technologies behind the
"intelligent network."  Here is what I have so far.

I have put an asterisk (*) next to those items not yet available to me
due to missing issues etc.


Egan, B. L. (1991). Information Superhighways: The Economics of
     Advanced Public Communication Networks. Norwood, MA: Artech
     House.

Griffiths, J. M. (1990). ISDN Explained: Worldwide Network and
     Applications Technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kessler, G. C. (1990). ISDN: Concepts, Facilities, and Services.
     New York: McGray Hill.

Learn, L. (1989). Telecommunications for Information Specialists.
     Dublin, OH: OCLO, Inc.

Minoli, D. (1991). Telecommunications Technology Handbook.
     Boston: Artech House.

*Modarressi, A. R., and Skoog, R. A. (1990). Signaling System 7: A
     tutorial. IEEE Communications Magazine, 28(7), 19-20+.

Perry, T. S. (1990). Telephone challenges: A plethora of
     services. IEEE Spectrum, 25(7), 25-28.

*Stallings, W. (1989, March). Demystifying SS7 architecture,
     Telecommunications, pp.

Stover, D. (1990, July). Look who's calling. Popular Science, pp.
     76-78, 95.

Verma, P. K. (Ed.) (1990). ISDN Systems: Architecture, Technology
     and Systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

*Walker, M.G. (1986, March 10). Get inside CCITT Signaling System
     No. 7. Telephony, p.

Wallenstein, G. D. (1990). Setting Global Telecommunications
     Standards: The Stakes, the Players, and the Process.
     Norwood, MA: Artech House.

Williams, F. (1990). The coming intelligent network: New options
     for the individual and community.  In The Institute for
     Information Studies.  The Annual Review of the Institute for
     Information Studies.  Queenstown, MD: The Aspen Institute.


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

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

From: Krister Valtonen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Mariner 9 Photograph
Organization: Dept of EE, University of Linkoping
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1991 16:36:33 GMT


On page 420 in "The Theory of Error-Correcting Codes" by MacWilliams
and Sloane there is a photograph taken by the Mariner 9 spacecraft
back in 1972. I wonder if someone knows if it is possible to obtain
this picture somehow. We would use it as an example in an
undergraduate course in error-correcting codes at our university. The
text by the photograph says that it is a courtesy of NASA/JPL.  Please
reply by e-mail.


Krister              Dept. of Electrical Engineering
University of Linkoping, Sweden  [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Arnold Robbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom At Walt Disney World
Date: 6 Mar 91 17:42:47 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX Inc., Atlanta


My wife and I spent several (wonderful!) days at Walt Disney World
last week.  While there, I happened to notice the pay phones in Disney
World and Epcot.  The local phone company is Vista-United Telecom,
which I believe is actually just Disney's private phone system.  All
the pay phones have pictures of a smiling Mickey Mouse on them.

Rates and dialing instructions were clearly marked.  It was also clear
that long distance was carried by AT&T and they gave an 800 number to
call for rate information.  Of great interest was that there was a
note to the effect of "You are entitled to use the long distance
carrier of your choice.  For more information, write to the FCC at ..."
and some post office box in Washington D.C.  While undoubtedly every
pay phone at Disney and Epcot are COCOTs in the strict sense, I doubt
very highly that they pull any kind of stunt or block any kind of long
distance carrier.  The only call I made on one was to Delta's frequent
flyer 800 number to check on our flight.  The phone was dial-tone
first; I didn't even deposit a quarter to make the 800 call.

Of course, at our hotel, things were different.  A mandatory $1.50 per
day charge for unlimited local calls, long distance at the billed rate
(for US Sprint) plus around 40%, no access to our MCI 950-xxxx number.
The 800 number did work, and we weren't billed for it, so calling our
folks didn't cost us anything extra. I wasn't suprised to find the
950-xxxx number blocked.

I just found it interesting; Disney is apparently a small independent
telco, just like many others.


Arnold Robbins                AudioFAX, Inc. | Laundry increases
2000 Powers Ferry Road, #200 / Marietta, GA. 30067     | exponentially in the
INTERNET: [e-mail] Phone:   [phone] | number of children.
UUCP:      emory!audfax!arnold Fax-box: [phone] |   -- Miriam Robbins

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

Date: Tue, 05 Mar 91 10:36:10 EST
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ziggy Cartoon Mocks 900 Number "Easy Credit"


For those of you not fortunate enough to have a newspaper which
carries the Ziggy cartoon, I thought you'd appreciate today's cartoon.
Ziggy is looking at a sign which says "Credit Problems? Call
1-900-SUCKER."

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

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 91 01:38 GMT
From: Krislyn Companies <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed About Long Distance Zone Tables


I need some information on the zone tables that long distance carriers
use.

How, for example, is zone 2 from Chicago determined?  By area codes?
Or something else?

Are the zone tables for all of the carriers (AT&T, MCI, Sprint, for
example) exactly the same?

If they are in some type of database, is it possible to obtain it?  Any
idea how big it is (if it exists)?

Thanks,


Paul Wilczynski

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #183
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19309;
          7 Mar 91 5:02 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26092;
          7 Mar 91 3:28 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16715;
          7 Mar 91 2:24 CST
Date:     Thu, 7 Mar 91 1:33:48 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #184
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Mar 91 01:33:10 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 184

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T and Kuwait City [Newark Star-Ledger via Tom Coradeschi]
    Mobile Satellite Uplinks [Network World via Tom Coradeschi]
    Sprint Management Will Examine Privacy Complaints [Jonathan White]
    UK Deregulation - Big News [John Slater]
    Meridian 1 Hardware Vendor Information Wanted [Steve Sekiguchi]
    What Answering Machine do I Need? [Bob Riegelmann]
    Northern Telecom Maestro [portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]]
    Voice/Fax Switches Compatibility in Phillipines [Charlie Mingo]
    10xxx vs. 950-xxxx Variances With Calling Card [Phydeaux]
    Correction: Re: California Tariff Question [Linc Madison]
    Re: Armstrong and Ma Bell [Brian Crawford]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 91 15:51:25 EST
From: Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T and Kuwait City
Organization: Electric Armaments Div, US Army Armament RDE Center


 From the {Newark, NJ Star-Ledger}, Monday 4 Mar 91.

AT&T beats shifting sands to open phone links.

By KEVIN H. RICHARDSON

   Residents of Kuwait City can call the United States for the first
time since shortly after the Iraqi invasion, despite terrain that
sometimes seems to have a mind of its own.

   AT&T announced yesterday that it was able to begin providing lines
for outgoing calls on Saturday, starting about 8:15 p.m. Kuwaiti time
(12:15 p.m.  Eastern Standard Time).

   But the company said callers experienced an interruption in service
about twelve hours later. After a thorough investigation, the
company's technical experts determined the source of the problem.

   "The whole system was sitting on sand, and the sand shifted,"
explained spokesman James Lowell.

   The movement of the sand had resulted in a misalignment between the
22-foot satellite dish being used to send the calls and the Intelsat
satellite onto which the calls were bounced before reaching the United
States.

   It took AT&T engineers about 3 1/2 hours to realign and stabilize
the satellite dish, which had been brought into the Kuwaiti capital
from Saudi Arabia on Friday. The dish has been operative since then.

   Lowell said the equipment being used in Kuwait, which will transmit
120 calls simultaneously to the United States, is state of the art.

   The system, developed by AT&T's Bell Laboratories, is based on
technology that allows more calls to be "squeezed" onto a single
satellite beam, he said, which means that more calls can be made at
the same time.

   "We're the only people in the world with this equipment, which is
why the Kuwaiti government asked us to set this up," Lowell said.

   He said the AT&T system was equipped with its own generator. Kuwait
City remained without electricity.

   Lowell said AT&T employees in Kuwait reported that since the
service began hundreds of people have been standing in line for the
phones, which are located in the Mishre district telephone exchange
building.

   It is mostly Kuwaiti residents who have been using the service,
although five of the lines are reserved for reporters.

   AT&T is charging $1.15 a minute for calls from Kuwait to the United
States, plus a $3.25 service charge for collect calls or a $3.50
service charge far, calls made person to person.

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

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 91 15:54:31 EST
From: Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mobile Satellite Uplinks
Organization: Electric Armaments Div, US Army Armament RDE Center


 From {Network World}, 4 Mar 91.

New mobile satellite phones shine in war.

Systems keep journalists, others in touch during Gulf conflict;
success may boost commercial use.

By Barton Crocken
Senior Editor

   GAITHERSBURG, Md. The war to liberate Kuwait is giving a big boost
to a new international networking technology - portable
satellite-based telephones.

   The Persian Gulf conflict has stimulated one of the largest
portable satellite telephone deployments to date and could spur
commercial demand for the technology by illustrating how easily and
quickly the phones can establish international network links.

   News organizations such as the Associated Press, Cable News Network
(CNN), CBS News, Knight-Ridder, Inc. and The Wall Street Journal are
using dozens of these systems to transmit stories from areas where
traditional telephone service either has been knocked out or has never
existed. The systems typically consist of a collapsible antenna and
telephone set that can be folded into a briefcase weighing as little
as 65 pounds.

   "We were live out of Kuwait at 2 a.m. [the day after the allies
launched the land invasion] using two of these systems," said Frank
Governale, director of bureau operations for CBS News.

   Governale said CBS News has purchased and leased a total of six new
portable satellite telephones since the crisis began, in addition to the
two it already had.

   Mobile Telesystems, Inc., which manufactured about 80% of the more
than 2,000 portable satellite telephones now deployed in the world,
has seen orders increase about 50% since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait,
according to Rania Habbaba, the company's marketing manager.

   Jon Klein, vice-president at IDB Aero-Nautical Communications,
Inc., based here, which supplies transmission services for portable
satellite telephones, said the Gulf War represents one of the largest
deployments ever of mobile satellite telephone systems.

   He added that the crisis could give a big boost to the mobile
satellite phone industry by illustrating how easy the systems are to
use.

Testimonial to success

   The ability of reporters such as CNN's Peter Arnett to easily use
portable satellite telephones, called satcoms, to file stories will
encourage more people to purchase them, Klein said.

   He added that the satcom business will grow even more after the
International Maritime Satellite Organization (INMARSAT) launches a
new satellite telephone service in 1992, dubbed INMARSAT-M.

   INMARSAT-M will use powerful new satellites that will enable earth
station makers to further reduce the size of mobile satcom units. This
will make mobile satellite telephones even easier to use, which will
help the entire industry, Klein said.

   INMARSAT satellites support the bulk of the world's mobile
satellite telephone service. Typically, satcom signals are beamed from
mobile earth stations to INMARSAT satellites. The satellites then
bounce the signals down to fixed earth stations, which relay
transmissions into the public network.

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

From: jonathan white <acf5![e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Management Will Examine Privacy Complaints
Date: 6 Mar 91 19:04:23 GMT
Organization: New York University


I too am annoyed be Sprint's release of my billing info but I'd rather
"fight than switch". I place a call to Sprint's Law and Security Dept.
in Kansas City and spoke with Danny Hammons (800-877-7330). Mr.
Hammons did some checking and actually called me back the next day.
When he returned my he said that I was not the only person to have
complained and that there was an effort being made to correct things.
He told me that I could follow up with the person that he spoke with,
Lana Neagle, Project Manager - Customer Assurance for automated acount
information. Ms. Neagel's number is 816-276-6177. I called Ms.
Neagel's office and was told that, at my request, they would follow up
in writing (of course I had to ask them to take my address so that
they could do so) The saga continues.


jonathan white    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Do please give us additional updates on this when
you have them.    PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 91 18:58:37 GMT
From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: UK Deregulation - Big News


Yesterday the Department of Trade and Industry published a White Paper
promising to break the BT-Mercury duopoly and open up the telecommunications
market for new operators.

Cable television operators are expected to be among the first to enter
the market for fixed-line service. Other early competitors for local
service will be the two existing (and flourishing) national cellular
operators, Cellnet and Vodafone.

Long distance competition is likely to come from British Rail and the
Post Office, both of which have extensive private networks with
considerable spare capacity. Electricity distribution companies and
broadcasting networks are also said to be interested.

The principle of equal access was established in the paper. This will
be available within two years, and will enable customers to choose a
long-distance company without having to dial special access codes, as
is currently the case with Mercury.

"Lifetime phone numbers", issued by Oftel, the regulatory body, are
expected to be available within three years.

Included in the proposals were a 10% cut in BT's international call
rates in June and other price reductions on domestic service, but a
14% rental increase is on the way for BT customers with more than one
phone line.  Private customers who make very few calls will only be
charged half the standard line rental, and will be given up to two
hours of free off-peak calls.

The White Paper is seen as a blow for BT after several months of hard
lobbying. It prohibits the company from distributing entertainment
services, including television, over its network, while allowing the
cable TV operators to provide phone service.

Good news on the whole, I feel.


John Slater    Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: Steve Sekiguchi <wrs!wrs.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Meridian 1 Hardware Vendor Information Wanted
Date: 6 Mar 91 20:34:13 GMT
Organization: Wind River Systems, Inc.


I'm looking for a new source for hardware (phones, cards, peripherals)
and possibly maintenance for my Meridian 1 switch.  I'm currently
using PacTel Meridian Systems (a Northern subsidiary) and their prices
are way too high.  Any leads would be appreciated.


Steven Sekiguchi            Wind River Systems
sun!wrs!steve, [e-mail]        1010 Atlantic Avenue
[phone]                Alameda, CA 94501

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

From: bob riegelmann <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Answering Machine do I Need?
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 91 17:22:31 PST


I'm looking for an answering machine or voice mail system, whichever
is more cost effective for my needs.  I am running a test, measurement
and software consulting business from from my kitchen.  I figure I
will need a additional line for business soon, and in the process may
want to add the capability to take phone messages on both lines.  I
also would like to be able to sort out my business messages from my
roomates/girlfriend(s) so I don't have to wade through the intimate
details of their love life(s) like I have to now. :-)

Are there answering machines sophisticated enough to handle two lines
and multiple callers or do I need voice mail?  I have no shortage of
IBM clones laying about, and if it needed part of one system that
would be alright.  ( I'm in this business because I love computer
toys...)

Mail me and I'll summarize if others are interested.  I am a regular
reader, just trying to keep PAT's workload down.


Bob Riegelmann      [e-mail]       Physics Dept/Univ. of Oregon

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Northern Telecom Maestro
Date: Wed,  6 Mar 91 02:24:08 PST


I picked up a Northern Telecom Maestro set this weekend (Disclaimer: I
work for NT, but in a different part of the business).  Wow, I'm
impressed!  Caller ID isn't turned on yet, but even without it, this
is a nice set.

Good-looking set (I have mine wall-mounted), seemingly solid
construction, keys feel right when you press them.  Nice features like
on-hook dialling using the LCD display (with a backspace key), a Link
(hookflash) button for Call Waiting, a Hold button so you can run to
an extension, adjustable handset volume, and a lamp that lights
whenever any extension in the house is off-hook.  I can see how long
my daughter spends on the phone in her room without leaving the
kitchen!

User-interface is all menu-driven ... so easy that I came home and
found my daughter had programmed half a dozen soft keys with the
numbers of her friends without having the manual.  Same for setting
the built-in clock/calendar and other options.

Can't wait for Caller ID to be activated ... from reading the manual,
it does a nice job with this as well.


Stephen Fleming             |  Internet: [e-mail]
Director, Technology Mktg.  |  CI$: 76354,3176    AOL: SFleming
Northern Telecom            |  BIX: SRFleming     X.500:  ???
Eastern Region              +----------------------------------
McLean, Virginia  22102     |    Opinions expressed do not
[phone]              |    represent Northern Telecom.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Voice/Fax Switches Compatibility in Phillipines
Date: Wed,  6 Mar 91 20:42:52 PST


    A friend of mine will be spending the next year at Clark AFB
in the Phillipines and would like to use a fax to keep in touch with
the US.

    He was wondering...

(i)     If a fax machine purchased in the US would be compatible with
the Phillipine phone system, and

(ii)    If there are any voice/fax switches which do not make the
caller wait ten seconds while the switch decides whether it's a fax
or voice call?  (Any brand recommendations would be greatly
appreciated as well.)


Charlie Mingo                [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Mar 91 13:54:35 -0800
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10xxx vs. 950-xxxx Variances With Calling Card


Hey, now!

Yesterday I tried dialing a call with my MCI calling card.  I tried
dialing 10222 and the number and got the MCI "boing" ... then I dialed
my card number.  It choked on it.  I tried the 950 number and it
worked just fine.  Any idea what happened?  I tried several times.
The card is actually an American Express "expressphone" card -- which
is supposed to be a regular MCI card billed to my Amex card...


reb

*-=#= Phydeaux =#=-*  [e-mail]   or   [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W  h:558 West Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365
w:reb ASK/Ingres 10255 West Higgins  Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500

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

Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 06:08:41 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Correction: Re: California Tariff Question
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> I write:

> Item                    published tariff       actual charge
> ====                    ================       =============
> Calling card surcharge      $0.40                  $0.60
> First minute (daytime)       0.17    <--switch-->   0.08
> Additional minutes (day)     0.07    <--switch-->   0.02

OOPS!!  The columns are reversed on the last two lines.  In all three
categories, the actual charge was higher than the published tariff.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Armstrong and Ma Bell
Date: 5 Mar 91 14:33:11 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ


In article <[e-mail]>, cdp![e-mail].
edu (Bert Cowlan) writes:

> Documentation: There is a book, written some time in the late '50s,
> titled "Man of High Fidelity."  When I get home tonight I will look up
> the publisher and date of publication and cheerfully share same with
> anyone who asks me.

Was this a biography of Armstrong?  I would be most interested in
this.  If it isn't, better yet if there is an auto-biography, please
do post the title (and ISDN # if possible), as well.

Thank you.


Brian Crawford               INTERNET (current):   [e-mail]
PO Box 804                            (permanent): [e-mail]
Tempe, Arizona  85280        FidoNet:              1:114/15.12
USA                          Amateur:              KL7JDQ

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #184
******************************






DUE TO VERY MIXED UP TRANSMISSION, ISSUES BETWEEN 169 - 184 ARRIVED
OUT OF ORDER. THEY ARE FILED HERE THUS:
169,174,175,176,170,171,172,173,177,178,181,182,179,180,183,184 THEN
THE SPECIAL MAILING WHICH FOLLOWS NEXT.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19388;
          7 Mar 91 5:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26092;
          7 Mar 91 3:32 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac16715;
          7 Mar 91 2:24 CST
Date:     Thu, 7 Mar 91 1:54:41 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  Silicon Valley Networking Conference
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

From: "B.V. Jagadeesh" <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Silicon Valley Networking Conference - Advance Program
Message-Id: <bvj.668235127@chamundi>
Date: 6 Mar 91 04:52:07 GMT


[Moderator's Note: This is a special mailing sent to me recently which
I am passing along to the readers of TELECOM Digest, FYI. For more
information, please respond direct to the poster; not the Digest.   PAT]


Hi -
    The Technical Committee of SVNC - 91 ( Silicon Valley Networking
    conference ) has put together an excellent technical program
    with papers from Universities from USA and Europe, Leading Networking
    companies and Research Institutes from different parts of the
    world. A preliminary conference program is attached for your
    reference.

    SVNC also offers one day tutorial on FDDI and X- Motif

    SVNC-91 aims to cover technical papers in the following areas

    1. Internetworking
    2. High Speed Networking
    3. X - Windows
    4. Network Management
    5. Distributed Systems
    6. Physical layer
    7. Networking Applications
    8. Network Test Equipments

    If you have any questions about this conference please
    do not hesitate to contact me.

    The conference will be held from April 23rd - 25th at Santa Clara
    Convention Center, Santa Clara, CA - 95052

Thanks
/B.V. Jagadeesh
Chairman - Technical Committee
[e-mail]
(408)-764-5169


            Silicon Valley Networking Conference 1991 -  Advance Program
        ------------------------------------------------------------

        Conference Dates: April 23rd to 25th 1991
        Place           : Santa-Clara Convention Center,
                              Santa-Clara, CA - 95052
                  USA.

DAY 1    April 23, 1991  TUTORIALS

----------------------------------------------------------------------
              |          Track  1         |         Track 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
8:30 AM       |  Introduction to X-Motif  |  Introduction to FDDI
  to          |  Richard Lasslo           |  Mark Wolter
5:00 PM       |  Hewlett Packard Company  |  National Semiconductor
----------------------------------------------------------------------
12:00 NOON      Lunch Break

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

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

DAY 2    April 24, 1991 TECHNICAL PAPER TRACKS

---------------------------------------------------------------------
KEYNOTE SPEAKER:   Current and future trends in network management.
           Keith McCloghrie,  Hughes LAN Systems  8:30 - 9:00

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Track 1                              |  Track 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------
   Session: NETWORK MANAGEMENT       |  Session: PHYSICAL LAYER - I
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. John Pickens, 3COM                |  1. Dave Wong, Level One Comm
   Open Management Architecture      |     Understanding Twisted Pair
   Making network management         |     Ethernet
   manageable.                       |
                                     |
2. Keith McCloghrie, Hughes LAN Systems|  2. William.V.Ringer, Intel
   A methodology for configuring     |     Notebook PC Network
   large networking.                 |     Interface card.
                                     |
3. Joe Grim,    Hewlett Packard      |  3. Peter Sun, PLX
   The SNMP protocol                 |    A non-buffered architecture
                                     |    for Ethernet LAN
                                     |    controllers.
                     |
                     |  4. Paul Singh, Intellicom
                     |     10Base/T based Ethernet Networks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
                   COFFEE BREAK + Discussion with Speakers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Session: INTERNETWORKING             | Session: Physical Layer - II
                                     |
4. Kai Jacobs, Tech. Univ. of Aachen |  5. Mike Seibert, MICRON
   Point to multipoint communication.|     Use of triple port DRAM for
                                     |     smart/faster network app.
                                     |
5. Joachim Carlo, Clearpoint         |  6. Greg Wolfson, Intel
   Analysis of the effects of high   |     LAN connection for
   speed bridges on network          |     advanced controller micro
   performance                       |     controller platform.

6. Brian Lloyd, Telebit              |  7. Donna Weaver, Standard
                                     |     Microsystems Corp.
   IP routing over public switched   |
   networks.                         |     Advanced silicon for the
                                     |     networking of controller
7  Vinod Bhardwaj, Kalpana Inc.      |     based systems.
   Parallel Networking               |
                                     |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
                               LUNCH + Exhibits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Session: X-Window                    |  Session: NETWORK TEST EQUIPMENT
                                     |
8. V.R. Ranganath and                |  8. Jay Weill, Network General
   Phil Bourkekas                    |     Network troubleshooting
   RISC Controllers - An Architecture|     analysis and trends and
   well suited for X - Windows       |     issues.
                                     |
9. Dale Luck, Gfx Base Inc.          |  9. Jay Seaton, Spider Sys.
   X Window System for Amiga Computer|     Monitoring and Managing
                                     |     LANs.
                                     |
10. Jim Fulton, NCD                  |  10. Daniel Bougher, Tektronix
   Making fonts more manageable.     |     LAN Map Local Area Network
                                     |     conduit troubleshooting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
                   COFFEE BREAK + Discussion with Speakers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Session: X-Window                    |  Session: HIGHSPEED NETWORKING
                                     |
11. Mark Brown, GRAPHON              |  11. Yigal Jacoby, Tekelec
    Advantages of an advanced X-Term |      FDDI Network testing.
    design.                          |
                                     |
12. Kevin Herbert, CISCO             |  12. Sanjay Dhavan, AMD
    X-remote and terminal server     |      FDDI Interoperability
    solutions to needing an X-window.|      testing.
                                     |
13. Panel Discussion                 |  13. Sonu Mirchandani, Business
                                     |      Networks Group
                                     |      Performance Isuues in FDDI
                                     |      LANs
                     |
                     |  14. My T Le, Plus Logic.
                     |         FDDI - Traffic Controller
----------------------------------------------------------------------


DAY 3    April 25, 1991 TECHNICAL PAPER TRACKS

----------------------------------------------------------------------
KEYNOTE SPEAKER:  Bruce Nelson, Auspex Systems  8:30 - 9:00
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Track 1                              |  Track 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Session: Highspeed Networking        | Session: Distributed Systems
                                     |
14. George Marshall, Adaptive        | 15. Jeff Eppinger, Transarc
                                     |     Corp
   Impact of telecommunications and  |     Transactional remote
   highspeed networking.             |     procedure calls.
                                     |
15. Jaffar Rehman, U of Penn         | 16. S. Gopisetty
   Using detailed traffic            |    Santa Clara University
   statistics for more effective     |    A client-Agent-Server Model
   wideband multiplexing.            |    for Distributed Processing
                                     |    environment
                                     |
16. Alan Taffel, US Sprint           | 17. Peter Taid, Peer Logic
   Frame Relay an overview of        |    Peer-to-peer computing for
   networking technology.            |    distributed environment.
                                     |
17. Tom Dugan, Vitesse Semiconductor |
    Sonet on Silicon                 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                            BREAK 10:35 - 11:15 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Session: Highspeed Networking        | Session: Distributed Systems
                                     |
18. Brian Button, Stratacom          | 18. Michel Besson, Cerics
   Frame Relay its concepts and      |    A protocol for interactive
   implications                      |     remote programming in
                                     |     heterogenous implementation
                                     |     and performance.
                                     |

19. Raj Pari, National Semiconductor | 19. Harold Rabie, Echelon
   ISDN Basic access components and  |     Distributed Processing using
   design of ISDN peripherals.       |     Local Operating Network
                                     |
20. Tom Russel,   Ultranet           | 20. OSF Distributed Management
    System Issues in Gigabit/s       |     Environment
    Networking                       |     David Schwab - Hewlett Packaret

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                            LUNCH 12:05 - 2:00PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Session: Internetworking II           | Session: Physical Layer II
                                      |
21. Karen Parker, National Semi       | 21. Ed D'Souza, National Semi
   Designing and Ethernet for FDDI    |    Parallel architecture for
   router.                            |    maximized throughput in
                                      |    star-wired topologies.
                                      |
22. R. Spurk, Dept. of Computer       | 22. Daniel Pettengil, Intel
   Science, Univ. of Saarbruken       |     Bus mastering for LAN
   Router support for multicasting in |     adapters.
   multicomputer interconnection      |
   network.                           |
                                      |
23. Jim Forster, Cisco Systems        | 23. Mike Yep, National Semi
   Comparison of metrics in todays    |    Design of FDDI concentrator
   routing protocols.                 |
                                      |
24. Milo Medin,  NASA                 | 24. Dick Allen, Photonics
    OSPF Routing protocol             |     Non-cable connectivity
                                      |     alternatives in design
                                      |     and implementation of
                                      |     networks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
                          BREAK   3:15 - 3:45 PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Session: Network Management II         | Session: Network Applications
                                       |
                                       | 25. Paul Flaherty, Stanford University
                       |    A Fast Open Systems Interconnection
                       |     Protocol System
                       |
25. Bob Stewart, Xyplex                | 26. Manoj Goel, Novell
    Development and integration of MIB |     Integration of electronic
                                       |     mail messages.
                                       |
26. Fred Baker, ACC                    | 27. T. Casey, Dept. of CS
    SNMP experimental bridge MIB       |     Univ. College of LONDON
    development.                       |     U.K.
                                       |     A Hybrid network image
                                       |     server.
                                       |
27. Larry Lace, Network Research       | 28. Bala Parasuram, Syscom
    Heterogenous networking            |     Fascimile outsource a
    considerations when using SNMP     |     resource saving
    agents and network management      |     alternatives to
    devices.                           |     in-house.
                                       |
28. Tin Phan & Dean K. Endo, Touch Comm| 29. Bob Jacobson, U of
    An object oriented agent           |     Washington
    architecture                       |     Virtual world paradigm
                                       |     and televirtuality
                                       |     implications for network
                                       |     design capabilities.
                                       |
29. Jochen Seitz, Institute of Tele -  | 30. Norm Schneidwind, Navel
    matics, Univ of Karlaruhe, FRG     |     PG School
    An architecture for an Expert      |     Issues in allocating
    system Aiding in Network Planning  |     servers and files in LAN.
    and Network Management             |
                       | 31. Daniel PattenGill
                       |     Banyan Systems Inc
                       |     Directory Services and Street Talk
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

A three Day package is $295 and a two day package is $245.

For registration info please call B.V. Jagadeesh at (408)-764-5169 or
send email to [e-mail] or [e-mail]











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25580;
          8 Mar 91 9:55 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14318;
          8 Mar 91 8:18 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05887;
          8 Mar 91 7:12 CST
Date:     Fri, 8 Mar 91 6:29:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #185
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Mar 91 06:28:53 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 185

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business [John Higdon]
    Re: Local Competition - "Bypass Service" [Robert Jacobson]
    Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy [Brendan Jones]
    Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy [Mark Brader]
    Re: Northern Telecom Maestro Sets [Eric Skinner]
    Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connection [David Barts]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 00:05 EST
From: Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto


A brief update on what Canadian cable companies are doing.

First, cable television has traditionally been more popular in Canada
than in the U.S., mostly because Canadians want the option to receive
U.S. channels.  Canadian cable TV companies traditionally brought in
U.S. tv channels by microwave, so that you would be able to see Maine
TV stations on cable in Nova Scotia. Now, however, Cancom distributes
Detroit TV stations by satellite to Canadian cable companies, and
these Detroit signals have replaced the ones from Bangor, Main, or
whatever.

Rogers is one of Canada's largest cable companies. Its parent company
also owns 40% of Unitel Communications Inc. (formerly CNCP
Telecommunications).  I think that Rogers' Network Services unit
competes with Bell Canada for some private high-volume circuit
business. A while ago, Bell Canada asked the Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission to require Rogers Network Services
to file tariffs with the CRTC on the grounds that Rogers was carrying
on business as a telecommunications carrier.  I'm not sure what ever
came of that.

Videotron is a large Quebec cable operator and broadcaster, with
interests in some cable systems in England as well.  Its
telecommunications arm (Videotron Telecom Ltee) has applied to the
Quebec Telecommunications Board for recognition as a
telecommunications common carrier.

If you would like a copy of Videotron's annual report, write to:

  Public Relations Department
  Groupe Videotron Ltee
  2000, rue Berri
  Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Other Canadian cable companies probably have some interesting plans up
their collective sleeves, but I haven't heard anything from them.

One other interesting telecommunications common carrier is B.C. Rail,
formerly the British Columbia Railway Company. It sells private line
services in competition with B.C. Tel and Unitel. (Historically, of
course, both Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific had
telecommunications departments, which were eventually merged to form
CNCP Telecommunications.  CN also owned two telephone companies, Terra
Nova Tel in rural Newfoundland and Northwestel in the Yukon, the
western Northwest Territories and northern B.C., until a few years
ago, when Terra Nova Tel was sold to Newfoundland Tel and Northwestel
was sold to BCE Inc., formerly Bell Canada Enterprises.)


Nigel Allen  [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 00:47:22
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> cyberoid@milton.u.
washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes:

> I'm sorry, perhaps I missed it, but who has refuted the argument that
> the local telephone monopoly does indeed allow for rate averaging and
> holding down local rates?  In eight years of telecom policy work, I
> never heard a convincing argument to the contrary ... and, in fact,
> energy regulation has proven precisely the opposite.  Throughout
> California, the state with which I am most familiar, residential and
> commercial (small-business) customers are paying billions more in gas
> rates so that industrial customers can be cajoled away from
> "competitive options" (many of which they created, for just this
> purpose) with lower rates.  Competition just means more costs for the
> "core customers" who can't get access to real alternatives.  I don't
> see cable rushing to hook up the Aunt Minnies, or you, or me.

  I am not refuting this point, but please be specific about rates
*and* revenues. With sufficiently high volumes, it is perfectly
possible for a large user with lower rates to generate a level of
revenue that makes an industry/activity economically viable that
wouldn't be with the lower volumes of residential/commercial usage
even with their larger numbers. It's fair to call this a subsidy but
also an economic necessity in some cases.


[Moderator's Note: Rural areas will find all this to be a very moot
discussion for years to come, I imagine. You're quite correct in
calling it a subsidy -- but as you point out, that does not make it
bad in all cases -- or maybe not good either -- but a realistic
solution.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 03:17 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Cable TV Companies Enter the Telephone Business


Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]> writes:

> I don't see cable rushing to hook up the Aunt Minnies, or you,
> or me.

No, you will not. As a matter of fact, the City of San Jose had to
bring considerable pressure to bear on the local cable company to wire
significant sections of town. Why the resistance? There are large
areas of San Jose that have underground utilities. After Gill Cable
had wired up all the easy, pole to pole installations the company
really dragged its feet about dealing with those people who wanted
service in places where trenches needed to be dug.

If you recall the early days of MCI and SPC (Sprint) and some of the
later ones such as SBS, the OCCs were only really interested in 1)
business customers and 2) heavily called (high profit) routes such as
LA<-->San Francisco. Later on, these companies made the service
somewhat more universal. But even today, OCCs contract with AT&T to
reach really out of the way places. On SPC, you used to get a
recording telling you that the (out of the way) place you were
attempting to reach was "not on the SPRINT network".


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

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Competition - "Bypass Service"
Date: 8 Mar 91 06:54:14 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle


Fans of competitive local telephone service should beware the example
of British Telecom, which used the existence of the incipient but
never seriously competitive Mercury Telecom as the rationale for its
total deregulation (or nearly so).  Mercury, with all its hype and
smoke and mirrors, provided just the excuse BT needed.  Now Britain
has a monopoly with power to set its own rates, offer service at its
discretion, and generally set telecom policy for the entire nation.
When pressed on its often criticized performance, BT answers, "For the
disgruntled, there's always Mercury.  (Hah-hah.)"


Bob Jacobson

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

Subject: Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 91 00:15:27
From: [e-mail]


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

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

>> If you stop to think about it, why have there
>> been no attempts to establish a stored value card system for public
>> telephones? They are found in a number of other countries, including
>> Japan. Most Americans that I talked to there liked the system and used
>> it. I do not believe that it would be rejected by the American public.

> I must admit that I find the public telephone debit cards to be
> convenient, and for tourists and other transients they are great.  But
> I disagree that America should try to emulate them.

In Australia, we've have Credit Card/Debit Card payphones for over
three years, and only now are Stored Value card phones being
introduced.  Due to Australia's widespread EFTPOS (X.25/X.400)
network, Credit/Debit Card Phones have become quite common, with a
penetration rate of about 10% of payphones.  Hence the need for Stored
Value card phones has not been great.

The Creditphones are great because anyone from anywhere in the world
can use them if they have an acceptable card (eg American Express and
Visa).  You don't need to call an operator or key in 27 digits.  You
just swipe your card through the reader, key in a PIN number (if your
card has a PIN number) and then dial away!  That also means you don't
need to have a fixed phone in order to have the call billed somewhere.
It's billed directly to your card.

These phones also accept ATM cards from many Australian state and
national banks for those who don't like using credit.

Also, there is no surcharge for using these phones.  There is a
*minimum* charge of $1.20 per call, but it is *not* in addition to
normal call charges.  If the call normally costs 30c, you would get
charged $1.20.  If the call would normally cost $2.15, you would get
charged $2.15.  Hence for calls you think would cost less than $1.20,
you would use a coin phone.

> Telephone cards worked because telephones only take one or two types
> of coins, no bills, one must continually dump coins in while one
> talks, and they don't make change.  Having a telephone card prevents
> this hassle.

In the USA, where the largest denomination coin is 25 cents, I can
understand this is a problem.  Australia's largest coin in $2.  When
you can get around 10 minutes of long distance callng time on one
coin, the problem is reduced greatly.  Payphones in Australia accept
at least four different coins (10c, 20c, 50c and $1) and sometimes six
(5c and $2 as well).

> Which brings us back to the call for such a stored-value card system
> for use on U.S. phones.  Just like the above, I would say that we
> already have a better system in place; credit cards and calling cards.

I'd say the Oz system is even better - you don't need to tell an
operator your credit card number over the phone to make a call.  It's
all done electronically via EFTPOS.  Much simpler, quicker and much
more secure.

> Stored-value telephone cards are also popular because using one costs
> no more than using cash.  I call on U.S. telephone and long distance
> companies to eliminate calling card and credit card surcharges.
> Almost everyone has a credit card or has (or can get) a calling card.
> I would never put cash in a phone again if there were no surcharge to
> use my calling card.

As mentioned before, Australia has no surcharge on the use of Credit
Card Payphones.


Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  [e-mail]
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan
Services R&D   |  Phone:  [phone]     Fax:  [phone]
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1991 07:17:00 GMT
From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


> I must admit that I find the public telephone debit cards to be
> convenient, and for tourists and other transients they are great.

And I must disagree with the last part.  One thing I know, as a
tourist, is that when I go to a new country I will be unfamiliar with
the charges for telephone use.  I also often have very little idea of
how many calls I will have to make, or how long I will be put on hold
then I make them.  Consequently, I have no idea of how many pounds,
yen, or francs I want to spend on a phone card!

So long as the country's non-card phones accept a reasonable range of
denominations (*), I will always prefer to get a suitable quantity of
coinage and use that.  If I don't spend it on phone calls, I can spend
it on something else.  I will use a phone card only if I know I am
likely to use it up -- e.g. on an expensive overseas call.

     (*) Something that is not the case in North America.  In the US,
     there is the excuse that there is no commonly circulating coin
     above 25 cents anyway.  But why don't Bell Canada pay phones
     take $1 coins?  Do other Canadian phone companies' take them yet?

If I was a tourist from another part of the country, *then* a phone
card might be all right, because I could use any leftover value later
 -- but then, I could also charge the call to my home number.

> [Moderator's Note: It is a little-known fact that 60-75 years ago,
> there was an unusual way of handling pay phone calls: the merchant
> slug, which you purchased from the clerk in the store for use in the
> pay stations ONLY in that store. ...]

Reminiscent of the token (jeton) system used a lot more recently than
that in France.  Are there still some of those phones in use there?


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

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

Date: Fri, 08 Mar 91 00:38:04 EST
From: Eric Skinner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Northern Telecom Maestro Sets


Louis J. Judice <[e-mail]> writes:

> I seemed to recall reading here a while back about NT's Maestro phones
> (which are designed for consumer use in CLASS service areas) being on
> sale in New Jersey. I've looked around but not seen them.

> Does anyone remember where there are offered, or if you have one,
> what you think about them?

I don't know about their availability in the US; They are offered in the
Ottawa, Canada area by Bell Canada as part of its CLASS trial, and
I've had one for a few months now.

The set seems nicely designed; overall I have no real problems with
it.  It *is* possible to "crash" the phone, although there doesn't
seem to be a pattern to it.  Occasionally the numeric display gets a
little confused working with the caller list or the programming keys,
and either hangs or displays garbage.  Sure hope they upgrade the ROMs
someday :-) But these events are rare.

Probably my biggest complaint is that the Maestro only keeps track of
numbers that called and went unanswered.  This seems to make sense
until one factors in answering machines.  This option should be
software-selectable, the way so many other of the phone's features
are.  A nice touch: it lets you "edit" a phone number before dialing,
and adds dashes to the number (displayed on the lcd) appropriately as
you dial.

Not a bad phone, altogether.


Eric Skinner             [e-mail]
University of Ottawa               [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 00:46:50 PST
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connection


The Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Rotary dial will NOT work on cellular phones, since
> there is no loop of wire to be opened and closed by the pulsing. In
> any situation where there is not a direct hardwired link to a central
> office switch, i.e. cellular, then rotary is not a valid service.  PAT]

A more accurate statement is "In any situation where there is not a
direct hardwired link to the CO switch, *pulse* is not a valid
service."  I have actually used an old amateur radio autopatch that
worked with rotary (yes, rotary) dialers.  The rotary dialer encoded a
make/break as a 1200/1800 Hz (I think these were the tones; my
memory's a little fuzzy) tone.

The "break" tone would start as soon as I moved the dial from its rest
position.  This gave dialled digits a "deeeeeee-doodle-oodle-oodle-oodle"
sound.  Tone detectors controlled a relay on the autopatch that
interrupted the phone line when ever a "make" tone was heard, thereby
dialling the number.

This arrangement was common back in the 1960s.  One thing to note is
that while encoding rotary digits as a pair of make/break tones was
widespread, the frequencies themselves were not.  Basically each
repeater (or region) picked its own pair.  Unless you got lucky, your
dialer (for your club's autopatch) was useless in a strange city.

As far as rotary service not being available on cellular, no disagreement
there ;-).

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #185
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27154;
          8 Mar 91 11:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09966;
          8 Mar 91 9:24 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac14318;
          8 Mar 91 8:19 CST
Date:     Fri, 8 Mar 91 7:45:59 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #186
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Mar 91 07:45:40 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 186

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Robert E. Zabloudil]
    Re: Caller ID Status Report [Robert E. Zabloudil]
    Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Airphones and TDD? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Phone Dinging Around 2 AM [Tad Cook]
    Re: Call*Block and Changing Subscribers [Benjamin Ellsworth]
    Re: Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count) [Carl Moore]
    Re: Two Word Exchange Names [[e-mail]]
    Re: GTE and Pac Tel Cellular in Los Angeles [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Telephone Surcharges for Deaf, Poor Anger IBT Customers [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Microwave / Optical Links for Audio [Kauto Huopio]
    Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell [Nickolas Landsberg]
    Re: What Number Maps to Q or Z? [Carl Moore]
    Re: Payment For no Connection? [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Date: 8 Mar 91 00:00:45 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Gordon Burditt) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 166, Message 3 of 12

> A quick glance at newspaper ads reveals that the convention is that
> even when area codes 800 and 214 both appear in the same ad, 800 is
> surrounded by dashes and 214 is surrounded by parenthesis.

That, of course, is the newspaper's own convention, which would vary
from paper to paper.  Many follow the New York Times stylebook, but
many do not.


Bob Zabloudil   [e-mail]     Opinions strictly my own, etc.

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

From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Status Report
Date: 8 Mar 91 00:08:23 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator responds
to [e-mail] (Robert Jacobson):

< [Moderator's Note: Thanks for pointing this out. I wonder if the lack
< of California details in the chart was an oversight by the original
< author or somehow a typo error by the person sending it here?   PAT]

I thought I only counted 49 entries.  Since DC was included, that would mean
another state was left off?

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why do Telcos Use Window Envelopes for Payments
Date: 8 Mar 91 00:47:00 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Leonard P Levine) writes:

> Many of us do not know that the cost of mailing a nine-digit bar coded
> envelope that has the five virtical stripes is $0.27, not $0.29...

> [Moderator's Note: The thing you overlooked was the *minimum pieces
> per mailing* requirement to get the 27 cent rate. You must mail (I
> think) 500 pieces or more at a time. The mail has to be taken already
> sorted by zip code to the post office...

I think the 27 cent rate applies to bar-coded mail in minimum mailings
of 250 pieces, metered, and delivered to the post office.  There is a
better rate (used to be .21, now I think it's .23) for bar-coded mail
that is also pre-sorted by zip codes, and delivered to the post office
in lots of 500.

For those of us who mail one or two, or even a dozen envelopes at a
time, it's hard to mail for less than .29 for the first ounce.  On the
other hand, use FAX!  It gets there faster, and for up to three pages,
probably costs less than .29 within the US.  (This _is_ the telecom
newsgroup, isn't it?)


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Airphones and TDD?
Date: 8 Mar 91 00:54:59 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Curtis E. Reid) writes:

> Before I do this, I need to know if any electronic equipment is
> prohibited on an airplane while airborne?  Could someone tell me
> excatly what are the rules for operating such equipment on an
> airplane?  Thanks!!

The operation of most electronic equipment is prohibited aboard any
aircraft in flight under instrument flight rules (this includes
virtually all airline flights, and many general aviation flights).  It
is up to the airline to enforce this rule, and to grant exceptions for
equipment which has been verified by the airline (or by the pilot, for
general aviation operations) not to cause interference with the
navigation or communications systems in use.  You should ask the
airline about your own specific equipment on their flights, and you
should probably expect a NO answer if it radiates any RF or if they
don't know what it does.

If you're riding the airliner into a fogged-in airport, you wouldn't
want your lap-top interfering with the ILS receiver and directing you
into the ground, would you?


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

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

From: hpubvwa!ssc!Tad.Cook
Subject: Re: Phone Dinging Around 2 AM
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 00:10:29 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, think!barmar@bloom-beacon.
mit.edu (Barry Margolin) writes:

> On most nights, somewhere between 2 and 3 AM, my phone will
> spontaneously emit two tiny rings (it has a real bell, not a tone
> generator, and goes ding -- ding).

(stuff deleted)

> Does anyone have an idea what's causing this?  Does NEw England Tel
> send out some kind of test pulse that my phone (an AT&T Trimline 230)
> is oversensitive to?

The telco is doing automated testing in the middle of the night.  The
phone is probably sensitive to belltap ... meaning that it would tend
to 'ding' when an extension with a rotary dial is dialed.

The ringer is responding to a test voltage on the line that has a fast
rising edge.


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA  Packet: KT7H @ N7ENT.#WWA.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]     MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad   or, [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 00:33:46 GMT
From: Benjamin Ellsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call*Block and Changing Subscribers


> ... Since the telco obviously knows when a number changes
> subscribers, why not clear numbers from everyone's block list as they
> are disconnected?

Why not just update everyone with that person's new number???

YECHHH!!!  Too much cross-linkage of information for my tastes.  There
is a certain amount of security in obscurity.


Benjamin Ellsworth   [e-mail]   All relevant disclaimers apply.

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 0:49:54 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Large Local Calling Areas (was Re: NXX Count)


> Those kinds of services aren't uncommon at all -- Chichester, Aston, and
> Marcus Hook PA (as well as several others) are al local calls to most
> of 312, which isn't surprising, since they are all a stone's throw
> from the PA/DE border.

You mean 302 (Delaware) instead of 312 (Chicago).  All PA points
(this is in 215) along the Delaware border have local service across
it; the DE points affected are Holly Oak, Wilmington, Newport,
Hockessin, and Newark, with the rest of DE being long distance.

> Likewise, I believe some communities in Chester County, PA may be both
> local to 717 and 215, since they're served by some random independent
> telco.

I know of local service between Oxford (215-932) and Kirkwood
(717-529), and between Atglen (215-593) and Gap (717-442), but I think
these points in 215 are served by Bell of Pa.  Other local service I
know of between 215 and 717 is between Lehighton (215-377, not in
Chester County) and Jim Thorpe (717-325).

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

Subject: Re: Two Word Exchange Names
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 91 00:42:31
From: [e-mail]


> The Moderator writes about HYde Park (in Chicago?) and that some
> people dialed HP when they should have dialed HY.

Worse than that: In New York City there is an area of Staten Island
called Saint George (or "St. George").  It was also the name of the
local phone exchange.  Should it be dialed:

    SG - Saint George
    ST - ST. george
    SA - SAint george

The right answer is "SA".


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail], in Cambridge MA, home of
(617)KIRkland, UNIversity, ELIot, TROwbridge, and neighbor of
(617)CONgress, COPley, LAFayette, KENmore, ASPinwall, MONument, etc., etc...


[Moderator's Note: Then too, poor spelling ability had a lot to do
with people getting the wrong number. (312) BOUlevard frequently got
dialed as BULevard, meaning the caller got a 288 number instead of a
268 number. DEArborn became DEErborn, etc.   PAT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE and Pac Tel Cellular in Los Angeles
Date: 8 Mar 91 05:50:29 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

[regarding cellular carriers that offer huge 'local' calling areas]

> roughly 150 by 50 miles on a side) are "local" calls.  Further, they
> state that calls placed _from_ cellular phones to anywhere in their
> Bay Area service area are "local" calls, regardless of the home area
> code of the cellular phone and the area code of the number being
> dialed; there are probably some perverse cases where using a cellular
> phone to call somewhere else in the service area is cheaper than using
> normal PacBell service.

Here in the New York City CGSA, the non-wireline carrier (MetroOne)
offers a huge local calling area.  They charge their normal airtime
rate, but the landline rate for calls within their service area is
0.06 per minute regardless of distance.  If I'm in Eastern Long Island
and place a call from the car to Central New Jersey, I pay six cents
per minute for the land-line call, but I'm calling over 100 miles.
The air time, if it's non-prime time, is 0.15/minute regardless of
distance.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Surcharges for Deaf, Poor Anger IBT Customers
Date: 8 Mar 91 00:06:16 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


It seems that when the US Government applies a federal exise tax on
what they consider to be a luxury, they tax telephone service.

When Illinois decides who should subsidize whom, telephone service is
essential.

The point made by the IBT customers, I think, is that if it is proper
for low-income citizens to be subsidized by other citizens, why make
the telephone company the conduit for this?  It wouldn't be that the
state of Illinois thinks an additional state tax might be politically
unpopular, now, would it?


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

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

From: Kauto Huopio OH5LFM <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Microwave / Optical Links for Audio
Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland
Date: 7 Mar 91 12:39:25


> I need to run a stereo audio signal from our studio to a cable
> company's head-end about two miles away.  A four-wire non-directional
> phone line is $55/mo + 760 to set up, and will certainly require some
> serious EQ (loading coils are probably present).  I'm wondering if

Well, I think all you need is a good ol' four-wire. For two miles I
think that you can send the composite stereo trhough one single pair
without too much hassle. The only thing you'll propably need is two
300 ohm balancing transformers (?) and a good parametric EQ. During
setup phase you'll need a good noise generator and signal analyser,
but that's all! We had a scout camp radio station last summer and the
transmitter was about four miles away in a telcom tower and the phone
line there was about eight miles. We had Telelinks at each end (a
system for sending audio over phone lines including remote transmitter
control) and we put one stereo EQ to the studio end. Because our
transmitter was just a mono one, we connected the two EQ channels
together. Just before the transmitter we had Orban FM Optimod. The
sound quality ... EARTHSHAKING! We just didn't believe our ears when
we at first time put a monitor amp to the line at the transmitter
site. Remember when ordering the line from the local telco that you
want to have a DIRECT line to the cable company, pure copper and no
coils whatsoever.


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

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

Date: Thu,  7 Mar 91 10:15:19 EST
From: Nickolas Landsberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Competition Comes to Illinois Bell
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> wb8foz writes:

> This brings up a VERY interesting scenaro. WU used to have not just
> cable, but pneumatic message tube virtually everywhere in many Eastern
> US cities. A late friend of mine who worked for WU through both World
> Wars talked about the seventeen-odd branch offices that they had in
> downtown Cleveland alone - all interconnected by message tube.

> Folks, you can stuff an awful lot of fiber bandwidth down just one of
> those tubes. Heck, if you did it right, maybe you could get the fiber
> pulled in by a carrier tube - no digging needed.

While I was running underground construction in NYC (more years ago
than I care to admit to) we used to come accross these beasts in the
streets.  Since they were unused, we generally wound up ripping them
up (of course, after calling the "rightful owners" to see if they
wanted the salvage value of the copper :-) ).  I doubt if you could
find an unbroken run of these pneumatic tubes anywhere nowadays.


Nick Landsberg


[Moderator's Note: A nice deal here in Chicago are the miles and miles
of underground tunnels built at the turn of the century by the now
long-defunct Chicago Tunnel Company. The tunnels go under every street
downtown, and connect all the office buildings. Originally (in 1900)
used to carry coal in to heat the buildings and to carry garbage out,
the tunnels have been used in recent years for lots of fiber optic
cables and other utility service wires.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 7 Mar 91 14:02:38 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Number Maps to Q or Z?


One system which instructed users to press 1 for Q or Z was a movie
rating service.  (I have forgotten whether it was a 900 number or
otherwise.)

And in 1988 I heard (via this Digest) of a FAILED vice-presidential
telephone poll.  The candidates in question were Bentsen and Quayle,
and callers were to press B or Q as the case may be.

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

Date: Thu, 7 Mar 91 14:05:55 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Payment For no Connection?


What does the Moderator mean by "OCC play-phone"?  Also, in discussion
of charging after so many ringing signals, don't forget the courtesy
of giving the receiving party time to answer!


[Moderator's Note: I am referring to the various LD companies which
have started in recent years who think after a decade more or less in
business they know as much about running a phone network as AT&T does
after a century of doing the same thing.  Do you remember when the
phone book used to always say 'allow the phone to ring twelve times --
or about one minute -- to give your party time to respond' ... how
can the OCC's and the chintzy PBX's around today deal with that ? For
that matter, how can they deal with someone like Larry King who
invites people to call and plainly announces, "let the phone keep
ringing; we'll answer when we are ready to take your call ..." Does
anyone using an OCC without answer supervision *dare* to call a radio
talk show like that, and 'let it ring' for ten minutes?   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #186
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29876;
          9 Mar 91 19:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19104;
          9 Mar 91 17:40 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22392;
          9 Mar 91 16:35 CST
Date:     Sat, 9 Mar 91 15:35:09 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #187
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 Mar 91 15:34:58 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 187

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Update on Rochester, NY Disaster [Curtis E. Reid]
    How is 800 ANI Delivered? [Tom Lowe]
    Re: When to Use / Not Use the '1' [Mark Van Buskirk]
    Caller ID - Roll Your Own [Marc T. Kaufman]
    New Zealand's Way to Write Phone Number [Ben Kinchant]
    Re: Watch for the COCOT Warning Signs! [Kendall Miller]
    Re: Making a Phone Ring for a Play [Matthew McGehrin]
    Direct Mail Sales of Brand-X Long Distance Co. [Floyd Vest]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 9 Mar 91 11:10 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Update on Rochester, NY Disaster


[Moderator's Note: Below are three recent dispatches from Mr. Reid.
Due to a lack of space, I was unable to run these earlier in the week
as they arrived (one by one).   PAT]

Today is Thursday, March 7, 1991.

Approximately 100,000 of 325,000 are still without power.  The area
where I live is still without power after 80 (3 days) hours.

I am excerpting several paragraphs from our local newspaper, {Democrat
and Chronicle}, Thursday, March 7, 1991, front page and page 10A:

    "Almost 100,000 Rochester Gas and Electric Corp. customers
    remained without power yesterday as hundreds of work crews
    continued to clear tree limbs and repair power lines in a
    region still reeling from the ice storm."
    ....
    "States of emergency were still in effect for Monroe as well
    as Livingston and Ontario counties, along with parts of Genesee,
    Wayne and Orleans counties."
    ....
    "Monroe County Executive Thomas R. Frey, meanwhile, requested
    that [Governor] Cuomo seek federal disaster assistance for
    the county.  If such a request were granted, federal funds or
    assistance would be available for the cleanup."
    ....
    "Motorists were still trying to adjust to driving without
    traffic signals at intersections.

    "'It looked like most of the community was playing chicken at
    those intersections without police officers,' said Monroe
    County Sheriff Andrew P. Meloni yesterday morning.

    "By the afternoon, about 40 traffic signals were repaired but
    some 120 remained out of service."
    ....
    "Rochester Telephone Corp. reported that 15,000 customers
    remained without service last night.  That was the same number
    reported Tuesday.

    "Progress was hampered because the company received a host of
    new requests to repair telephones out of service.  In all, about
    18,000 calls have been received by Rochester Telephone, which
    serves Monroe and Livingston counties, along with parts of
    Wayne, Ontario, Gensee and Wyoming counties."

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


Today is Friday, March 8, 1991:

The power at my residence in Henrietta has been restored after 84
hours of no electricity.  Only half of the town were restored.  Many
portions of the counties are still without power.

There are a lot of good articles in the newspaper.  They are too
numerous to excerpt them all however I am selecting some that I think
might be of interest to you as Telecom Digest readers.  All are
excerpts from Rochester, NY's {Democrat and Chronicle} newspaper dated
Friday, March 8, 1991.

Front page headline: Disaster aid sought

    "As bitter cold drove reluctant local residents to heated
    public shelters last night, Gov. Mario M. Cuomo announced
    he would ask President Bush to declare Monroe and other
    counties in western and northern New York a major disaster
    area.

    "Cuomo sent a preliminary letter to the White House yesterday
    and said a formal request would follow as soon as paperwork
    was completed.  The designation as a 'major' disaster area
    would qualify local governments for the highest level of
    reimbursement for cleanup expenses."
    ....

    "Cold, wind and snow yesterday also slowed Rochester Gas and
    Electric Corp. crews, but they managed to restore power to
    nearly 30,000 customers by mid-afternoon.  RG&E expected to
    return light and heat to at least 27,000 more customers by
    the end of today.

 From page 6A:

    "That still would leave another 40,000 customers -- three-
    quarters of them residential customers -- without power by
    tonight, when bitter cold was forecast again.

    "RG&E senior vice president David Laniak has said he believes
    the company will restore power to nearly all customers by
    this weekend."
    ....

 From page 1B:

    Headline: 23,000 area telephone customers lack service

    "A total of 23,000 Rochester Telephone Corp. customers in
    the Rochester area were recorded as lacking service
    yesterday, the highest number since the weekend's
    devasting ice storm.

    "One reason the number is getting higher is that people are
    reporting lost service as they return home once electric
    power is restored, said Diana Melville, assistant manager
    for community and media relations.  About 3,000 service
    calls have been made.

    "The increase means the problem is worse than the company
    initially believed.  'Realistically, we're going well into
    next week before this is cleared up', she said.

    "The net total of customers known to lack service went from
    15,000 Monday to 18,000 Tuesday, to 15,000 Wednesday, to 23,000
    yesterday, Melville said.  Rochester Tel's local affiliate,
    Rochester Telephone Operating Co., has a service area that
    includes 360,000 customers in Monroe and Livingston counties,
    and parts of Wayne, Ontario, Genesee and Wymoning counties.

    "Another reason more progress hasn't been made is some of the
    repaired telephone lines were damaged again by falling branches,
    or inclement weather, such as brisk winds Wednesday night, she
    said.

    "The workers think they're running on a treadmill.  For example,
    telephone crews completed 1,200 jobs Wednesday, but there were
    3,000 new reports of no service.  Yesterday, crews completed
    1,650 jobs, but there were 1,400 new reports of no service.

    "The company is using its own 300 crew members, along with
    100 crew members from other telephone companies.  The repairs
    are being made from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m.

    "In the beginning of the week, the crews went to affected homes
    to make repairs, but they often couldn't do their work because
    of suspected live electric wires that were down, Melville said.
    Now repairs are coordinated to follow Rochester Gas and Electric
    Corp.'s repair of power lines, she said.

    "Greater Rochester Cablevision hasn't determined how many of its
    customers have lost service.  The company asked customers to
    call only if they have electrical power but no cable service or
    if they know their cable lines are down."


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

Today is Saturday, March 9, 1991:

Approximately 43,000 are still without power -- they are widely
scattered all over the counties.  Estimate restoration to Monday
evening -- a change from this weekend.  24,500 are without telephone
service.  Price tag: $36 Million.

Below are excerpts from Rochester, NY's {Democrat and Chronicle} dated
March 9th:

Front page headline:

    "Price tag of disaster starts at $36 million"

 From front page:

    "On Day Five of Rochester's Ice Storm recovery, the pace of
    electric restoration slowed and the first cost estimate
    came in: $36 million just to haul away debris.

    "Gov. Mario M. Cuomo toured stricken Rochester-area neighbor-
    hoods and did his best to cheer up a frazzled populace, whose
    response to the crisis he called superb."
    ....
    "About 43,000 customers in Monroe County remained without
    power yesterday afternoon.  RG&E revised its estimate of
    when they expect to connect all but scattered power failures
    from this weekend to Monday evening."
    ....

 From page 10A:

    ....
    "Laniak [RG&E Vice President] also continued yesterday to
    defend RG&E's handling of the crisis, and the way it set
    its priorities.  But he said, in essence, that the company
    never anticipated having to deal with such massive damage.
    It does not possess the extra communications gear needed
    to field large numbers of out-of-town crews, he said, and
    its written emergency plan was based on a lessor wind or
    lightning storm."
    ....

Different article on same page:

    ....
    "In contrast, Rochester Telephone Corp. again reported an
    increase for the second day in the number of customers
    without phone service.  As of yesterday, about 24,500
    customers lacked service, the highest total since the storm
    occured, according to Diana Melville, assistant manager for
    community and media relations.

    "Although the company made about 3,000 repairs yesterday, it
    also got 7,000 new reports of no service, Melville said.
    She said a few of those 7,000 might be customers repeating
    a request to get service returned.  Many of the others,
    however, probably represent people returning to homes and
    finally reporting problems.

    "Of the 24,500 lacking service yesterday, about 19,000 of
    those customers reported that the "drop line" that goes
    directly to their home was disconnected or damaged,
    Melville said.

    "Repairing large numbers of drop lines is time-consuming,
    she said.

    "Melville repeated her prediction that service won't be
    restored to all customers until well into next week."
    ....


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

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

From: telpc![e-mail]
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 91 09:07 EST
Subject: How is 800 ANI Delivered?


Are there any other methods of delivering the ANI on 800 numbers other
than with ISDN?  I don't think AT&T uses anything other than ISDN.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat Mar  9 08:58:24 CST 1991
Subject: Re: When to Use / Not Use the '1'
Organization: AT&T


With all of the questions recently on when to use 1 for dialing I have
a new twist to add. Why is it necessary to dial 1 for local calls? The
city I live in is served by Illinois Bell and GTE. When calling local
from the IBT Company to the GTE Company (815-398-xxxx to 815-874-xxxx)
a 1 must be dialed first. However, if calling from 874-xxxx to
398-xxxx 1 is not needed.  Any explanations? Do any other cities
served by two LEC's require this type of dialing?


Mark Van Buskirk
Rolling Meadows, IL


[Moderator's Note: From IBT's Chicago-Newcastle CO to Centel's
Chicago-Newcastle numbers, only seven digits are dialed, and it is a
local, untimed call. From IBT or Centel in Chicago to IBT or Centel in
the suburbs -- even if is across the street (or the shop next door in
the mall, in one case along Harlem Avenue) then 1-708 or 1-312 must be
prepended.   PAT]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID - Roll Your Own
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1991 02:01:11 GMT


{MicroProcessor Report} this month lists a recent IC announcement:

SC11210, SC11211 from Sierra Semi: Analog front-end for receiving
FSK-encoded caller ID information SC11211 also provides call progress
detection outputs.

Price: $2 in 10K quantities, in production and available.

Integrated with a phone answering machine, which already has the SLIC
and power supply and display, it shouldn't add more than $60 or $70 to
the retail price...


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: 9 Mar 91 02:07:04 NZS (Sat)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: New Zealand's Way to Write Phone Numbers


New Zealand phone numbers have been written in a form of

[phone]

but recently Telecom New Zealand told us in our "Customer Hotline"
newsletter, that "To fit in with international convention, we're
changing the way we write our telephone numbers".  The new format is

0-9-801 4567

They say that with the new format it is easier to recoginse the access
code of "0" which means Telecom tolls.  I read in a newspaper article
a while ago that alternative toll companies would be using access
codes of 05xx.


Ben Kinchant, [e-mail]

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

From: kendall miller <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 91 03:47:12 MST
Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ
Subject: Re: Watch for the COCOT Warning Signs!


    One quick way to identify a COCOT, that can be done from a
distance, is to see on which side the coin return is located. All
"Genuine Bell" payphones that I have come across have the coin return
slot on the left bottom. A large number of COCOT's have the coin
return on the right side.  Unfortunately, there are many COCOT's with
coin returns on the left, but if you do see a payphone with it on the
right, you can avoid it from the outset.

Once you do approach a payphone closely, look for the bell in a circle
logo impressed in the lower right hand part of the crome front (I
actually did see a few early COCOT's that had this logo with a paper
sticker covering it up. I guess this was the first batch of bandits
that AT&T churned out for the COCOT market before they had a chance to
retool for the crome front). Another check is to blow in the
mouthpiece to see if you can hear the sidetone in the earpiece. Most
COCOT's have the mouthpiece mike cutoff until the connection is
finally made with the called party (and sometimes for an anoyingly
long period afterwards). I generally do this check whether or not I
know that a payphone is a COCOT just to make sure that I am using
working equipment before I risk my money.

    It seems to me the reason that COCOT's are so funky with respect
to locking out the keypad after the call has been made or muting the
mike at improper times is to prevent fraud due to dial tone
re-origination.  If you place a call on a loop start line and stay
off-hook after the called party hangs up, the central office will
eventually give you back a dial tone, but if you do the same on a
ground start line, you will never get a dial tone back (the problem
with getting a dial tone back from a COCOT's point of view is a that
you could then dial anywhere for free). Why don't COCOT's use ground
start lines?


Kendall Miller             [e-mail]            602-797-8660

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew McGehrin)
Subject: Re: Making a Telephone Ring for a Play
Date: 9 Mar 91 08:16:07 GMT


In-Reply-To: message from [e-mail]

You mean, a call back. If you can get an extension on that line, and
have someone call it, it will call back. Over where I live 55x-####
will cause a ring back.

Where "X" is a number from 0 to 9 and "#" is the last four digits of
your phone number, if it is busy, then increment it by one.

You will hear a dial tone, and a click. Flash, and a tone will come
on. Hang up and the phone will call you back.


Inet:   [e-mail]         UUCP:   crash!pro-nka!matthew
ARPA:   crash!pro-nka![e-mail]  GENIE:  M.MCGEHRIN

                1+201/944-3102  (PCP NJNEW/944-3102)

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

Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1991 08:39 CST
From: Floyd Vest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Direct Mail Sales of Brand-X Long Distance Co.


I receive by bulk rate mail today a card advertising a Brand-X long
distance outfit.  I have typed in most of the ad below for your info.
Please note that I am *definitely* NOT recommending this company.  I
am not presenting this to solicit business for this firm, only to see
what others' impressions are of this ad.

The ad:

4 HOURS FREE
long distance calling time

NO RISK
FREE TRIAL!
*no sign up fees
*no cancellation fees
*no minimum charge per month
*SAVE UP TO 33% OR MORE [up to or more???-fv]
*free travel cards
*4 hours free in your first year(*)
*no hassle *no fuss *no extra bills
*the most innovative long distance service company

In extremely small print:
Through a special arrangement with the top five long distance carriers,
DDI, through its volume purchasing power has obtained tremendous savings
from the these companies, in turn, we are passing these savings on to our
customers. savings of 33% or more below AT&T rates.

In Even smaller print:
(*) Discount Dialing will send to each subscriber for FREE Sixty minutes of
service each 90 days on our Current Interstate Night Band One Rates

Big again:

"LONG DISTANCE SAVINGS YOU CAN SEE

DISCOUNT DIALING, INC.

AND QUALITY YOU CAN HEAR"

CALL TOLL FREE TODAY!  1-800-325-0045 TO RECEIVE YOUR FOUR FREE HOURS
OF SERVICE.  OFFER EXPIRES 3/15/91

Discount Dialing is a marketing agent for Network Service, Inc.


Floyd Vest <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Manager, Administrative Systems--Auburn University, Alabama USA
Voice: [phone]  BBS: [phone]  FIDO: 1:3613/3

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #187
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00980;
          9 Mar 91 20:11 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02297;
          9 Mar 91 18:43 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19104;
          9 Mar 91 17:40 CST
Date:     Sat, 9 Mar 91 16:50:48 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #188
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 Mar 91 16:50:35 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 188

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: LD Dialing Without the "1" [Dave Levenson]
    Re: LD Dialing Without the "1" [John Parsons]
    Re: Northern Telecom Maestro [Duncan Glendinning]
    Re: An Old Instrument Develops Bell-Tap [Dave Levenson]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Cellular Telephones on a Bicycle [Steve Warner]
    Re: Rotary Dial for Cellular Telephones? [John R. Covert]
    Re: Cellular Telephones on a Bicycle [Steven King]
    Re: Telecom At Walt Disney World [John Temples]
    Re: New Telephone Numbers for Amsterdam (The Netherlands) [John Ackley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD Dialing Without the "1" (was Re: NXX Count ...)
Date: 9 Mar 91 08:15:38 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Wally Kramer) writes:

> Northern New Jersey 201-XXX didn't when I was there in 1982.
> Particularly annoying as I was unfamiliar with the area and with
> little money, so I would have really liked having to dial a 1 to
> protect me from accidental spending.  This is probably the
> intent -- after all, Bell 'owns' New Jersey.

New Jersey now does require the 1+ for all inter-area-code calls, and
does not permit it on intra-area-code calls.  You still can't tell
whether something within your area code is a local call.  If it's
within the area but outside your local calling area, you still dial
seven digits.  As far as I know, this is required in all three of New
Jersey's area codes.


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

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

Date: Sat, 9 Mar 91 12:21:27 mst
From: John Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD Dialing Without the "1"


[e-mail] (Wally Kramer) writes:

> > ... how many area codes are there out there (like PacBell
> > territory in 408) that don't require a 1+ for *any* call, ...

> Northern New Jersey 201-XXX didn't when I was there in 1982.
> Particularly annoying as I was unfamiliar with the area and with
> little money, so I would have really liked having to dial a 1 ....

It all depends on how you were raised, I guess.  I grew up in PacBell
213 land, where 1+ was not required for toll calls.  Now I live in
USWest 303 land, and it's *annoying* to get that "We're sorry, you
must first dial a ONE..." intercept.

Cheerio,

John Parsons   [e-mail]

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

From: Duncan Glendinning <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Northern Telecom Maestro
Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd.
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1991 05:03:43 GMT


In <[e-mail]> portal!cup.portal.com!fleming

> I picked up a Northern Telecom Maestro set this weekend (Disclaimer: I
> work for NT, but in a different part of the business).  Wow, I'm
> impressed!  Caller ID isn't turned on yet, but even without it, this
> is a nice set.

> Good-looking set (I have mine wall-mounted), seemingly solid
> construction, keys feel right when you press them.  Nice features like
> on-hook dialling using the LCD display (with a backspace key), a Link
> (hookflash) button for Call Waiting, a Hold button so you can run to
> an extension, adjustable handset volume, and a lamp that lights
> whenever any extension in the house is off-hook.  I can see how long
> my daughter spends on the phone in her room without leaving the
> kitchen!

> User-interface is all menu-driven ... so easy that I came home and
> found my daughter had programmed half a dozen soft keys with the
> numbers of her friends without having the manual.  Same for setting
> the built-in clock/calendar and other options.

> Can't wait for Caller ID to be activated ... from reading the manual,
> it does a nice job with this as well.

I also agree - its a great phone which is easy to configure and easy
to use.  I've had one for about three months now, with Caller ID.

I have a few suggestions on how I would like to see the Maestro
improved.

Along with Caller ID, I have identi-call (multiple virtual telephone
numbers mapped to the same physical line).  It would be nice if the
phone could annotate the caller list with the ringer pattern causing
the logged call (i.e., a: 555-1212, b: 555-1212, etc).  That way, one
could discriminate between calls to the unlisted numbers (identi-call)
and those to the primary number.  This way, I can return only those
calls that I'm interested in.

It would be nice if the phone logged the number of un-answered long
distance calls, rather than simply noting them as 'unknown'.  For me
this is important as both sets of parents are not within our calling
area.

And finally, when wall-mounted, the handset cable exits from the side,
which is a problem when you have a long (25') handset cable.  Little
hands love to pull on the cable.  This could be easily solved by
providing an additional cable channel exiting by the bottom.

Otherwise its a great phone and great service.  Unlike phone answering
machines, those who previously hated to leave voice mail messages
appreciate us returning their calls.


Duncan Glendinning         CAnet: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Gandalf Data Ltd.          Voice: [phone]
Nepean, Ontario              Fax: [phone]
Canada  K2E 7M4


[Moderator's Note: On the subject of 'unknown' calls, someone at IBT
said to me they were 'thinking about' identifying every call to the
extent known. For example, a call arrives inter-LATA from Los Angeles.
They seem to be able to pick up some things but not others, so the
display box in those cases would say something like 'From 213', or
possibly 213-000-0000 or similar. I think that would be a welcome
addition to Caller ID instead of just saying 'unknown'. But the lady I
was speaking with, who does some programming on this stuff for IBT
described it as 'problematic' and said it would not be implemented
that way, at least not at first.   PAT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: An Old Instrument Develops Bell-Tap
Date: 9 Mar 91 08:11:26 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, tots!tots.Logicon.COM!tep@
ucsd.edu (Tom Perrine) writes:

> Is this "bell-tap"? Is it a matter of reversing the polarity on the
> pair, or is it due to wear in the electro-mechanical ringer? After
> thirty years, I would assume that it could be a *little* out of
> adjustment :-).

The most likely culprit here is the blocking capacitor.  This is
probably a 1 or 2 mFd capacitor mounted inside the 'network' (the
potted module in the right rear corner of the instrument with a bunch
of screw-terminals on top) and connected between terminals A and K.
It is normally wired in series with the ringer, so that only the AC
component of the signal passes through the ringer.  It has probably
become shorted, allowing the DC to bias the ringer.  The dial pulses
look like 48 volt DC pulses, and will tap the bell if the capacitor is
shorted.

If AT&T still owns the telephone, they should replace it.


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

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

Date: Sat 9 Mar 91 08:16 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada


The main reason that Zenith and Enterprise numbers are obsolete is
that they cost so much.  I believe that they are normally billed at
the same rate as a collect call, and a monthly charge applies as well.
(Of course, the time spent in having the operator handle the call also
contributes to making Zenith and Enterprise numbers less attractive.)

Zenith sounds like a better name than Enterprise because people might
try to dial the Enterprise number as EN-XXXX, thinking that it was a
local call. There's no risk of that with a Zenith number, since you
won't find the Z anywhere on a modern North American telephone dial.
(I think some old dials had the Z on the zero, though.)


Nigel Allen     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I've got a 'Model Z' Western Electric / Bell phone
in my collection of stuff here. The date stamped on the bottom of the
phone says it was manufactured by Western Electric Hawthorne Works,
July, 1930.  The last pull on the dial is both 0 / Operator and 'Z'.
One of the first models to incorporate the bell inside the phone
itself (rather than requiring a 'side-ringer' or box mounted elsewhere
on the wall like the candlestick phones) this one also has a BROWN
CLOTH covered, *straight, uncurled* cord from the handset to the base
of the phone, and the same brown cloth covered wire from the phone out
to the spade lug connectors. When I (rarely) hook it up, it works
fine, although it sounds terrible -- the audio is bad. If I bang the
mouthpiece a little to shake up the carbon granules, it sounds better.
I found it in an obscure place twenty years ago after it had been in
service for probably forty years: the elevator machinery room on the
roof of the Chicago Temple Building ... it was an extension on the
building's PBX system. They liked the 'modern' 2500 set I gave them to
replace it!  :) (Just like they loved the wall clocks I gave them to
replace the two Western Union clocks in the auditorium.)   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 9 Mar 91 09:03:56 PST
From: Steve Warner <stables![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephones on a Bicycle
Organization: BruderWare


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

> 1) The telephones would only be needed for the duration of the bicycle
> trip and due to budgetary constraints, we would prefer to either rent
> them or accept a donation in exchange for promotion.  To whom should
> we speak about renting cellular telephones for a ten day period (Radio
> Shack, the cellular phone companies...)?

Many car rental agencies rent handheld cellular phones by the day.
They would require no installation.  The fees for such rental are kind
of high - perhaps they would give a discount however.

Hope this helps.


Steve Warner   -  Fremont, CA, USA  etc...
replies to:  sun!indetech!stables!sw    (forget what the header says)


[Moderator's Note:  A joke told to me by the local Radio Shack guy
today goes like this:  "If you need a temporary cell phone, rent one
from Radio Shack ... since when did Radio Shack *rent* phones, you
ask? ... they always did. You go in, buy a phone on your credit card,
use it that night and take it back the next day saying you changed
your mind and don't want it after all ... "   :)   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 9 Mar 91 07:25:14 GMT
From: "John R. Covert  07-Mar-1991 1939" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial for Cellular Telephones?


Steve Pershing asks:

> Since many telcos (at least here in NorthAm) charge extra for
> Touch-Tone dialling, I wonder if cellular users couldn't request
> rotary dialling to reduce their charges?  :-) Why not?  :-)

Because North American cellular phones do not use Touch-Tone.
Although most phones have a Touch-Tone pad built in to the phone for
use after the connection is established, the keypad on the phone does
not send Touch-Tone to the cellular switch.  Communications with the
switch for signalling and control is done over a modem channel.

> Moderator's Note: Rotary dial will NOT work on cellular phones, since
> there is no loop of wire to be opened and closed by the pulsing.

Rotary dial worked just fine on IMTS mobile phones; this was
accomplished by causing each dial pulse to be transmitted as a short
tone, interpreted and counted by the IMTS mobile switch.


john

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephones on a Bicycle
Date: 9 Mar 91 08:02:09 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

> 1) The telephones would only be needed for the duration of the bicycle
> trip and due to budgetary constraints, we would prefer to either rent
> them or accept a donation in exchange for promotion.  To whom should
> we speak about renting cellular telephones for a ten day period (Radio
> Shack, the cellular phone companies...)?

I'd go to the cellular phone companies.  It's my guess that they'd
fall all over each other for the opportunity to brag, "Communications
provided by XYZ Cellphone Company", especially if the event gathers a
good deal of publicity.  You can also check the yellow pages for
"communications", "pagers", etc. to find companies that do business
renting phones.  This probably isn't a low-cost solution, though.
Remember, unless you can get the cellphone operating company to donate
airtime and setup fees, merely using cellphones as intensely as I
imagine you will be can add up to some serious money very quickly!

> 2) Two to three members of the support crew ride bicycles.  What would
> be the set-up required to install a cellular telephone on a bicycle?

My choice would be to get portable phones.  They're completely
self-contained including battery and antenna.  The setup needed would
be a small carrying pouch on the bike so the rider doesn't have to
hand-carry the fool thing.  Some sort of mounting device might also be
in order to allow one-handed dialing.  Most portables aren't very
convenient to hold and dial with the same hand.  Also, contact the
local cellphone companies and make sure you've got service all the way
along the route!  It would be bad to stake your communications on
cellphones only to find that some rural areas (if you're riding
through them) have little or no coverage.

All the standard disclaimers apply.


Steven King, Motorola Cellular  (...uunet!motcid!king)

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

From: John Temples <jwt![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom At Walt Disney World
Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 03:16:51 GMT


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

> While undoubtedly every pay phone at Disney and Epcot are COCOTs in
> the strict sense, I doubt very highly that they pull any kind of stunt
> or block any kind of long distance carrier.

I recently went out to the Disney/MGM studios to meet a friend who
works there for lunch.  I went to the pay phone closest to his office,
deposited my quarter, and dialed his number.  The LCD display
requested I deposit an additional $2.40 -- to call a number on the
same exchange located a few hundred feet away!  I hung up, called the
operator, and told her what happened.  She put my call through without
question.  I have no idea if they normally charge $2.65 for local
calls, or that was just a fluke.


John W. Temples -- [e-mail]  (uunet!jwt!john)

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

From: "John J. Ackley" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Telephone Numbers for Amsterdam (The Netherlands)
Organization: Equicom Communications, Inc.
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1991 17:01:26 GMT


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

> Last weekend (on Sunday morning 3 March 1991), Amsterdam (in The
> Netherlands) has had their six digit numbers changed into seven digit
> numbers by prefixing the old number with a 6. The already existing

Pat and group,

Is there a "best" source for a country/city code database?  Right now
we have a hodge-podge of data gathered from various sources, some with
questionable credentials.  The folks at Bellcore were happy to tell me
that they had no such list, and were unable to give any other sources.
This data is available, but I'm looking for a coordinated, definitive
set from one source, possibly available on a subscription basis.

Thanks for any info.


John Ackley <[e-mail]> // The usual disclaimer stuff

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #188
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02171;
          9 Mar 91 21:17 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16924;
          9 Mar 91 19:48 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02297;
          9 Mar 91 18:44 CST
Date:     Sat, 9 Mar 91 17:49:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #189
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 Mar 91 17:48:53 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 189

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sprint Complaint Followup [Floyd Vest]
    Re: 10xxx vs. 950-xxxx Variances With Calling Card [Carol Springs]
    Re: Alphanumeric Paging [John R. Covert]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Greg Monti via John Covert]
    Re: Telecom at Walt Disney World [Michael Ho]
    Re: Watch for the COCOT Warning Signs! [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: Information Needed About Long Distance Zone Tables [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: Airfones and TDD? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Why 900-STOPPER [Robert Michael Gutierrez]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1991 07:17 CST
From: Floyd Vest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Complaint Followup


[5 Mar 91 05:54:00 GMT] [e-mail] (John Higdon) wrote:

> It is only fair to point out that a person from US Sprint contacted me
  ...
> He gave me an explanation of how it happened and he resolved the
> matter more than equitably. I have to say that when when pressed hard
> enough, Sprint has come through with solutions. Well, I have been with

I'm glad that Sprint came through for John.  The question is how hard
should one have to press to get the service.  In my case it took nine
months, four letters and ten phone calls to get extricated from Sprint
"service".  I signed up for Sprint Plus 10/89.  The offer promised
reduced rates plus a $25 credit for selecting the plan.  It took
numerous complaints to get the $25 credit (finally credited 5/90 --
seven months later).  Most of the problems arose from trying to
convince Sprint that I had two lines with different numbers that I
wanted combined on a single bill.  Sprint managed to get the accounts
combined but while the "inactive" account was still getting charges,
it would not accept credits.  I then had to accounts -- one closed
account with past due charges and the other "active" account with a
credit balance exactly the same as the past due amount on the closed
account.  I spoke with nine different Sprint service reps and
supervisors.  All were polite; all promised action; all (except the
last) were unable to resolve the problem.

If someone _Important_ from Sprint is on the net ... the one who
finally made sure that the problem was fixed was a Dallas supervisor
named Denise McNeil.  She deserves high praise.  The others seemed to
have difficultly manoevering Sprint's billing system.

I now have service from MCI.  I have had one billing problem which was
resolved on the *first* call.  And, yes, I am saving Big Bucks :-).


Floyd Vest <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Manager, Administrative Systems--Auburn University, Alabama USA
Voice: [phone]  BBS: [phone]  FIDO: 1:3613/3

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 12:49:22 EST
From: Carol Springs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10xxx vs. 950-xxxx Variances With Calling Card
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


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

> Yesterday I tried dialing a call with my MCI calling card.  I tried
> dialing 10222 and the number and got the MCI "boing" ... then I dialed
> my card number.  It choked on it.  I tried the 950 number and it
> worked just fine.  Any idea what happened?

MCI and Sprint don't accept their own calling card numbers for use
with 10xxx.  They accept only your BOC card number, also known to many
people as their AT&T card number (since these numbers are shared).

As a guess ... MCI and Sprint figure most people won't use 10xxx, but
rather simply 0+, from whatever nonhome phone they're calling from.
They need to be able to take a universal-type card with any phones for
which they are the default carrier, and the card number that makes
sense is the one that most people have (a BOC/AT&T card number).
Sure, they could accept their own card numbers as an alternative.  But
they don't want people to get confused about why their card number
works "sometimes" (with phones for which "their" carrier is the
default LD carrier) and not "other times" (with phones using some
other carrier).  They also don't want people to get into the habit of
dialing just 0+ from a pay phone, since this will result in a
substantial loss of business to the aforementioned other carriers.
("Gee, my MCI card didn't work here ... well, let's try my NETel card
 ..."  Result: Customer is billed by slimy AOS, or perhaps AT&T or
Sprint.  All three scenarios are equally bad as far as MCI is
concerned.)  So MCI and Sprint make sure you always dial their 950- or
800 number to use their card when away from home.

Since a 10xxx-0-<number> call is treated the same as a "regular"
0-<number> call at the carrier level, those who like 10xxx lose out if
they want to use their MCI or Sprint card on such a call.  The BOC
card number will work, but will (always?) result in casual billing
through the BOC rather than through your MCI or Sprint account.


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 18:15:39 PST
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alphanumeric Paging


> You need one of the Motorola terminals due to some "special codes"

Well, a friend of mine used to have service which used the Motorola
terminals, and I was able to call into their system on a 300 bps line
at 7E1 with local echo (often inappropriately called half duplex).

After the system answers, a carriage return gets the "id=" prompt, to
which I reply "M" (upper case).  The system then prompts for Pager ID,
at which point I enter the seven digit pager number.  The system then
prompts for Message, at which point I can enter the message,
correcting with ^H.  The system then prompts for "Another page?".


john

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

Date: Sat, 9 Mar 91 00:14:40 PST
From: John R. Covert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number


[From Greg Monti at NPR, forwarded to the Digest by John Covert.]

While the CCITT recommendations -- and comments of telecomers -- on
this subject were of interest, I've noticed that there *is* an
apparent US or NANP standard:

US domestic local and long distance phone companies all seem to write
phone numbers identically to each other.  Just look in any phone
directory (both the info pages at the front and the main directory
listings) or at the itemized calls on any long distance bill.  NANP
10-digit phone numbers are always listed the same way:

202 822-2633

A space after the area code, a hyphen between prefix and suffix.  No
parenthesis. The space separates; the hyphen unifies by joining the 7
digits into a block of printed text. I follow this "standard of the
NANP telcos".

Interestingly enough, this convention is REVERSED in the United Kingdom:

071-402 7633  [A hotel I once stayed at in the Bayswater district, please
              don't call them unless you want to do business with them.]

The thought there, perhaps, is that the hyphen acts as a separator.

I agree with the Moderator that people are, shall we say, less than
complete when they don't include area codes with the seven digit
numbers.  I'm glad that Washington DC area business are now forced by
marketplace reality to reveal their area codes.

The philosophical question is: are you telling someone "what buttons
to press to reach you" (which could be seven, eight, ten or eleven
digits -- which version should you print?) or "what your phone number
is" (always ten digits).  I vote for the latter. It provides full
information; the user can figure out how to dial it.


Greg Monti, National Public Radio, Washington, DC
[phone]      Fax [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I would guess your phone number is not always ten
digits; it is always eleven digits if you include the country code.
And if you don't include the country code, then why bother to include
the area code, etc ... or where do you draw the line?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: Re: Telecom At Walt Disney World
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 91 21:39:06 GMT


In <[e-mail]> arnold%audiofax.com@mathcs.
emory.edu (Arnold Robbins) writes:

[Disney World has lots of benign COCOT's.]

> The only call I made on one was to Delta's frequent
> flyer 800 number to check on our flight.  The phone was dial-tone
> first; I didn't even deposit a quarter to make the 800 call.

OF COURSE IT WORKED.  DELTA AIRLINES IS THE OFFICIAL AIRLINE OF DISNEY
WORLD AND DISNEYLAND.  Try calling United and the phone would have
asked for five bucks in pennies.  <toothy grin>

As for the 950 numbers: A lot of places still don't seem to accept
them (the University of Nebraska's Centrex included).  It ain't right,
but it's the sad truth.


Michael Ho, University of Nebraska     Internet: [e-mail]
Disclaimer:  Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be
         applied to any university agency.

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1991 11:59:24 EST
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Watch for the COCOT Warning Signs!


I've had good luck identifying COCOTS by dialing 0.  I ask the operator
who she is and from what company and who the long distnce pick is. This
hasn't failed yet....


Kath Mullholand     UNH Durham, NH.

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1991 12:12:45 EST
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed About Long Distance Zone Tables


Paul Wilczynski asked for information about Long Distance zones.  Each
carrier, and sometime each carrier's given product, has their own way
of calculating zones. Some use mileage, some use area code, and some
say they use area code and really use mileage.

When calculating our least cost routing, I made up a map of the
discrepancies that existed at that time between Sprint, AT&T and MCI.
This is only valid from New Hampshire, of course, but they varied on
seventeen area codes.

Insist on good maps from your vendor, and ask pointed questions of your
vendor about whether the map is:

1) for the product you are buying (One company offers different band
   definitions for switched access and for direct access)

2) just an approximation or an accurate picture of how you will be
   charged

3) accurate for your calling area.  In Chicago, I wouldn't expect this
   to be a problem, but in NH we often get maps valid for Boston, and
   our calling area is different.

Once you have a map, make your own and mark the discrepancies between
vendors.  I have also used a compass to put mileage bands on my maps.

The biggest discrepancy I noticed between the vendors was in Band 1.
AT&T splits the other vendors' Band one into two bands (one and two !!)
So later bands, to be compared in price, are off by one.

In general, the other discrepancies were all on the more distant
bands.  AT&T generally was the odd vendor out, but occasionally MCI
and Sprint differed on area codes in states with more than one LATA.

More information -- my Sprint representative called and I asked him
for clarification on the area code/mileage question.  Sprint
designates mileage bands, but when a band crosses through an area
code, they movethe entire area code to the lower band.  (They bill by
area code.)

MCI and AT&T, according to the same rep, bill by mileage, down to the
NPA NXX level, puching NXXs into the lower band when they are
separated by the mielage band.  This accounts for some, but by no
means all of the discrepancies I noted earlier.

I'd be happy to discuss this further, either off-line or on the net.


Kath Mullholand
UNH Durham, NH.

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Airfones and TDD?
Date: 9 Mar 91 04:07:41 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, beh@.mit.edu (Bruce E.
Howells) writes:

[ regarding obtaining permission to operate a portable electronic
device aboard an aircraft]

> The quick, off the cuff answer is "whatever the pilot allows."  The
> rules regulating aircraft permit the pilot full control over what
> electronic equipment is allowed to be operated on board...

The pilot-in-command may make this determination for flights operating
under part 91 of the federal aviation regulations.  This part covers
general aviation (private planes, or others operated not for profit).
For operations under part 135 (air taxi) or part 121 (airline)
operations, the 'operator' of the aircraft is empowered to make the
determination.  The 'operator' for these purposes is the company, not
the pilot.  In practice, it is probably the chief of the department
responsible for maintaining and calibrating the avionics.

Bruce's closing comment certainly applies:

> The real answer is call your airline.  Especially for the TDD, explain
> to them that you need the TDD, that you have special needs that you
> need their assistance with.  They tend to be very receptive to such
> requests.


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

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

From: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 91 06:10:01 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center


fmsys![e-mail] (Macy Hallock) writes:

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

> > The Moderator claims that 1-900-STOPPER is worthless because any trace
> > need merely trace through their system; this adds one step, it doesn't
> > stop anyone.

[...]

> I use Litel's (a regional carrier) 950-XXXX access number.  ANI is not
> passed on most Feature Group B trunks.

Very true.  FGB trunks were strictly access, hence no need to forward
ANI to the termination point (the IXC in this case).  If the IXC was
providing access via a BOC tandem, then the tandem location was passed
via the usual in-band MF signaling for the IXC's benifit only (ie:
called-from location for the billing computers).  When I worked for
MCI and did call searches, this was all but too true for calling card
calls, so we never had an originating number to 'trace' the call back
to, but we did have the 'trunk-type' (the incoming T-1 line, usually)
if the BOC really needed to know how it came in, then they would
search all of their call records to see where the 950-XXXX attempt
came from.

> Of course, the call will show
> on the credit card bill, and the originating point of presence will be
> idenitfied for billing purposes, but the number I called from will not
> show ... and there is really no way to scan all the possible carriers
> for a near random FG B call, I think.

That's right.  But if they know which carrier it came through on, I
can have that call searched in ... oh ... five minutes at the most.

> This is considerably safer than a 1+ or 0+ call because the telco
> never captures the digits once the 950-XXXX is dialed.  Therefore, the
> telco cannot be the means of determination.

Oh yes the 'telco' captures the 950-XXXX access!  They just don't pass
it on to the IXC.  I can't speak for CDR tapes on an 4/5ESS, but I
know d**n well that a DMS-250 captures *every* attempt, and if the
software is configured properly, will write every attempt to the
master CDR tape.  If not, then the call is still available on the
switch's hard disks until it's overwritten (usually after a CDR dump),
usually for about four to twelve hours.

> I've also been known to use a PBX DISA local number for the same
> thing, with much the same effect ... although I suspect the FG B is
> more secure.

I'd agree for lawful means, it would be better to use FGB access, but
for fraudulent means of calling, DISA's are just one of many means of
keeping your number from being traced, but that's outside of this
topic ...

> Of course, no phone call is really secure ... random use of payphones
> is always the safest way to protect your security/anonminity.

Very true.  Still, it depends who you're protecting your identity from.


Robert Gutierrez    NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #189
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02229;
          9 Mar 91 21:20 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16924;
          9 Mar 91 19:51 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad02297;
          9 Mar 91 18:44 CST
Date:     Sat, 9 Mar 91 18:27:51 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #190
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 9 Mar 91 18:27:39 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 190

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    China Fires Communications Minister [Nigel Allen]
    SWBT Introduces New Phone Trace System [J. Philip Miller]
    Summary of Telephone Consumer Act (900 Bill) [John R. Levine]
    NY Public Services Commission Rejected Caller ID [Curtis E. Reid]
    High Tech Santa [Daniel P. Dern, via Howard Pierpont]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1991 00:06:00
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: China Fires Communications Minister
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


 China Fires Ministers in Crackdown on Corruption
 From:   IN%"[e-mail]"  "HUIJIE CHEN"
 Source: Associated Press, Mar. 2, 1991

BEIJING -- China's ministers of communications and construction were
fired as part of a campaign to fight widespread government corruption
and win back the trust of the Chinese people, the official Xinhua News
Agency said Saturday.

Communications Minister Qian Yongchang and Construction Minister Lin
Hanxiong are the first Cabinet-level officials dismissed as part of
the campaign, launched in 1989.  Other key personnel changes are
expected to go before the National People's Congress, China's
rubber-stamp legislature, later this month.

Qian was removed for abusing his power for personal gain and Lin for
disciplinary reasons.  Xinhua said the national legislature's
decision-making Standing Committee decided Saturday to remove the
ministers, but provided no further details.  According to the Ta Kung
Pao newspaper in Hong Kong, Lin's removal was to punish him for
violating Chinese regulations related to foreign matters.

Xinhua said Qian would be replaced by Huang Zhendong, general manager
of the State Communications Investment Co. who served for three years
as vice minister of the Communications Ministry.  Lin would be
replaced by Hou Jie, a former vice minister of water resources.

Among other expected personnel changes are the resignations of Vice
Premier Yao Yilin, 74, and Vice Premier Wu Xueqian, 70, both due to
age and health reasons.  Xinhua also reported that a high-ranking
Chinese official who fled to the United States last year was removed
from his post as a member of the Standing Committee.

 (from China News Digest, March 4, 1991)
| To Subscribe CND General News, send "SUB CHINA-NN <Your Full Name>" |
| to [e-mail]. To sign off send "SIGNOFF CHINA-NN" to  |
| same address.

                        -----------

Has anyone else heard anything about this and what it may mean?


Nigel Allen   [e-mail]

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SWBT Introduces New Phone Trace System
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 91 8:30:23 CST


I thought the following press release might be of interst:

Southwestern Bell won a 1-year trial from Texas regulators of what it
calls Intercept Referral Services.  With these services, an operator
and/or a mechanized system can provide information to a caller
regarding the new telephone number, address and/or city and state
location for customers who have disconnected or changed their
telephone numbers.

The services will be tried out in San Antonio.

One new service in the intercept line is Location Intercept Referral,
which provides a recorded announcement for a disconnected number,
referring the caller to a new number and address including street
address, city and/or state.  Another is Special Intercept Referral,
designed for a number that is disconnected and changed to two or more
numbers, as when partnerships split up.  Calls to the disconnected
number are routed to a recorded announcement or operator providing the
caller with the new phone numbers.  Expanded Intercept Referral,
routes calls to a recorded announcement for which the called customer
provides the text provided by Southwestern Bell.  These announcements
cover such situations as office relocation, the dissolution of a
business, business expansion, seasonal businesses and separation of a
family or couple.

The Intercept services are available for a minimum of three months, at
$54-108, depending on the service.  The more expensive services are
run by operators. "We've had these kinds of services before, but they
were just recorded announcements of numbers being pulled," the
spokesman told Newsbytes.

Southwestern Bell plans to file tariffs to offer the service in
Missouri and Oklahoma later this year and in its other two states --
Arkansas and Kansas --at a later date.


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

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

Subject: Summary of Telephone Consumer Act (900 Bill)
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 91 13:27:39 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


Here is a summary of HR 328, the "Telephone Consumer Assistance Act."
If you want the full text, call up Rep. Bart Gordon's office at
202-225-4231 and they'll send you a copy.  The bill came with a note
that mentions that he is looking for cosponsors; if you like this bill
you could urge your own representative to cosponsor it.

Summary:

The FCC is directed to regulate audiotext services.  These rules at a
minimum must include the following.

Minimum standards:

  -- At the beginning of each call the nature of the program and the
cost of the call must be disclosed, and must state that the caller can
hang up without incurring any cost.

  -- Any bypass mechanism which allows frequent callers to skip the
notice must be disabled for a sufficient period of time after a price
change.

  -- Equipment must stop charging as soon as you hang up, must
disconnect after one full cycle of a program, must disconnect
interactive callers after a specified period of inactivity.

  -- LECs must not disconnect service because of nonpayment of
audiotext charges.

Common carrier responsibilities:

  -- Each caller must have the option to avoid audiotext charges
caused by unauthorized use or misunderstanding of the charges for at
least one billing cycle.

  -- Users must be able to block calls to audiotext services, free
election when service is installed, inexpensive change later.

  -- Beep tone or similar during live interactive group programs to
note the passage of time.

  -- Must provide a toll-free number to answer questions about
audiotext services and must provide name and mailing address about any
provider whose service the caller has used.

  -- Must notify customers via billing insert of these items as well
as of audiotext charges.

  -- Must segregate audiotext charges on the phone bill from local or
long distance charges.

  -- Must file with the state notice of intent to provide audiotext
services, and must file access phone numbers and name, address, and
regular phone number of all providers.

  -- Must obtain certification of charitable status for providers that
solicit charitable contributions.

Advertising restrictions:

  -- Radio, TV, and print ads must state the cost and tell under-18s
to get parental permission.

  -- On TV ads, cost must be displayed whenever the number is
displayed.

  -- Forbids "autodialing" ads with embedded tone dial tones.

  -- Junk phone calls that solict audiotext calls must specify the
cost.

  -- Under-18s cannot be asked for name, address, phone number, or
other ID.

Then there's a section stating that this act doesn't preempt election,
gambling, or free-trade laws, nor preempt more restrictive state laws.

The NTIA is directed to study technologies that allow audiotext
services to collect the numbers of their callers with or without the
callers' consent, and is directed to identify methods by which the
caller can grant or withhold consent.

And finally, it defines audiotext services:

  -- Services that enable users to send or receive information with a
voice processing system via a telephone connection using audio input.

  -- Includes information retrieval from a remote data base, messaging
that lets users communicate with each other, and conferencing services
for simultaneous voice conversations.

  -- Excludes EFT transactions.

End of summary.

I note that the definitions encompass standard conference calling and
voice mail systems.  There should probably be an exclusion for systems
that neither require nor request money so that voice mail users need
not listen to a disclosure announcement each time they leave a
message.  The definitions are not clear about 900 services answered by
individuals, e.g. ear sex lines or Microsoft MS-DOS support.  I would
reword it to include any type of call that costs more than a standard
dialed call to the provider's location, other than standard operator
assisted calls.

Regards,


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

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 09:38 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NY Public Services Commission Rejected Caller ID


This article is from Rochester, NY's {Democrat and Chronicle},
Thursday, March 7th, 1991, page 10D:

    "The state Public Service Commission yesterday rejected two
    proposals for Caller ID systems for telephone customers in
    the Rochester and Poughkeepsie areas.

    "Such systems display the number of the telephone being used
    to make the incoming call.  They've been touted as a means of
    reducing obcene phone calls.

    "Currently, there are no Caller ID systems in New York state,
    although Rochester Telephone Corp. set up a trial system last
    year.

    "The PSC rejected both plans because they only offered one
    way for callers to avoid participation in the system -- by
    adding a code after dialing each number, Collins said.  The
    PSC said customers should be able to block the display of all
    calls made from their phones."

While I'm disappointed that Caller ID service won't be available for a
while, I hope that Rochester Tel will quickly amend their proposals
and resubmit to PSC soon so we can have the service here.


Curtis

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

From: Howard Pierpont <[e-mail]>
Subject: High Tech Santa
Date: 9 Mar 91 00:30:04 GMT
Organization: Dern Associates, Belmont MA


[Please feel free to print or repost this -- as long as you
include my name and the copyright notice.  A shorter version of
this appeared in the December 24/31, 1990 issue of {InformationWeek}.
 -- Daniel P. Dern ]


                 "If You've Been Good, Press One"


                         by Daniel P. Dern

                (c) Copyright 1990 Daniel P. Dern


     -------------------------------------------------------
     May be reproduced and distributed freely in unmodified form
     on a noncommercial basis PROVIDED THAT this notice remains
     intact.  All rights reserved; contact author (Daniel Dern,
     [e-mail], 617-926-8743) for any other intended
     usage, e.g., reprinting in trade or general press.
     -------------------------------------------------------

    My schedule this fall was been too hectic for my annual visit
to the North Pole Toy Works, where I see what new information
technologies "Pops" Kringle, NPTW's technophilic CEO, has brought
on board in the intervening months (and, as often as not, what's
gone awry).

    So I reached out and called.

    Instead of the usual cheery operator's voice, a deadpan
recording answered.

    "Hello, you've reached the North Pole Toy Works.  If you've
been good, press 1.  If you've been bad, press 2.  If you aren't
sure, or need other assistance, please press 3 or stay on the
line.  Happy holidays -- we'll be right with you!"

    I pressed the "3" on my phone, and started reading
yesterday's Wall Street Journal while New Age holiday melodies
danced in my ear.

    After twenty seconds, a familiar voice broke in, garnished in
speakerphone acoustics.

     "So you've moved," Pops commented without preamble.  "How's
your new video system working out?  And the robot coffee-maker?"

    "How'd you know that, Pops?" I asked.  "For that matter,
how'd you know it was me on the line?"

    "Voice technology," he chortled proudly.  "Automatic number
ID -- we didn't even need ISDN!  You're on the list who gets
routed to me automatically, and the system also did a lookup to
the consumer purchases and credit record CD-ROMs, and popped the
highlights on a window at my workstation.  Piece of cake!  By the
way, it says you've been good, more or less."

    "Thanks for the readout, Pops."  I made a mental note to pay
by cash more often.  "It sounds like you've gotten pretty strong
into voice and phone processing applications."

    "We couldn't get by without them," he responded.  "Those
letters to the North Pole take five to seven handlings each.
We're working on document scanning and image management for next
year -- but voice processing takes much less elfpower.

    "We've gone totally cellular," he continued. "We've given
pagers to all our staff, and installed cellular phones on all the
delivery vehicles, with voice, fax and modem capability."

    "That's quite an investment."

    "It's worth it.  After all, we positively, absolutely have to
get there overnight."

    "What else have you been up to, MIS-wise, Pops?" I asked.

    "CD-ROM is big this year, as you've seen.  We're getting a
lot of population demographics from the Census bureaus, map
graphics, and airline flight guides so we know where to steer.
Next year, we'll probably add CD-ROM players on the vehicles, and
have in-house facilities to put our naughty/nice lists and
routing schedules onto disk for them."

    "So you're planning ahead," I observed.

    "Yes -- but not too far.  You should see the stack of five-
year plans we've never gotten more than two years into.  We're
currently working twenty months out.  In February, we start
rolling in any new systems -- and at the end of May, we do a
freeze on all mission-critical stuff till after Delivery Day,
which gives us about four months to get the bugs out.  But we
still have our all-nighters -- and up here, that's a long time!"

    "But it sounds like you've got things under control," I said.

    "Well, yes and no," he acknowledged.  "The individual new
technologies we deploy have gone in pretty smoothly.  But the
business and operational environment has been wicked flaky this
year.  For example, deregulation meant we could pick our carriers
of choice ... but try getting one of them to bring a line this
far north.  And the walruses keep nibbling on the cable, which
doesn't take the cold that well anyway.  We've tried VSAT, but
the aurora borealis zaps the heck out of the signal.  I'm
thinking strongly of moving some of the service centers closer to
our user base concentrations."

    "Have you tried out-sourcing?" I asked.

    "Grrrrr."  I heard a background sound, like teeth grinding on
a pipestem.

    "Problems?"

    "Let's just say, I don't recommend out-sourcing for critical,
non-standard resources.  Instead of reindeer, I nearly had a
mish-mash including moose, caribou, two Scottish Highland cattle,
and a gnu.  'Just as good, and more cost-effective,' they told
me.  When I heard they were going to use these mutant 'stealth'
turtles, I hit the roof!  I don't care if they're fast and
invisible.  Total control is worth the effort.  But we are
exploring a joint service bureau effort with EasterBunCo and a
few others."

    "Have you made a decision between Windows 3.0, OS/2 or Unix?"

    "We've got one of each in the test lab, and are trying to
decide if they're bad or good."

    "What's hot for this year in the gift department?"

    "We've combined the Virtual Reality glove with those
eyeglass-size video screens, and come up with something we call a
Look and Feel Suit.  I may try one myself -- but I'll have to do
a little personal downsizing first.  Whups, the backbone just
crashed again -- see you next year!"

                             # END #


(Daniel P. Dern ([e-mail]) is a free-lance writer
specializing in technology and business, in Watertown, Mass.  This is
the fourth year he has chronicled Kringle's computer woes.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #190
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23798;
          10 Mar 91 17:31 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23474;
          10 Mar 91 15:59 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21547;
          10 Mar 91 14:54 CST
Date:     Sun, 10 Mar 91 14:00:51 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #191
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Mar 91 14:00:20 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 191

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Wanted: Stories of Corporate Toll Fraud [David Leibold]
    Newsfeeds Across LATAs [Nick Sayer]
    Memories of the Truro, Nova Scotia Phone System [Nigel Allen]
    Phonefiche Directories [David Leibold]
    Need Some 'Dynamic Memory' Help [Christopher Wolf]
    Debit Phone Cards in NZ [Ben Kinchant]
    GTE Airfone Doesn't Transmit In-Band DTMF? [Subodh Bapat]
    British Telecom's Duopoly [Richard Jennings]
    Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connection [David Barts]
    16550 UART Compatibility With 16450 [Joel Disini]
    Alternate Source Wanted For Call Controller [William Degnan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Stories of Corporate Toll Fraud
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 1:11:03 EST


[This was found on the Telecom Library BBS, New York ... readers can
check this out at their own risk...]

 02-08-91 03:17:46
 From: KEITH MAYDAK
 Subj: TOLL-FRAUD

OUR FIRM IS INTERESTED IN TALKING TO COMPANIES THAT WERE VICTIMIZED BY
TOLL-FRAUD.  WE ARE DOING A RESEARCH REPORT FOR SEVERAL FORTUNE 500
FIRMS. YOUR HELP WOULD BE APPRECIATED - COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL!!!
800-969-1CSA ... call anytime ask for "KIRK" CALL US RIGHT NOW TO
DISCUSS WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU.


[Moderator's Note: Posted as is, without reference to punctuation and
upper/lower case convention, etc. You figure it out. I know of one
very outlandish case here in Chicago during the 1979-83 period: United
Airlines is based out of Chicago. A certain seven-digit Chicago number
accessed the Unitel (United Airlines Telecom) network. No password, no
screening, nothing. Just dial it, and get unrestricted Unitel dial
tone. Dozens of three digit codes of the form 1xx connected to
tie-lines all over the USA and Canada, which in turn produced dial
tone from local PBX's and Centrex networks at airports everywhere.
They in turn had three digit codes which were tie-lines, WATS lines,
you name it. Chicago-area phreaks used it with impunity for maybe
three years. UAL either did not know it, or didn't care.   PAT]

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

From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Newsfeeds Across LATAs
Date: 10 Mar 91 08:56:01 GMT
Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA


I am sort of posting this in advance. I currently receive a news and
mail feed from a site here in Stockton, but they are starting to cop
an attitude, so it may be unavailable in the future (no, I'm not going
to claim "my rights are being violated", I know better). The trouble
is, they're the only other site in the Stockton LATA, meaning that
there is no other way to get a newsfeed without involving a long
distance carrier.

I've done some simple math. It takes about three hours a day
(pessimistically) to get a newsfeed. With Reach Out America, or such,
that's $600/mo. I could probably get on the Internet for $300/mo.
I've had a hell of a time getting the various phone companies to quote
rates on Foreign Exchange service - getting my phone moved to Oakland
would make it a local call again. AT&T seems to be the only one
willing to do so. It's likely that a WAN connection will be cheaper,
but since this is a Public Access Unix system, it's likely I'd find
more customers in the Bay Area (despite increased competition) than I
have out here.

For ba.internet: How much would it cost to hook up to inet and per
month out here in Stockton seeing as how the closest site to hook to
(besides the one coping the attitude) is either in Livermore or
Sacramento? If I use FE instead, will there be a demand for yet
another public access unix in the Bay Area? My rates are pretty darned
low, but I only have three people out here in Stockton. :-( If I use
FE, what "place" should I go to for maximum local (free) calling area?
I'm thinking Oakland, but I may be wrong.

For news.admin: Is there some option I've overlooked?

For comp.dcom.telecom: Anyone have any guesses how much the FE will
cost? My guess is $100/mo + local service in Oakland, but I don't
really have a clue.


Nick Sayer         [e-mail]
N6QQQ  [44.2.1.17]  209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 09:21 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Memories of the Truro, Nova Scotia Phone System
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada


In Volume 11, Issue 166, Message 6 of 12, [e-mail].
uiuc.edu (scott) wrote:

> Several years ago, I read a message on a BBS from a person who
> wrote his phone number as some incredibly long string of digits
> much MUCH longer than the normal ten digit telephone number).
> Although I didn't actually test it out at the time, he claimed that by
> dialing this incredibly long string of digits you would, in fact, reach
> his phone. He found it amusing to give this long version out to
> people who asked him for his phone number.

As a teenager, I lived in Truro, Nova Scotia, which was served by a
step-by-step central office. Telephone numbers there began either
(902) 893- or (902) 895-, but you could dial 895-xxxx as 5-xxxx, and
in fact some local businesses would display the five- digit numbers. I
know that you couldn't direct-dial to Truro in 1969, when my family
first arrived there, and the phone directory that year showed a number
of manual telephone exchanges in the rural areas, which I think were
operated by independent companies or cooperatives, not by Maritime Tel
& Tel.

Because you could dial 895-xxxx as 5-xxxx, I think the switch simply
stripped off initial 8s and 9s, so that you could dial 895-xxxx as
8989898989895-xxxx.  As telephone companies across North America
converted small towns from four- or five-digit dialling to seven
digits, many communities were probably permitted to retain their old
dialling patterns, by the simple expedient of stripping off the
recently-prepended initial digits. When two neigbouring communities
were converted from manual to dial and became local calls from Truro,
they received the exchanges 662 (Debert) and 673 (Brookfield), so that
Truro residents didn't have to change their dialling patterns.
(Interestingly, the Truro dial-up port for Datapac, the packet
switching network operated by Canadian telephone companies, was
actually a Debert number, presumably because the phone company trusted
a connection through the newer Debert central office more than one
terminated on the Truro switch.)

Truro had long distance operators in 1969 and for some years
thereafter. When direct distance dialling arrived in the early 1970's,
it was initially implemented without automatic number identification,
so there was seemed to be a fair amount of fraud as a result. People
would simply give out someone else's number when the ONI (operator
number identification) operator asked them which number they were
calling from.  Eventually we got ANI, and maybe at the same time or a
bit later Truro lost its operators, and dialling zero got you an
operator in Halifax.

We had a CN Telecommunications (later CNCP Telecommunications)
telegraph office at the CN train station. That closed in the the mid-
1970s, I think

It's odd what things burn themselves into your memory. I can still
remember the recording when some phone numbers were moved from one
prefix to another in the early 1970s: ("I'm sorry, numbers beginning
with 893-4 have been changed to 895-4, and numbers beginning with
893-53 have been changed to 895-53.").


Nigel Allen     [e-mail]

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phonefiche Directories
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 0:27:22 EST


One interesting item I've run across in recent times is the
Phonefiche, which is a set of telephone directories on microfiche.
Many public libraries have a Phonefiche set, which lists various
points in North America.

A few things to note:

1) Phonefiche tends to be available on a population category basis.
   Category 5 covers communities of 100 000 or more. Category 7
   will cover populations 40 000 or more. Presumably more comprehensive
   categories will cost more to purchase. One way to tell if you're
   getting Category 5 or not is whether or not the fiche set contains
   the Port Huron, MI directory (available in category 7, but not in 5).

2) some directories are available for Puerto Rico, as well as a few
   European points now (UK, Switzerland).

3) Canadian directories are available on fiche

This would seem to be an ideal way for a large company to bypass much
of the pains associated with long distance directory assistance
charging that is all the rage in the U.S. While directory information
has a significant "churn" (ie. changing, new or deleted listings), the
phone book information can be accurate most of the time. Not to
mention the residential users who might be able to find a fiche set at
a library, thereby saving some cash (assuming any free DA calls have
been used up).

The company that puts out the Phonefiche is UMI, reachable at 300
North Zeeb Rd, Ann Arbor MI 48106; tel [phone] or (313)
761.4700.

Disclaimer: I don't claim to speak for UMI, nor do I have any connection
with them. This is posted for informational purposes only...


[Moderator's Note: UMI is also known as University Microfilms. They
preserve many old newspapers, magazines and such on microfilm.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 05:29:35 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Need Some 'Dynamic Memory' Help


I've been reading the Digest for about a month, and I've noticed that
a lot of people on here know quite a bit about electronics. (As could
be expected.)

I would like to ask for some help with Dynamic Memory from anyone who
has (extensive) knowledge about it.  More specifically, I need to
figure out how Dynamic memory works, and where I can find a good
dynamic controller to handle all the refreshes and everything, so that
I can treat it like static to my 'project'.  If anyone can help me
with this (major help) please contact me.

Thanks!

Christopher Wolf
Electrical Engineer, Michigan Tech University

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

From: Ben Kinchant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Debit Phone Cards in NZ
Date: 10 Mar 91 16:44:34 NZS (Sun)


Telecom New Zealand introduced "Card Phones" in early 1990 to most
parts of NZ.  These phones accept a debit type card, a "Phone Card"
which are available in NZ$5,10,20 and 50 denominations.

It costs NZ$0.20 per min for a local call from a card phone (US$0.12)
Toll calls from card phones are more expensive that from a home phone.

The public phones that were in use before the card phones would be
NZ$0.20 per *call*, but Telecom says that maintainance costs of the
public telephones are much higher, which are reflected in the rates
for card phones.


Ben Kinchant, [e-mail]

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

From: Subodh Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: GTE Airfone Doesn't Transmit In-Band DTMF?
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 02:48:57 EDT


Has anyone been able to successfully send tones from a keypad of a GTE
Airfone? On a recent flight, I tried to use the Airfone to access my
voice mail system at work. There was no problem getting the
connection, which, by the way, was exceptionally clear. But when I
tried to navigate down the menu structure of the voice mail system
using keypad buttons, no tones were sent out at all (in spite of
feverishly punching buttons hard enough to attract the stwardesses'
attention!)  and my voice mail system, receiving no input, hung up on
me after a few warnings.

Why is GTE unable to send DTMF in-band during the correction, when it
is obviously able to send it at call set up time? (You can actually
hear the tones go when your credit card is authenticated and your
number dialed.)

To GTE's credit, the operator arranged credit for the call
immediately.  I couldn't reach the operator during the flight, I had
to call her after descending unto terra firma on a ground line.

Is an Airfone considered a COCOT? I wonder what would happen if one
called 911 during a particularly turbulent flight :-).


Subodh Bapat   [e-mail]     OR           ...uunet!rm1!bapat
               Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 13:18:47 gmt
From: Jennings_Richard/[e-mail]
Subject: British Telecom's Duopoly


Duopoly is dead.  The long awaited decision to end the two horse race
in British telecommunications between BT and Mercury carries
implications for the future of telecom in Britain, and for the
current players, especially BT.  Secretary of State for the Department
of Trade and Industry, Peter Lilley, said the plans would "stimulate
competition" and lead to the reduction of telephone charges for
customers.  The proposals include allowing more companies to apply for
licences to run local, trunk and international services.  Mobile and
cable operators will have greater freedom to provide services, said Mr.
Lilley.


  Richard Jennings,  Software Development Engineer
  Pinewood Information Systems Division    Hewlett-Packard
  Nine Mile Ride      Voice: (+44)/(0) 344 763738
  Wokingham           Fax:   (+44)/(0) 344 763526
  Berkshire RG11 3LL  E-mail: [e-mail]
  England             or:     [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 00:46:50 PST
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connection


The Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Rotary dial will NOT work on cellular phones, since
> there is no loop of wire to be opened and closed by the pulsing. In
> any situation where there is not a direct hardwired link to a central
> office switch, i.e. cellular, then rotary is not a valid service.  PAT]

A more accurate statement is "In any situation where there is not a
direct hardwired link to the CO switch, *pulse* is not a valid
service."  I have actually used an old amateur radio autopatch that
worked with rotary (yes, rotary) dialers.  The rotary dialer encoded a
make/break as a 1200/1800 Hz (I think these were the tones; my
memory's a little fuzzy) tone.

The "break" tone would start as soon as I moved the dial from its rest
position.  This gave dialled digits a "deeeeeee-doodle-oodle-oodle-oodle"
sound.  Tone detectors controlled a relay on the autopatch that
interrupted the phone line when ever a "make" tone was heard, thereby
dialling the number.

This arrangement was common back in the 1960s.  One thing to note is
that while encoding rotary digits as a pair of make/break tones was
widespread, the frequencies themselves were not.  Basically each
repeater (or region) picked its own pair.  Unless you got lucky, your
dialer (for your club's autopatch) was useless in a strange city.

As far as rotary service not being available on cellular, no disagreement
there ;-).

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

From: "Disini SW, Emmanuel Disini,PRT" <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Mar 91 06:43 GMT
Subject: 16550 UART Compatibility With 16450


I don't really know if this is the right forum for this subject, but
it seems to be the most appropriate place I can find.  Does anyone
know if the 16550 UART is pin-compatible with the 16450?  I am losing
serial data and am considering upgrading to the 16550 which have built
in FIFOs. My guess is that DOS turns off interrupts when writing to
the screen buffer (I have a CGA card on a 286 system), and so serial
chars get lost (I am using a FOSSIL and the port is locked at 9600
baud).  So far, no one around here seems to have a manual for these
things (the 16450s and 16550s), so I'm really stumped right now.  Any
help - a quick yes (compatible) or no (incompatible) - is all I need!


joel disini  manila   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 00:06:16 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alternate Source Wanted for Call Controller


I'm looking for an alternate source of the Single Line Call Controller
#1078 from Hello Direct. Can anyone tell me who OEM's it?

I hate paying retail.


Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock.
William Degnan                   |
Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
 -Independent Consultants        | [e-mail]
   in Telecommunications         | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan
P.O. Drawer 9530                 | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530            | Voice [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #191
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24824;
          10 Mar 91 18:36 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08050;
          10 Mar 91 17:05 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23474;
          10 Mar 91 16:00 CST
Date:     Sun, 10 Mar 91 15:20:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #192
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Mar 91 15:20:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 192

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telex Access to Internet Needed [Donald Newcomb]
    Answer Detection and Supervision [Kath Mullholand]
    Long Distance Services for Charity [Janice Wolf]
    V.32bis and V.17 Adopted by CCITT [Toby Nixon]
    Personal 800 Numbers -- a Tie For "Service" [Brian Gordon]
    Information Needed on HDLC and Stromberg-Carlson [Pat Myrto]
    Movie Excerpt / Ringing Phones [Carl Moore]
    ANI Retentive (Sorry) [Jeff Sicherman]
    Information Needed on WITS and PREMISE [Jim Langridge]
    Advice on PC Modem/Voice-Mail/Fax Card [Steve L. Rhoades]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 08:39:14 EST
From: donald_newcomb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telex Access to Internet Needed


Pinet is a service of the American Institute of Physics to its members
and members of affiliated organizations (e.g. American Geophysical
Union, Acoustical Society of America, etc). It has Internet and Bitnet
access, Usenet, an 800 dialup, some scientific literature databases
and access to some non-Intermail message systems (e.g. FAX, EasyLink).
Signup is cheap ($15) and connection costs are a little less than
major mail systems with no byte count charges, except for
non-Intermail addresses.

I recently subscribed to this e-mail system primarily to insulate my
personal mail and political flames from having anything to do with my
employer (U.S. Navy). I also wanted to be able to send and receive
TELEX, because I travel overseas, often on ships equipped with
INMARSAT TELEX stations. An unintended salubrious effect is that
Usenet postings reflect The American Institute of Physics as my
Organization :-).

Access to TELEX, FAX, Dialcom and a few other message systems are
provided by a service called DASNET. I read the instructions on using
this service and it seems that all incomming TELEX traffic is routed
through a single TELEX II line with the recipient's (my) address
cryptically embedded in the second line of the incoming TELEX :-(.
Now, I know some TELEX users and telling them that they have to put
"DEST:(DE3AIP)DRN" as the first thing in the second line would be like
giving them a 20-hop uucp address. It will never work.

Can someone help me to understand the relationships between TELEX,
EasyLink, Dialcom, X.29 and what we Interneters normally think of as
e-mail? Does anyone know of a good, cheap way for an Internet user to
get something like a personal TELEX number?  I know that SprintMail
(Telemail) users can sign up for a personal number, but I don't need
that expense and I don't want to have yet another incompatible mailbox
to check every day.

Also, I have access to a VAX with a PSI (X.29 ?). Whenever, I am given
a "PSI number" for something, I record it and treat it as "magic". Is
there any rhyme or reason to these numbers?  Is there a way to figure
out why some work and some do not?  Should they have different
lengths? Thanks for your help.


Donald Newcomb             Telex II   - #910 380 3354
[e-mail]          First line - "FROM:<your telex #>"
[e-mail]           Second line- "DEST:(DE3AIP)DRN"
[phone]             Third line - "SUBJ:<brief subject>"


[Moderator's Note: Both MCI Mail and AT&T Mail offer standard telex
numbers as part of their service. To someone on a regular telex
machine, it will be transparent. Both of the above services are very
reasonably priced and both have full interconnectivity with the
Internet.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1991 10:49:11 EST
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answer Detection and Supervision


Yesterday I spent an hour with a representative from HOMISCO, a
company which specializes in answer *detection* devices for hotels.

Apparently, their little black box is attached between our LD trunks
and our system 85, and monitors the lines for certain soundsthat
indicate the call has been completed.  HOMISCO claims a 90% accuracy
rate.  The box only monitors calls that last less than a set
threshhold -- two minutes maximum.

Since we resell to students here at the University of New Hampshire, I
an interested in answer detection to reduce complaints of bills for
uncompleted calls, and to capture revenue on short calls.

Does anyone out there have experience with HOMISCO to share?

How is their box likely to interface with our non-analog trunks?  We
have three T-1's, and the salesperson said they interface at the RJ.
Is this possible with T-1 without degrading or jeopardizing the
service?

Last, are there people out there who can give the current status of
answer *supervision*.  If our CO has a #5 ESS, is it likely that we
could get answer supervision signals on less than a four-wire circuit?

If anyone would like more details on this sales call, I'll be happy to
provide what information I have.


Kath Mullholand     UNH, Durham, NH

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

Date: 10 Mar 91 10:22:00 GMT
From: Janice Wolf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Services for Charity


Has anyone had any experience with an organization called Intex
(International Telecom Exchange Corp).  For members of a charitable
organization, INTEX will donate 5% of their receipts for long distance
traffic to the charitable organization.  Members of the charitable
organization that wish to participate are required to authorize INTEX
as their agent to select a long distance carrier and to review
previous long distance bills.

Please comment on your experience with this type of arrangements.
Thanks.


Janice Wolf   [e-mail]

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: V.32bis and V.17 adopted by CCITT
Date: 10 Mar 91 02:25:26 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


I received notice this morning via AT&T Mail from Dick Brandt, vice
chairman of CCITT Study Group XVII, that V.17 and V.32bis were
approved and are now formally adopted as CCITT Recommendations.  He
did not report the actually vote tally, but I assume that it was
unanimous.

V.17 is the new modulation scheme that provides 12000 and 14400 bps
trellis-coded modulation for Group 3 facsimile.  CCITT Recommendations
T.4 and T.30, which define Group 3 fax, have also been amended to
reference V.17 and provide for negotiation of its use (and those
amendments have been adopted as well).  V.17 also adds trellis-coded
modulation at 7200 and 9600; these speeds are also provided in Group 3
fax by V.29 modulation but without trellis coding.  V.17 should thus
allow these speeds to be used on somewhat worse lines than was
previously possible.

V.32bis is an extension of CCITT V.32 which adds speeds of 7200,
12000, and 14400bps, full-duplex on two-wire dial-up or leased lines.
V.32bis also adds a "rapid rate renegotiation" feature which allows
the modems, by mutual agreement, to shift data rates up or down
through a simple signalling process that takes about 1/10th of a
second; V.32 requires a full retrain, which takes from five to ten
seconds, in order to change speeds.


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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 10:24:23 PST
From: Brian Gordon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Personal 800 Numbers -- a Tie For "Service"


After setting up a personal 800 number through my local carrier
(PacBell, number useful throughout CA, U.S.Sprint as the associated LD
carrier), I decided to venture further into the wonderful world of
telecommunications, and called various carriers about their nationwide
personal 800 programs.

ATT wants a fortune (like $15 or $20 a month plus usage), and the
representative semi-actively discouraged getting one ("A Call-Me card
is the same thing", "ReachOut rates are lower", etc.).  There is,
according to the rep, no choice of numbers.

MCI is cheap monthly ($5), but higher per-minute.  U.S.Sprint is
higher monthly ($10) but cheaper per minute.  MCI requires that you to
dial an additional set of four digits (a "PIN"), while U.S.Sprint just
gives you a normal number to dial.  According to both reps, there is
no choice of numbers -- you take what they give you.

Expecting relatively low usage, I decided to go with MCI.  I placed
the order, and was told that they would assign the number immediately
 -- but, for obvious security reasons, could not give it out over the
phone -- I would get it in the mail in a few days.

Over the weekend, I thought more about having to dial 14 digits (1 800
xxx yyyy PPPP), and grew less fond of the idea.  Since I was involved
with U.S.Sprint anyway, I decided to go that route instead.  I'd order
it and, when I got the MCI information, cancel it, paying for the
first month, etc.

The U.S.Sprint rep did point out that I would be paying for
duplication of service -- either number would work in CA.  I explained
that my idea was to have both for a few months and see which made more
sense.  The pleasant surprise was that I was then asked what number I
wanted, and the rep spent quite a bit of time trying to come up with a
"good one" for me!  We made all the arrangements, and I was told that
it would take five to ten working days until it was activated, and
that a call to me at my home number (the one that will ring when you
dial the 800 number) would inform me of when it was activated.  Fine.

After three weeks plus had passed without hearing from EITHER MCI or
Sprint, I called them both.  U.S.Sprint is fun to call -- you go
through a couple of layers of "all representatives are busy" and end
up on a voicemail/answering machine!  They do call back though,
although often the next day.  After much digging around, the
U.S.Sprint rep discovers that the order has been cancelled and the
"good" number "unreserved" (but not yet taken by anyone else).  They
re-reserved it immediately while investigating.  The essential problem
turns out to be that U.S.Sprint can't have two different Sprint 800
numbers ringing on the same phone number, so they cancelled the order.
No explanation of why they don't know that when they take orders, or
why they didn't notify me that they were cancelling the order -- after
all, they DID know my phone number!

Since I did like the number I could get, and still did want the
service, I arranged for my PacBell 800 number to go through a
different carrier (ExecuLine) so Sprint could do the nationwide.
Unfortunately, Sprint has no mechanism where I can order the new 800
number and have activation triggered when they get the service order
from PacBell to cancel the existing "complimentary 800 number".  I
need to wait for the switchover and then call back.

Then on to MCI.  After bouncing between departments for a while, they
decide that their 800 number has been active for almost two weeks, and
can't explain why I wasn't informed, or how I can keep from being
charged for two weeks of service I couldn't use because they forgot to
tell me about it. Of course, this time they have no problem giving me
the "secure" number over the phone!

In their own special ways, these guys seem to be pretty much in a tie
for "service" so far.


Brian G. Gordon     [e-mail] (if you trust exotic mailers)
        ...!sun!briangordon (if you route it yourself)


[Moderator's Note: You neglected to examine two other carriers with
800 service, both of whom offer relatively little hassle and quick
service: Telecom*USA and Wireless & Cable.   PAT]

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

From: Pat Myrto <rwing![e-mail]>
Subject: Info on HDLC and Stromberg-Carlson
Date: 10 Mar 91 05:55:54 GMT


Where I work, we are using a Stromberg-Carlson switch (and an older
one at that), and need to set up a link using their version of HDLC to
a PC running DOS, on a Novell Netware LAN, or if nothing is available
for that, to a UNIX system running ISC 386/ix.  Purpose is to get call
detail information from the switch in real time - as the switch writes
the information to tape, it would also send it via this link to the
computer system.  The media will be a leased line, as the location of
the switch and the processing site are miles apart.

What I have found out so far is the HDLC the S-C switch uses is
non-standard in some areas, so the ability to alter the driving
software on the receiving end is needed.

Has anyone out there done ANYTHING like this, or know of anyone that
has successfully?  Failing that, what vendors would I check with for
the needed hardware/software to set up an HDLC link on the PC or UNIX
side, and perhaps some books on the subject - I need all the
information on this I can get.

Lacking any of the Stromberg-Carlson specific stuff, *ANY* help,
pointers and so on regarding HDLC would be appreciated.  I have never
worked with this protocol, so I have to truly start from square one.

I doubt if this is going to be of interest generally (I understand the
Stromberg-Carlson switch is not the most widely used), so e-mail
replies would probably be the best.  I can summarize to the net if any
interest materializes.

Thanks for any help you can offer...


pat@rwing   (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
 ...!uunet!pilchuck!rwing!pat
 ...!uw-beaver!uw-entropy!dataio!

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 03:02:12 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Movie Excerpt / Ringing Phones


I just now thought of this movie excerpt: "Bells Are Ringing" (made in
1950s?  starring the late Judy Holliday) starts off with scenes of
several women rushing to answer a ringing phone only to have the
ringing stop just before they got to the phone.  The idea there was to
have an answering service to pick up the phone when you could not.

(This is a little spinoff of the discussion about charging after a
certain number of rings even if the call is not answered.)


[Moderator's Note: That was a wonderful movie, and one seldcom seen on
television these days.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 03:28:29
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANI Retentive (Sorry)
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


For the ANI/Caller*ID obsessed:

  The February 1991 issue of {Network Management} [Solutions for MIS,
voice, data, video professionals] - a free-to-qualified-subscribers
type magazine has a short article on ANI and Caller-id, it's impac and
conntroversy.  Nothing we haven't seen here particularly, but mentions
a AT&T-provided service called Info-2 (to there 800 customers, I
presume) which delivers ANI information. Any know about this cost-wise
and equipment requirements ?

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 02:15:44 est
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Information Needed on WITS and PREMISE


Does anyone know what the acronym WITS stands for?  I've looked at
every list I've got including one posted to telecom back around the
end of January.  I've been told it is *believed to be* a telecom
acronym.

Also, can anyone tell me what PREMISE is?  I believe it is a software
package or something like that.

Thanks in advance.


Jim Langridge  |  [e-mail]
Synetics Corp. |  King George VA.

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

From: "Steve L. Rhoades" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Advice on PC Modem/Voice-Mail/Fax Card
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 05:06:20 GMT


I am in the market for a a single card that has the above mentioned
features.  I seem to recall seeing one advertised somewhere but I
forget who makes it.  All of these features were offered on a single
card though.

"True" voice mail isn't required so much as a simple system for
callers to leave a message.  i.e.  I don't need different mailboxes,
etc.

An added plus would be the capability to select the FAX (or modem for
that matter) from a menu of options when first called.  Another would
be for source code to be included.

I'll post a summary if there's enough interest.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #192
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26677;
          10 Mar 91 20:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03254;
          10 Mar 91 19:10 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05584;
          10 Mar 91 18:05 CST
Date:     Sun, 10 Mar 91 17:01:43 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #193
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Mar 91 17:01:19 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 193

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Home Telephone Tap Detector [Kevin Boyd]
    Looking For Old AT&T "Demon Dialers" [Paul Schleck]
    New York PSC and Caller*ID [Peter Marshall]
    COCOT in Rural NJ Ripped Me Off Good! [Mark A. Emanuele]
    Sierra Semiconductor CLID Chip Specs [John Boteler]
    Telecom Discussions in misc.consumers Newsgroup [Nigel Allen]
    How do I Set-Up Caller*ID? [Robert D. Thompson]
    Is Caller*ID Data Passed by 10xxx or 800 877 8000? [Jeff Carroll]
    Washington DC Recorded Political Announcements [Matthew McGehrin]
    I Got 950 Blocking Stopped at Our School [Jim Gottlieb]
    900 Number -> POTS Number Announced [Bill Cerny]
    And He's Probably Rolling Over in His Grave Now [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Update on Rochester, NY Disaster [Jeff Sicherman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kevin Boyd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home Telephone Tap Detector
Date: 10 Mar 91 03:24:29 GMT
Reply-To: Kevin Boyd <[e-mail]>
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services


In my latest issue of the Hammacher Schlemmer catalog, there is a
device called the "Home Telephone Tap Detector".  It's description
really sounds too good to be true, but Hammacher Schlemmer is a very
old (founded in 1848) and reputable company.

It is described as follows:

HOME TELEPHONE TAP DETECTOR: Used by law enforcement agencies around
the world, this home telephone tap detector detects and defeats
virtually all tap systems.  It employs four individual detection
systems to detect low and high impedance taps, wireless bugs, off-hook
extensions and automatic tape recorders.  Mode one scans the line for
any low impedance taps or off-hook extensions and, if any are found,
an indicator light goes out and your phone conversation is
automatically muted.  Mode two scans the radio spectrum for any
operating wireless taps within or in the vicinity of your telephone,
then automatically switches to mode three which actually deactivates
any taps or tape recorders.  Mode four nullifies any transmission
bugs.  Metal unit is RJ-11 compatible and can be connected in seconds.
Comes with an impact resistant carrying case, line jack cord and one
9-volt battery.  7/8"H x 3"W x 5 1/2"L.(.6lb.)  35664X..... $199.95

                         -------

No manufacturer is listed.  Any opinions...  Is this too good to be
true?  (For anyone not familiar with Hammacher Schlemmer, they are a
rather upscale mail order company that sells everything from trench
coats to fax machines.)

Standard Financial Interest Disclaimer.

Regards,

Kevin Boyd                            | BITNET    [e-mail]
Marquette University                  | INTERNET  [e-mail]
Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A.                 | Phone     [phone]
Broadcasting and Electronic Media &   | FAX       [phone]
Computer Services Division            | "All views expressed are my own..."

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

Date: Sat, 09 Mar 91 21:37:26 PDT
From: Paul Schleck <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking Fr Old AT&T "Demon Dialers"
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE


An acquaintance of mine is looking for either a model 1600 or model
6400 autodialer that was sold/leased by the phone company.  It seems
that these "demon dialers" were so effective that a significant number
of them on the line at any given time chugging away put some serious
loads on the AT&T long lines.

It is my understanding that AT&T took back as many as it could get its
hands on and those that were part of phones had the autodialer part
taken out before being leased out again or sold to the surplus market
(this is as much as I can get out of my acquaintance).

Can this equipment be found anywhere?  I gave him a few numbers of
telephone refurbishers, but I haven't heard back from him whether he
was successful.  Have these autodialers been legislated or
AT&T-strongarmed out of existence?  Has there been industry pressure
to make present autodialing phones "slow enough?"


Paul W. Schleck

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

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

Subject: New York PSC and Caller*ID
From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 08:17:11 PST


The NYPSC apparently also rejected a NYTel Caller*ID proposal; and, of
at least equal interest, the Florida PUC seems to have recently
rejected an ANI component of a BellSouth ONA proposal.


Peter Marshall

                    halcyon![e-mail]
  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Emanuele)
Subject: COCOT in Rural NJ Ripped Me Off Good!
Date: 10 Mar 91 18:06:30 GMT
Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc.


I had to make a phone call while driving thru a rural area of South
Jersey in the pine barrens. I stopped at the general store / Post
Office an there was what looked like a United Tel Booth. I called a
number 45 miles away within the same LATA. The Phone asked for: "Fifty
Five Dollars and Thirty Five Cents Please". I tried the call again
with 10288 and got a tone like a sieren. I then used my NJB IQ card,
and I got a busy.  When I got my NJB bill, there was an entry for
TeleWi$e for $75.49 for a 45 second call (the one that I got a busy
on!!! ). Needless to say I REFUSED to pay it! NJ BELL was helpful in
the fact that they would not dunn me for the amount in question even
though TeleWi$e refused to credit me.

BTW NJ Bell told me if the COCOT operator won't connect me with a NJB
operator to report the phone to the NJPUC.


Mark A. Emanuele  V.P. Engineering  Overleaf, Inc.
218 Summit Ave   Fords, NJ 08863   [phone]
[e-mail]

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

Subject: Sierra Semiconductor CLID Chip Specs
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 01:27:54 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


I just received the preliminary data sheet from Sierra Semiconductor
on their Caller*ID demodulator IC. For the benefit of you eager beaver
engineers out there, I have provided a summary of the cogent
specifications.

In short, this CMOS chip goes between the phone line and a serial
buffer, decoding the Caller*ID data for you; coincidentally, it can
perform what Sierra calls "Call Progress", but the preliminary data
sheet does not elaborate. You must stick a microcontroller on the
serial output pin to catch the data pouring out of it.

You have your choice of fourteen pin DIP or SMT package or eight pin
DIP. The eight pin version does not provide all features, such as
"Power Down" due to the reduced pin count.

The power supply is nominally five volts at 7 mA max.  The input
impedance of the differential input amp is listed as 100K at 1KC; the
suggested circuit shows a 0.1uF capacitor on each input pin to AC
couple it.

This looks like it will save a lot of grief for someone who wants to
design their own project quickly and cheaply.


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

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

Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1991 01:53:00 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Discussion in misc.consumers Newsgroup
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


There has been some discussion of telecommunications-related topics
recently in the misc.consumers newsgroup, although the level of
sophistication is markedly less than here.

Recent discussions in misc.consumers have dealt with Caller*ID and
MCI's latest sales gimmick, a check payable to you that becomes a
request to switch your long-distance default carrier to MCI if you
endorse the check.

There are also lots of messages unrelated to telecommunications,
including flames about Amway-like companies and about labor unions.

Misc.consumers is worth checking out occasionally, but a lot of
messages there aren't worth reading.


Nigel Allen      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert D. Thompson)
Subject: How do I Set-up Caller*ID?
Date: 9 Mar 91 19:45:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert D. Thompson)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI


Could someone provide a novice (myself) with some general information
on how to get the necessary "stuff" and set-up Caller*ID on my phone?

My sister has been getting threatenting phone calls, and I want to
catch this loser.

Thanks,

Robert


[Moderator's Note: No amount of 'stuff' will enable Caller*ID on your
phone line until -- if/when -- your local telco offers the service and
begins making the information available. You'll know when this happens
because telco will advertise it extensively, and there will no doubt
be major debates pro and con in your community, etc. *When you get to
that point* -- that telco is making the information available -- then
you can subscribe. Once you subscribe, there are numerous commercially
produced devices available to actually capture the data. But no amount
of hardware at the present time will do anything for you if telco is
not actually transmitting the data.    PAT]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <![e-mail]>
Subject: Is Caller*ID Data Passed by 10xxx or 800 877 8000?
Date: 9 Mar 91 08:29:55 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


    We up here in Seattle and pnw are having a pretty spirited
discussion about privacy and its relationship to Caller*ID which led
me to imagine a situation in which I am possibly not being careful
enough (no, I'm not talking about posting on Usenet, though I've
certainly made an ass of myself on the net more than enough lately).

    Upon a little reflection, I would like to ask the following
question of the Caller*ID gurus among us.

    Say I am making a long-distance call from the office. Since I
don't want my employer to be billed for the call, and since I am in
the habit of receiving a monthly bill from Sprint anyway, I dial 800
877 8000 for access to Sprint's network, and place my call. What shows
up on the Caller ID apparatus of the party I am calling? (My phone is
connected to Boeing's 5ESS).

    Second case: say I'm at O'Hare, using 800 877 8000 to place a
personal call to someone outside of 312/708 who is a Caller*ID
subscriber. What shows up on his terminal?

    Does the above outcome change if I use 10xxx (I've been a
Sprint customer for eight years now, and I don't even know what their
10xxx code is!)


Jeff Carroll   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: At the present time, inter-LATA transmission of
Caller*ID is not implemented. So in both scenarios above, the called
party would probably be told the caller was 'unknown'.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew McGehrin)
Subject: Washington DC Recorded Political Annoucements
Date: 10 Mar 91 08:16:09 GMT


Here are some numbers I dug up that give recorded political news in
Washington DC:

202-224-8541    :Senate Floor Act       Democrat
202-224-8601    :Senate Floor Act       Republican
202-225-1600    :Legislative Program    Democrat
202-225-2020    :Legislative Program    Republican
202-225-7400    :House Floor Activity   Democrat
202-225-7430    :House Floor Activity   Republican

They are nice to call and listen to the anouncements etc, listening to
your government at work. They have some kind of recording set up. I
have to look at some old notes, but I think I might have the
President's press line.

Inet:   [e-mail]         UUCP:   crash!pro-nka!matthew
ARPA:   crash!pro-nka![e-mail]  GENIE:  M.MCGEHRIN
          1+201/944-3102  (PCP NJNEW/944-3102)

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: I Got 950 Blocking Stopped at Our School
Date: 10 Mar 91 06:58:09 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tinyw3
Bubbles...) writes:

> As for the 950 numbers: A lot of places still don't seem to accept
> them (the University of Nebraska's Centrex included).  It ain't right,
> but it's the sad truth.

When I found that my school was blocking 950, I called the
telecommunications manager to complain.  She insisted that 950 was a
toll call since it did not appear on the telco's list of local
prefixes.  She was rather insistent, so I gave up on her.

Instead, I walked down to the switchroom and talked to the guy in
charge of maintaining the switch.  I used his speakerphone to call the
telco operator and ask how much it cost to call 950.  When the
operator replied that the call was free, he walked over to the
terminal and entered it in the database of allowed prefixes.

Sometimes it takes this kind of personal effort to get things like
this done right.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: 900 Number -> POTS Number Announced
Date: 9 Mar 91 02:01:54 GMT


Telesphere announced "Universal 900 Switched Termination" service
recently, which routes calls to a Telesphere 900 number to a regular
(POTS) telephone number.  For $75 a month, you can run a 900 program
in your own home!  Setup charges are $1,000, and the charges to the
information provider (IP) are 12 cents per call plus 41 cents per
minute (billed in tenths of minutes).  The IP determines the per
call/minute charge to the caller.  The IP is also subjected to a
_minimum_ "uncollectibles" charge of 10% of gross revenue (which is
usually greater than 20%).

This announcement comes on the heels of a disclosure that Telesphere
"played the float" and delayed remittance checks to IP's last month in
order to cover revenue shortfalls from its switched long distance
service.  Expect the next public announcement to be "Telesphere files
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection..."

Don't expect 900 -> POTS services from the Big Three anytime soon.
Telesphere is a sinking ship, and like so many rats, IP's are jumping
ship to MCI (mostly "adult" or "dial-a-porn" programs).


Bill Cerny   [e-mail] | attmail: !denwa!bill

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 14:22:44 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: And He's Probably Rolling Over in His Grave Now
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


 From L. M. Boyd's March 1 column:

 "William Gray wanted to call his sick wife, but his foreman wouldn't
let him use the company phone. That's why Gray invented the pay phone
in 1889."


[Moderator's Note: As late as about 1960 I saw a "Gray Pay Station
Company phone in service on a Southwestern Bell payphone line in
southeastern Kansas. I've only seen the one, with the mouthpiece and
earpiece as separate units, like the old candlestick phones.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 9 Mar 91 15:54:56 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Update on Rochester, NY Disaster
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


   It's hardly an issue here (Southern California) unless it gets so
dry the lines turn to dust and blow away ... but I was windering
(sic):

   What fraction of utility lines are underground, particularly
Telephone, and does it vary from region-to-region, state-to-state, or
over smaller areas as to the practice and preponderance ?

   It would seem that they were more survivable from natural disasters
(though less from back-hoe made ones). It would seem that overhead and
otherwise exposed phone lines are most vulnerable under conditions
that they might be most emergency-critical.

   I wonder if a cellular-based system wouldn't be more dependable in
these circumstances. Future wire-based local network installations
would have a limited-bandwidth cellular component in neighborhoods and
at the CO. Each subscriber would have a cellular capability (perhaps
more restricted than regular cellular and on different frequencies)
either built into the phone (with price and size going down this
shouldn't be a major problem) or perhaps as part of an *active*
network interface, that permits them to tap into the stand-by cellular
ports under restricted conditions to prevent overload (like the
network restrictions that are imposed when disasters occur).


Jeff Sicherman

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #193
******************************






DUE TO TRANSMISSION ERROR, ISSUE 194 FOLLOWS AFTER 195 AND 196.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01398;
          11 Mar 91 1:48 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27227;
          11 Mar 91 0:26 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21848;
          10 Mar 91 23:21 CST
Date:     Sun, 10 Mar 91 23:18:14 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #195
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Mar 91 23:17:45 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 195

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: UK Deregulation - Big News [Wolf Paul]
    Re: Information Wanted on Combination DID/DOD Trunk [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: Why 900-STOPPER? [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: Two Word Exchange Names [Carl Moore]
    Re: Where Do You Live? In a Cave? [David Gast]
    Re: Local Competition [Peter Marshall]
    Re: Airphones and TDD? [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: Cellular Telephones on a Bicycle [Alan Sanderson]
    Re: Can 50 Conductor Phone Cable be Used For LAN? [Alan Sanderson]
    Re: Microwave / Optical Links for Audio [Alan Sanderson]
    Re: Northern Telecom Maestro [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Northern Telecom Maestro [Gary L. Dare]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Wolf PAUL  <tuvie!iiasa.local![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: UK Deregulation - Big News
Date: 10 Mar 91 16:16:54 GMT
Reply-To: Wolf PAUL  <[e-mail]>
Organization: Intl Inst for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria


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

) The White Paper is seen as a blow for BT after several months of hard
) lobbying. It prohibits the company from distributing entertainment
) services, including television, over its network, while allowing the
) cable TV operators to provide phone service.

) Good news on the whole, I feel.

Your last sentence above does not sound so good to me. And what is the
good of allowing the P.O. to provide phone service once again -- why
then was BT split off from the P.O. in the first place?

On a different note: what exactly are "lifetime telephone numbers"?

Wolf Paul

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

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1991 11:49:58 EST
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Combination DID/DOD Trunk


In a recent Digest someone asked:

> Many years ago, I had a practice from the old Pacific Telephone or
> A.T.&T that explained the circuit design of a combined DID/DOD trunk.

> I am now attempting to get a combination inbound DID trunk with
> outbound dialling. I don't really care about passing the PBX extension

UNH has a set of inbound/outbound trunks that we use for our operator
consoles.  No PBX extension information gets passed.  New England
Telephone's USOC code for these trunks is TFC.  They are designated a
CLT circuit (as are our DIDs).  Also associated is a USOC code of TJB.

The name of the trunks are flat business combination trunks with
touchtone.

Hope this helps.

Kath Mullholand   UNH Durham, NH.

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1991 11:57:06 EST
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why 900-STOPPER?


In a recent digest posting, Macy Hallock stated:

> I've also been known to use a PBX DISA local number for the same
> thing, with much the same effect ... although I suspect the FG B is
> more secure.

And the Moderator noted:

> you mention using someone's DISA. I *assume* you are authorized to
> be on there; and if so, what kind of protection do you think it gives
> you?  The owner of the phone will get back-audited, and if he keeps
> any sort of traffic records for the PBX the call will come back to the
> DISA and your password for the use of same, no?  And even if he does
> not keep any traffic records, do you want your employer (whoever; you
> *said* you were authorized to be there, right?) to get the grief as a

Some PBX's have DISA's set up as just an inbound number to receive
dialtone from the switch.  If no access code is required, no
*authorization* need be given.  This is why some switch owners have
discovered huge toll charges to various drug-producing nations on
their phone bills.

One excellent reason to requirsome type of access code on your DISA,
and to turn off or change DISA numbers regularly.


Kath Mullholand    UNH Durham, N.

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 15:36:49 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two Word Exchange Names


Correction to Moderator's Note:

If you dial BULevard instead of BOUlevard, you get 285 (not 288)
instead of 268.

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 17:38:39 -0800
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Where Do You Live? In a Cave?


> A year and a half
> earlier, they began to -- as Pat put it -- intensely promote it. From
> buses to trains to airports to flyers to radio and TV ads -- you name
> it, they advertised it. Fairly well, I might ad. There were even
> countless newspaper articles and TV news stories about it.

That all looks great and more importantly it can be put in the rate
base.  The problem is that these are not necessarily the best way to
reach people.  I take the bus practically everyday, there ads on the
inside and the outside, but I could not tell you what one of them is
about.  Perhaps there are ads in LAX, but I haven't noticed them.  I
read three newspapers today, but I did not read any ads.  (Don't even
have the slightest idea what one of them said).  I try to avoid TV and
I never watch local news -- it's just a chat line with ads claiming to
be news stories.  And what I do watch has been prerecorded so I can
zip over the commercials.  (Anyway, it's network news to the extent
that isn't an oxymoron).

In spite of all this, I managed to catch the announcement of the 213
split the day it was announced.

My concern is that the customers responsible for all of this, are not
paying for it.  Grandma with one line is not causing the exchanges to
be used up.  Those that need pagers, cellular lines, modem lines,
extra lines, or a huge bunch of Centrex or PBX lines are responsible,
yet as John Higdon has noted the very largest users (the ones most
responsible for these splits) are getting their rates cut.  With the
cost of splitting area codes what it is, perhaps dummy phone lines
(for DID, distinctive ringing, etc) should cost more.

These new area codes cost a lot of money to implement and not just for
the telephone company.  Businesses must print up new forms and advise
their customers.  Citizens have to tell people they do business with
and their friends.  The result is a lot of expense.  It is rather like
moving only you don't have to pack and unpack.

IMHO, the best way to educate people is that during the permissive
dialing period, an intercept should come on (it can be phased in) and
say

  "the correct way to dial this number from your phone is <blah>;
  please use this method in the future.  For a short time only, we
  will continue to connect you via the number you dialed.  If you
  have any questions, please contact . . ."

Also, when a person dials 411, a message announcing the new area codes
could be played instead of the current one.

Finally, I would like to note that I feel it is unreasonable to expect
everyone to know all about the new area codes.  I am a devoted reader
of the telecom-digest.  I know that Dallas/FW, for example, is either
about to split or will split soon.  Since I don't call Dallas/FW, I
don't really care.  Even if I did care, would I necessarily understand
the geography?  That is, how many maps should I buy to plot out every
area code change?  And even if I knew the exact address, due to
foreign exchange lines and exceptions to the general rule, I would not
be perfect.

Many of the people who said "I did not know about it" may be refering
to the particular line in question, they may not be refering to the
whole idea of the area code split.  In particular, if X tells you that
effective Y our new phone number will be Z, do you expect everyone to
know the exact geographic boundary of the split?  Do you expect the
typical person to automatically assume it is because of an area code
split?  (By a typical person I mean someone who is not a telephone
junkie).  How many messages have there been during the last year on
the proper way to write a phone number?  Shouldn't we telephone
junkies know that by now?  And if we like our own notation, why do we
expect Grandpa who has been dialing the number this way for years to
like the idea of changing?


David

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 13:45:09 -0800
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Competition


Bob Jacobson's 3/5 post in this thread points up some heretofore
missing questions in this discussion -- important *policy* questions, be
it noted.  Not the least of these is the very evident consideration
sought by the telcos in the form of what they like to call the
infamous -- and euphemistic -- "level playing field"(i.e., in *their*
terms). Yes; there *might* eventually be some gain for residential and
smaller business users by way of sometime trickle-down; but for now,
the nice ring to so-called local competion, at least in an ONA
framework, is indeed that of the cash register.


Peter Marshall

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

From: "Steven S. Brack" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Airphones and TDD?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 02:20:50 GMT


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

=> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
=> (Curtis E. Reid) writes:

=>> Before I do this, I need to know if any electronic equipment is
=>> prohibited on an airplane while airborne?  Could someone tell me
=>> excatly what are the rules for operating such equipment on an
=>> airplane?  Thanks!!

=> The operation of most electronic equipment is prohibited aboard any
=> aircraft in flight under instrument flight rules (this includes
=> virtually all airline flights, and many general aviation flights).  It
=> is up to the airline to enforce this rule, and to grant exceptions for
=> equipment which has been verified by the airline (or by the pilot, for
=> general aviation operations) not to cause interference with the
=> navigation or communications systems in use.

While FAA regulations do prohibit the operation of devices that
interfere with aircraft electronics under Instrument Flight Rules, the
rules nearly all airliners must fly under, the FAA also makes it clear
that "the pilot in command is solely responsible for the safe
operation of the aircraft" (Federal Aviation Regulation 91.3).

=> If you're riding the airliner into a fogged-in airport, you wouldn't
=> want your lap-top interfering with the ILS receiver and directing you
=> into the ground. (I paraphrase, as the author's last line was lost)

The threat posed by electronics to aircraft has been greatly
exaggerated.  In reality, aircraft electronics are by and large immune
from the effects of EMR put out by personal electronics, such as
laptops or TDDs.  In fact, most airliner galleys, being all-electric,
produce far greater EM fields than any personal electronic device.
More specifically, the ILS system is designed so that even if the RF
signal becomes unusable at the worst possible moment, the aircraft may
still safely abort the landing.


Steven S. Brack   [e-mail]
[e-mail] (Avoid sending here, if possible)

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

From: Alan_Sanderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephones on a Bicycle
Date: 10 Mar 91 00:49:15 GMT
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.


Re Cellular Phone Rental:

National Car Rental makes cellular phones available for rental as an
option to the vehicle rental.  You might check with them to find out
what possibilities exist.


Alan Sanderson      Hewlett-Packard AMSO    [e-mail]
US Snail:           1266 Kifer Rd. MS101S      MaBell: 408-746-5714
                    Sunnyvale, CA 94086        FAX:    [phone]
Disclaimer:  <Standard Disclaimer Applies>

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

From: Alan_Sanderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can 50 Conductor Phone Cable be Used For LAN?
Date: 10 Mar 91 02:14:44 GMT
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.


Re use of 50 conductor telephone cable for LAN-

Starlan-10 (10base-t) was designed specifically for this type of
cabling, in order to use existing telephone wiring for data
communication.  As its name implies, the connections are in a star
configuration, with a repeater at the center of the star.  It expects
to see approx. 100 ohm impedance on the cable, and does not normally
interfere with voice traffic because of the frequency difference (5-10
MHz vs.  3 kHz).

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

From: Alan_Sanderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Microwave / Optical Links for Audio
Date: 10 Mar 91 01:30:12 GMT
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.


Coastcom is a manufacturer of T1 networking equipment which
specializes in high fidelity audio transmission.

     Coastcom
     2312 Stanwell Drive
     P.O. Box 27068
     Concord, CA 94527

     415-825-7500


Alan Sanderson    HP AMSO Sunnyvale,CA

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Northern Telecom Maestro
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1991 01:27:46 GMT


One idea that just occurred to me, for a Caller*ID box, would be for
them to play the touch-tones corresponding to the number calling in
between the first and second rings. I find that while I can't
distinguish the tones well enough to call out an unknown number from
the tones, I can pretty reliably recognise a number after a few reps
(I often work next to a modem bank).

This would be distinctive ringing with a vengence. :->


[e-mail]

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

From: Gary L Dare <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Northern Telecom Maestro
Reply-To: Gary L Dare <[e-mail]>
Organization: Curious Goods (formerly Louis Vendredi Antiques)
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 19:10:33 GMT


[e-mail] (Stephen Fleming) writes:

> Good-looking set (I have mine wall-mounted), seemingly solid
> construction, keys feel right when you press them.  Nice features
> like on-hook dialling using the LCD display (with a backspace key),
> a Link (hookflash) button for Call Waiting, a Hold button so you
> can run to an extension, adjustable handset volume, and a lamp that
> lights whenever any extension in the house is off-hook.

I'm a huge fan of NT phones.  They have a certain "heft" to them that
feels nice in your hands if you like to walk around when you talk or
if you move the phone around on your desk.  Not heavy like old dial
telephones, and surely it doesn't feel like an empty plastic container
from last night's Chinese take-out.  The keys have just the right
resistance, too.  I wasn't able to buy one of the newer Bell Canada
type phones to bring down to New York, but did buy a refurbished
Contempra phone in Montreal.  Visitors constantly ask me where to buy
one of them (they're not made anymore, and Canadian telco's have
phased them out of their offerings).

NorTel's R&D arm, Bell-Northern Research (BNR) has an ergonomics unit
working out of Ottawa whose raison d'etre is to make their telephones
look and feel just right.  Having checked out ROLM units and various
frail-feeling Japanese makes (except for Sony, which also feels real
nice) I always go back to my beat-up Contempra.


Disclaimer: I'm a former summer intern for BNR, but I've been a
telephone consumer long before, during, and long after that gig.


Gary L. Dare    [e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #195
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03809;
          11 Mar 91 3:54 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30550;
          11 Mar 91 2:31 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03653;
          11 Mar 91 1:26 CST
Date:     Mon, 11 Mar 91 0:23:38 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #196
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 11 Mar 91 00:23:27 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 196

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Peter Anvin]
    Re: Newsfeeds Across LATAs [Peter da Silva]
    Re: V.32bis and V.17 adopted by CCITT [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Telecom Discussion in misc.consumers Newsgroup [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Looking For Old AT&T "Demon Dialers" [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Update on Rochester, NY Disaster [Nick Sayer]
    Re: China Fires Communications Minister [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: MCI Personal 800 Service [Sean Williams]
    Re: And He's Probably Rolling Over in His Grave Now [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly [[e-mail]]
    SRX PBX Information Needed [Michael J. Logsdon]
    Emergency Phone numbers in Melbourne Australia [David E. A. Wilson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peter Anvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1991 21:22:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John R. Covert <covert@
covert.enet.dec.com> writes:

> Interestingly enough, this convention is REVERSED in the United Kingdom:

> 071-402 7633  [A hotel I once stayed at in the Bayswater district, please
> don't call them unless you want to do business with them.]

> The thought there, perhaps, is that the hyphen acts as a separator.

In my native country of Sweden, phone numbers are written as:

08-736 91 27  (seven-digit numbers only available in 08 = Stockholm)
021-13 25 05  (six-digit numbers available in most cities)
0220-432 11   (five-digit numbers for rural or semi-rural areas)

The hyphen works as a separator, spaces do not, and the "area code"
marker zero is included in the area code.  The number is five to seven
digits, the area code two to four; combined no more, but possibly less
than nine digits.  A two or three-digit area code can have different
number length in different areas, depending on prefix, for example 08
(Stockholm) have seven-digit numbers in all 6XX and 7XX exchanges,
otherwise six-digit numbers; 021 (V{ster}s) has six-digit numbers in
the 1X and 3X exchanges used in V{ster}s itself, five-digit numbers in
the other exchanges for the surrounding rural areas).

Originally up to only ten or twelve years ago you had to wait for a
new dialtone after the area code.  You *still* have to do that on
international calls after the country code:

   009 1 <new dialtone> 708 492 1175
   ^^^
   International prefix

The international way of writing Swedish phone numbers would be:
 [phone] for 021-13 25 05.

hpa = H. Peter Anvin (in case you wondered) * Heja Sverige!
INTERNET:   [e-mail]   FIDONET:  1:115/989.4
HAM RADIO:  N9ITP, SM4TKN             RBBSNET:  8:970/101.4

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Newsfeeds Across LATAs
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1991 01:35:50 GMT


[e-mail] (Nick Sayer) writes:

> I've done some simple math. It takes about three hours a day
> (pessimistically) to get a newsfeed. With Reach Out America, or such,
> that's $600/mo. I could probably get on the Internet for $300/mo.

If you have a PSInet POP in your local calling area, you can get in
for $250 per month plus local phone charges (presumably minimal).
Otherwise, Internet access is quite a bit more expensive.

Of course if you have a PSInet POP, you can get a news feed for $75
per month the same way.

You could also use armpit protocol (write news onto a tape and
hand-carry it). That also avoids problems from full news partitions!


[e-mail])

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: V.32bis and V.17 adopted by CCITT
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1991 02:06:11 GMT


hayes![e-mail] (Toby Nixon) writes:

> V.17 is the new modulation scheme that provides 12000 and 14400 bps
> trellis-coded modulation for Group 3 facsimile.

Any relation to Telebit's proprietary "PEP" protocol?

[e-mail]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Discussion in misc.consumers Newsgroup
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1991 02:36:20 GMT


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

> Recent discussions in misc.consumers have dealt with Caller*ID and
> MCI's latest sales gimmick, a check payable to you that becomes a
> request to switch your long-distance default carrier to MCI if you
> endorse the check.

No problem.  Just put someone else's number in the endorsement block.

BTW: I have *TWICE* received $10 from AT&T for letting them convert
one of my lines to AT&T.  Unfortunately for them, the number in
question is a forwarding entry (only) in another central office (I
wanted to keep my old number, even though I moved).  Such forwarding
numbers do not have ANY LD preference associated with them, so AT&T
keeps trying to change it :-) PacTel says to keep the money, AT&T
wouldn't understand.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: I wonder if they will start doing that with the old
number for my second line, which is now the 'distinctive-ringing'
number for my first line (with no outgoing calls through it)?   PAT]

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking For Old AT&T "Demon Dialers"
Date: 10 Mar 91 21:09:21 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, Paul.Schleck@iugate.
unomaha.edu (Paul Schleck) writes:

I can't answer your question about 1600 or 6400 autodialers, but
I'll try to address these:

> Have these autodialers been legislated or
> AT&T-strongarmed out of existence?  Has there been industry pressure
> to make present autodialing phones "slow enough?"

No, automatic dialing telephones, modems, and fax machines are still
very much legal.  The "big concern" of the LECs now is NOT voice
autodialers, but fax machines with automatic dialing capability.

Recently, standards committees in the USA and Canada cooperated to
attempt to align the requirements FCC Part 68 and CS-03 (the Canadian
equivalent of Part 68).  In the area of automatic dialing, TIA TR-41.9
and its Canadian counterpart recently agreed that automatic dialing
devices (voice, modem, or fax) should be limited to dialing only TWICE
PER HOUR.  However, if the device can detect a busy signal, the device
can attempt up to FIFTEEN times per hour, if a busy signal is detected
on each attempt.  The device is permitted to remain off-hook no more
than sixty seconds for each attempt.

Most importantly, devices which are under external computer control
(which means most modems) are exempt from these limits, since the FCC
doesn't want to get into regulating PC communications software; also,
dialers associated with emergency/security alarms are exempt.  This
agreement will be submitted, along with other proposed changes to
align Part 68 and CS-03, to the FCC and DOC, where they must undergo
the usual public notice/hearing process before being accepted.


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

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

From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Update on Rochester, NY Disaster
Date: 11 Mar 91 02:54:07 GMT
Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA


[e-mail] (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

>   I wonder if a cellular-based system wouldn't be more dependable in
> these circumstances. Future wire-based local network installations
> would have a limited-bandwidth cellular component in neighborhoods and
> at the CO. Each subscriber would have a cellular capability (perhaps
> more restricted than regular cellular and on different frequencies)
> either built into the phone (with price and size going down this
> shouldn't be a major problem) or perhaps as part of an *active*
> network interface, that permits them to tap into the stand-by cellular
> ports under restricted conditions to prevent overload (like the
> network restrictions that are imposed when disasters occur).

That's an interesting prospect. It begs a similar question:

If it weren't for the fact that an enormous amount of copper is
already in the ground or thirty feet above it, what would the phone
company use? Does it cost more to use cellular to "wire" up a city
than copper or glass?

I envision a cubic-foot box in the attic with a piece of (short) coax
leading to a small beam on the roof aimed at the local CO, and a
couple of screw terminals on the side of the box providing the
demarkation point. It would plug into an AC jack, but have an internal
battery backup. Such a box would end up looking and acting just like
our current demark.

If that's no good, then perhaps a scheme could be envisioned where the
box is tied to a piece of glass that loops around the whole
neighborhood party-line style. Or even to a bunch of copper doing the
same thing. It would use Frequency Division Multiplexing. That would
help, wouldn't it?


Nick Sayer   [e-mail]
N6QQQ  [44.2.1.17]   209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 02:54 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: China Fires Communications Minister


In article <Digest v11, iss190>, Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
posts:

> BEIJING -- China's ministers of communications and construction were
> fired as part of a campaign to fight widespread government corruption
> and win back the trust of the Chinese people,

> Qian was removed for abusing his power for personal gain...

Nigel than poses the question:

> Has anyone else heard anything about this and what it may mean?

        Well, Nigel, I don't monitor the Chinese telecommunications
political misfeasance scene as we have plenty here in the U.S. daily.
What it seems to mean is that telecommunications politicians are just
as crooked in China as in the U.S. or anywhere else.  Must be a pretty
nice political plum everywhere.

        In fact, since China has about four times the population of
the U.S., such infrequent firings as they do have tend to indicate the
Chinese are either far more honest or far more tolerant of political
crooks than we are.  (You decide which!)

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun Mar 10 22:53:49 EST 1991
Subject: Re: MCI Personal 800 Service


Brian G. Gordon  ([e-mail]) writes:

> Then on to MCI.  After bouncing between departments for a while, they
> decide that their 800 number has been active for almost two weeks, and
> can't explain why I wasn't informed, or how I can keep from being
> charged for two weeks of service I couldn't use because they forgot to
> tell me about it. Of course, this time they have no problem giving me
> the "secure" number over the phone!

I had the same problem with my MCI number.  I have been using it for
almost a month now, and still haven't received anything in the mail.
I found out my number the same way that you did, but the "security"
thing was never brought up -- they just told me the number outright.

MCI's mailing department must be something of a wonder.  How can a
person call and ask for information, then set up a personal 800
number, and then change the number it is routed to, and then use it
for two weeks after calling to find out what the number is, without
even getting any information in the mail?  It makes you want to say,
"Hmmmm."


Sean E. Williams           attmail.com!seanwilliams
333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227   [e-mail]
Duncannon, PA 17020-0227  USA       voicemail: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 03:58 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: And He's Probably Rolling Over in His Grave Now


In article <Digest v11, iss193>, Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail].
edu> posts:

> From L. M. Boyd's March 1 column:
> "William Gray wanted to call his sick wife, but his foreman wouldn't
> let him use the company phone. That's why Gray invented the pay phone
> in 1889."

        This sounds like one of those colorful bits of early telecom
history.  However, I carry the notion that the Gray Paystation was
simply a product line name of the Automatic Electric Company, which
became th repository of Gray's and Strowger's patents.

        I have some authoritative history of non-Bell telephone
interests, which are quick to claim any telephonic invention _not_
made by Bell, and I don't recall the paystation being among their
claims of a non-Bell invention.

        Anybody out there have more on this?

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

Subject: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 16:09:23 PST
From: [e-mail]


How about fault tolerance?

With all facilities under one manangment, reconfiguration to
compensate for malfunction, disaster, or traffic overload could be
swifter/easier.

It's just a precautionary measure; It has nothing to do with
democracy.


[Moderator's Note: I generally agree with you; but I think where a lot
of the readers here would disagree is because of Telco's attitudes in
the past. They would probably say *if* telco was run in a fair and
impartial way; and *if* the utility at all times dedicated itself only
to the good of its customers; and *if* Telco was a bit quicker to make
new innovations available to all customers; and *if* telco was more
responsive to customer concerns, etc. -- then the monopoly status
would probably be okay. But because there have been so many instances
where Telco has offended a large number of customers in one way or
another, people would now rather see competition, even if competition
at times causes some inconvenience. I'm not sure I agree. I'd rather
see the monopoly continue with very tight reins kept on Telco.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 20:31:50 -0500
From: "Michael J. Logsdon" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SRX PBX Information Needed
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I am the system admin for two installed SRX switches, with 60 and 80
extensions, 31 trunks behind Ohio Bell Centrex, and auto-attendant
messages.  I do all of my own software switches, and am interested in
hearing from other SRX system admins.  Am in the process of upgrading
software.  The SRX fully suits our needs.  Anyone have other thoughts?


Mike Logsdon, Cleveland        [e-mail]
                               216-831-2213

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Emergency Phone Numbers in Melbourne Australia
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 02:28:35 GMT


Looking at the 1990 Melbourne White Pages (Area Code 03) I find that
the emergency services now have individual numbers in addition to the
standard 000 (US 911) "ask operator for service required" number. The
numbers listed are:

    Fire Brigade        11441
    Police            11444
    Ambulance        11440

No other Australian White Page directory I have seen list numbers like
these. Although not quite explictly stated, I would imagine that these
numbers are free like 000.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #196
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05549;
          11 Mar 91 5:52 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae02928; 11 Mar 91 4:50 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08961;
          10 Mar 91 20:20 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03254;
          10 Mar 91 19:10 CST
Date:     Sun, 10 Mar 91 18:35:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #194
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 10 Mar 91 18:35:05 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 194

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Calling an Out-of-Area 800 Number [David E. Wallace]
    Re: Alphanumeric Pagers [Paul Wilczynski]
    Re: GTE and Pac Tel Cellular in Los Angeles [David E. Sheafer]
    Re: California Citizen's Advocacy Group [John Higdon]
    Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? [[e-mail]]
    Re: Voice/Fax Switches Compatibility in Phillipines [Toby Nixon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Calling an Out-of-Area 800 Number
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 07:49:00 GMT
From: "David E. Wallace" <[e-mail]>


In response to my request about calling a limited service 800 number,
the Moderator replied:

> [Moderator's Note: There is no legal (that is, per tariff authority)
> way to do it. The people with limited service 800 numbers quite
> frankly *do not want or appreciate* your call on their 800 line; that
> is why they have it specifically limited.  What you are free to do is
> look up their regular number and call them on that instead.   PAT]

Sigh.  I was afraid of that.  This is a perfectly reasonable thing to
do if the business in question *has* a regular number listed.  In both
of the cases in question, my first move was to call XXX-555-1212 and
ask for the regular number.  The only number listed was the 800
number, which I couldn't call, being out of the area.

Granted, both occasions were slightly unusual.  The first case was
when I wanted to call the NY State Income Tax folks with an urgent tax
question shortly before April 15th.  They had provided an 800
tax-information number that apparently only covered NY State (and
perhaps adjacent areas).  It didn't seem to have occurred to them that
one might be a NY resident in 1981 but a California resident in 1982,
when I was actually filing.  It's been long enough ago that I don't
remember all the details, but I do remember it being a major hassle.
Perhaps things have improved since then.

The second occasion was more recent, when I was sending several
packages from NY to my home in Hayward, CA via UPS.  I needed to know
some details about how the delivery would be made.  The NY UPS office
told me I would have to call the Oakland, CA office to find out.  The
only number I could get from information was 800-222-8333, which
didn't work from NY.  I have just verified with information that this
is the only number they have listed.

Note: after writing the above, I re-checked the Oakland phone book and
found that there *is* a regular number listed there, under a separate
heading.  UNITED PARCEL SERVICE has the 800 number above, United
Parcel Service (at the same address) is listed as 415-568-0200.  It
appears that this may be a Directory Assistance problem with the
listing.  Nevertheless, calling from NY without a Oakland directory at
hand, it certainly looked like an "impossible 800 number" problem.

I invite the Moderator, and anyone else who is sufficiently motivated,
to call 415-555-1212 and see if you can get the regular number from
them.  While I hesitate to suggest that hundreds of people also call
UPS to verify that the 800 number is in fact not valid in their area,
the Moderator, at least, might wish to do so.  (Now that I suspect the
nature of the problem, I will probably let UPS know that their
directory listing is screwed up, but I'll wait a few days so that
others can verify the problem.  It's been screwed up for over a year
now, a few more days won't hurt much.)

In both of these cases, I had a legitimate business reason to call the
number in question.  I doubt very much if the people at either number
would have minded my call just because I was physically outside the
area they had anticipated when they set up the number.  They may not
have wanted to *pay* for the call, but that is a different question.
In both cases, I would have been willing (not happy, just willing) to
pay operator-assisted rates if I could have just completed the call.
In the tax case, I would have been willing to pay person-to-person
rates if that would have helped.  In both cases, I spent more than an
hour of my time (much more in the tax case) on a problem that could
have been resolved with a five-minute phone call to the number in
question.

I suspect that many limited service 800 numbers are restricted by the
owner's willingness to pay, not willingness to talk.  Given this, the
lack of a viable work-around is a bug, not a feature.  I had hoped for
a better answer, but it seems for now that if all I've got is an
out-of-area 800 number, I am S.O.L.


Dave W.        ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: A call to 800-222-8333 from 312-743 just now
produced the following response, quoted verbatim: "The telephone
number you dialed has been changed. Please call your local directory
assistance operator for the correct number."  The 'local directory
assistance operator' (i.e. 411) gave me a Chicago area number for
United Parcel Service.  A call to 415-555-1212 produced the 800 number
noted above. They insisted no other number was listed in *Oakland*. A
supervisor then took my call and searched further to find the San
Fransisco number 415-952-5200, but nothing in Oakland. A call to
800-555-1212 produced the response 'there is nothing listed for that
company'. I persisted -- and she insisted -- there is no 800 number
listed for United Parcel Service.  Some companies should get their act
together on their phone listings!  Another interesting note is that
quite a few numbers in the 800-222 series are used by AT&T for their
customer service and related functions.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 10:43 GMT
From: Krislyn Companies <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alphanumeric Pagers


David Dodell <[e-mail]> writes ...

> My local paging company has started to offer Alphanumeric paging
> using the newer style Motorola pagers (similiar in size to a large
> Bravo digital pager) ... they want to rent me a Motorola terminal for
> $10/month, but they did disclose the access number locally.

> I find this hard to believe, any one know the format so I could write some
> scripts.

I have an alpha pager with Metromedia Paging in the Boston area, and
they willingly gave me the technical instructions to create messages
via their system.  (I've gotten all the way to the end but am still
having a problem figuring out how to format their checksum ...)

They also told me there are several commercial programs (around $25)
which can be run on a PC to dial in and send an alpha message.

Problem is, I don't know that the broadcast system the Metromedia has
here is the same as the one you have there.  So there's no guarantee
that my three to five pages of instructions would work on your
vendor's system.

Put some pressure on them to get the spec or try another vendor.


Paul Wilczynski

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

From: "David E. Sheafer, Class of 1989" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE and Pac Tel Cellular in Los Angeles
Date: 10 Mar 91 02:11:02 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


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

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

> [regarding cellular carriers that offer huge 'local' calling areas]

>> roughly 150 by 50 miles on a side) are "local" calls.  Further, they
>> state that calls placed _from_ cellular phones to anywhere in their
>> Bay Area service area are "local" calls, regardless of the home area
>> code of the cellular phone and the area code of the number being
>> dialed; there are probably some perverse cases where using a cellular
>> phone to call somewhere else in the service area is cheaper than using
>> normal PacBell service.

> Here in the New York City CGSA, the non-wireline carrier (MetroOne)
> offers a huge local calling area.  They charge their normal airtime
> rate, but the landline rate for calls within their service area is
> 0.06 per minute regardless of distance.  If I'm in Eastern Long Island
> and place a call from the car to Central New Jersey, I pay six cents
> per minute for the land-line call, but I'm calling over 100 miles.
> The air time, if it's non-prime time, is 0.15/minute regardless of
> distance.

In Massachussets (sp) any called dialed from a NYNEX (wireline
carrier) mobile phone is considered local if the destination of the
call is in NYNEX mobiles service area (which covers of all RI, all of
Eastern MA (508/617), and Southern NH), and they only charge usage
time rates, they don'T charge any landline rates.


David E. Sheafer  internet:  [e-mail]
or   uucp: samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b  GEnie:  D.SHEAFER
Freenet ap345    Bitnet:  Sheafer_davi@bentley

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

Date: Sat, 9 Mar 91 12:40 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: California Citizen's Advocacy Group


Nuclear Warrior <[e-mail]> writes:

> A few months ago I got some mail from a group called TURN (Toward
> Utility Rate Normalization) which is fighting the utilities here in
> California on citizen's behalf.

Over the years, I have been less than totally impressed with this
group. While it no doubt has served a useful purpose in providing a
slight amount of counterpoint to the normally rubber stamped PUC
hearings, it has some holes that would be significant to the general
readership of this forum.

In trying to interest the group concerning issues such as COCOTs,
AOSes, and various technical matters, it has become evident that
TURN's agenda is strictly for the common denominator of telephone
user.  Spokespeople for TURN have repeatedly decried CO upgrading and
advanced feature offerings (starting to see where I'm coming from?) as
ploys to extract more dollars out of starving customers' pockets. My
impression of TURN's ideal telephone service would be a black rotary
dial telephone (quantity: one) in each residence that would cost $1.00
a for flat-rate service encompassing the Greater San Francisco Bay
Area. Businesses large and small could make up the difference.

In part, I thank TURN for my residential crossbar service. Silvia's
contribution and legacy to us all was a serious slow-down in Pac*Bell
facilities upgrading. At the same time, no one at TURN seem to be
concerned in the slightest that major ripoffs were going on right
outside its San Francisco offices at the COCOTs on the sidewalk. Or
that AOSes were reaching deeply into the consumers' pockets.

In my opinion, TURN makes a lot of noise that is not commensurate with
the minimal positive effect that it really has on the telecommunications
marketplace.

> They say they have won several court
> battles and defeated several rate increases, saving California utility
> customers over $7 billion since they were created in 1973.

Well, the organization certainly failed in blocking "incentive
regulation", arguably the costliest in both money spent and value
received to the California ratepayer of any single event in history.
Almost any other success is nickel and dime.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play?
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 10:21:09 PST


Just a couple of quick notes on this topic.  First of all, due to the
kind contribution of someone whose name I unfortunately cannot
remember, I am now holding a catalog from Proctor.  Their 46220
'Telephone Hot Line Automatic Ringing Private Line` includes its own
power supply and ringing generator system.  It even comes with an
optional battery pack.  As was mentioned in the newsgroup earlier,
this is clearly the best way to go.  Prices aren't listed in my copy.
Once more, to contact them:

    Dave Koshak, National Product Line Sales Manager
    Proctor & Associates
    15050 Northeast 36th
    Redmond, Washington 98052
    1-800-824-9719

For those brave souls who want to try a cheaper method, get a copy of
a truly amazing surplus catalog -- I didn't know such a catalog still
existed and surplus fans all should get a copy -- catalog WS-90 from:

    Fair Radio Sales Co.
    P.O. Box 1105
    Lima, Ohio 45802
    419-223-2196

On page 17 they have a handcrank magneto generator removed from
telephone equipment for $15 used/checked.  Catalog says use as 'remote
signaler (ring bells, buzzers), or as ~worm shocker~.` For the truly
adventuresome they also have a 20 Hz inverter module on p. 5 that
produces 20 Hz 65 V 50 ma ringing signal, but the rub is you need 110V
*DC*.  This little gadget is $7.95, used.

One final note, the bug-detectors on the market today (someone
mentioned seeing one in a mailorder catalog) would only work on bugs
of a nature so obvious that I doubt anyone uses them.  And, as
Operation Sundevil showed, if a *LEGAL* wiretap is being placed on
your phone by the government, all they do is call up the phone company
and the computer does the deed for them.  So don`t waste your money,
is my recommendation.  One note in the realm of blue sky: someone I
know in the chip labs at Cal-Berkeley says there is now a tiny little
chip out that has on it a solar cell that puts out enough power to run
the transmitter that is also on this chip, and with the transmitter
comes a micro-etched plate that functions as a transducer.  Thus, a
self-powered bug that is nearly too small to be visible ... please don't
yell at me if this is too much for you to believe as I am only
repeating gossip ... thanks.


Rocky      [e-mail]

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice/Fax Switches Compatibility in Phillipines
Date: 10 Mar 91 12:22:36 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

> (i)     If a fax machine purchased in the US would be compatible with
> the Phillipine phone system, and

I don't know the answer to this question.  Group 3 fax should
certainly be able to transmit on the Phillipine phone system.  Any
incompatibilities are likely to be in the type of connectors used for
both the phone line and the power (but they probably have adaptors)
and the AC voltage (but he can probably get a dual voltage machine).
I haven't heard any horror stories about the Phillipine phone system
and modem/fax approval processes, but he should be concerned about
government regulations regarding connection of unapproved equipment.

> (ii)    If there are any voice/fax switches which do not make the
> caller wait ten seconds while the switch decides whether it's a fax
> or voice call?  (Any brand recommendations would be greatly
> appreciated as well.)

The only systems that do not require waiting to listen for fax calling
tone or DTMF signals are those that are based on "distinctive ringing
patterns" -- separate phone numbers on the line that each ring
differently.  This service is widely available in the US, but I don't
know about in the Phillipines [or are you intending to use it on the
USA side?], and costs a couple of dollars a month for the second
number.  The device listens to the ring pattern, and only passes the
signal through to the appropriate device (e.g., fax machine if two
short rings, answering machine if a single long ring).

One such device is the "RingDirector" from Lynx Automation, Inc., 2100
196th St SW #144, Lynnwood, WA 98036; [phone].  The
"RingDirector/2", for $89, supports two-number distinctive ringing,
and the "RingDirector/4", for $149, supports four-number distinctive
ringing.  I don't have one myself, but reports from others who do have
been glowing -- they're much more satisfied with the distinctive
ringing service and RingDirector than they were with the other types
of devices that answer first and then try to guess what is calling.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #194
******************************






DUE TO ERROR IN TRANSMISSION, ISSUE 195 AND 196 ARRIVED BEFORE 194.
NEXT ISSUE HERE IS 197.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03588;
          12 Mar 91 4:21 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23789;
          12 Mar 91 2:48 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00180;
          12 Mar 91 1:43 CST
Date:     Tue, 12 Mar 91 1:18:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #197
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 12 Mar 91 01:17:55 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 197

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Alternate Access Carriers-Report and Inquiry [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Home-based Business Service [Jeff Sicherman]
    Can You Disable Call-Waiting AFTER the Call Starts? [Dave Mc Mahan]
    Country/City Code Lists [Dik T. Winter]
    Update on Rochester, NY (3/11) [Curtis E. Reid]
    English Info Line in Japan - Town Net [David Leibold]
    Northern Telecom in General [Steven S. Brack]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 02:56 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alternate Access Carriers - Report and Inquiry


        There's a relatively-unpublicized form of local telecom
competition in the U.S., called Alternative Access Carriers.  These
are firms that found how shaky the claimed "monopoly" of U.S. local
telephone companies is when it comes to planting fiber optic cable in
the streets of cities.

        Beginning from a start in (take a bow, Patrick!) Chicago in
the mid-1980's with the Chicago Fiber Optic company (now the Chicago
operations of Metropolitan Fiber Optics), conservative reporters
estimate that 30 firms are already in operation in cities areound the
U.S.
        I think the number is much larger. I base this on knowing that
Chicago has at least three firms, MFO, Diginet (which also reaches
from Chicago to Milwaukee) and Teleport, New York has at least two,
(MFO and Teleport), and Washington DC has at least two (MFO and
Institutional Communications Corp.  In lesser-publicized markets, a
Florida firm called Intermedia has operations in Tampa, Clearwater,
St. Petersburg, Orlanda and a plan for Jacksonville.  There are even
two firms in Englewood, CO, a suburb of Denver.  Cable TV companies
are wakening to the potential, so Jones Cablevision has obtained hte
needed permits for Gwinnet County, a northeastern suburb of Atlanta,
as well as being involved in municipal plans in central Denver, while
TCI (headquartered in Denver) is plowing in Seattle, to compete with
Electric Lightwave Company, which is already operating in Portland.

        How can these firms get in operation so easily and rapidly?
As was done by Cable & Wirless' Mercury Communications in England,
people who understand the "law of the city street" know there are
miles and miles of easy rights-of-way.  In England, CandW used
abandoned Victorian-era steam pipes for fiber conduits.  In Chicago,
MFS used the abandoned railway tunnels of Chicago Merchants Railway,
curiously enough built at the turn of this century for placement of
telephone lines to compete with Illinois Bell. In one of the many acts
that caused the first Federal antritrust suits against Bell, the
Western Electric Company bought Chicago Merchants Railway and operated
it for 60 years to prevent use of the tunnels by non-Bell competitors.
Apparently AT&T forgot why WECo owned the railway by the mid-1960's,
so the tunnels were there for MFS to compete with Illinois Bell.

        In more cities than they have yet discovered, MCI has an
underground bonanza in conduits of the Western Union Telegraph Company
that MCI purchased more than a year ago.  I even heard of wooden
conduits of WUTCo found while digging up streets in Oklahoma City last
year.  Another common reusable conduit is abandoned city gas mains,
which Williams Telecommunications has been known to buy up in major
cities, just to hold onto while using only a small portion for their
own entry into the city.

        Obviously, a lot of people in a lot of places see a potential
in providing fiber bypass of the local telephone companies.  The name
"Alternative Access Carrier," or AAC has emerged from the former term
Metropolitan Area Network or MAN that was descriptive first of cable
TV company "I-nets," the second cable supposedly intended for lcoal
bypass then later fiber in the streets.  The first market for these
AAC operations was (and is) the long-distance companies who buy bulk
from AACs to interconnect with each other and even cross metropolitan
areas.  (This is one of the better-kept secrets of modern fiber common
carriage.)  AT&T has evolved the term, "Alternate Access Vendor," or
AAV just to add another acronym to the telecom heap, and now offers
interconnection to its intercity plant via AAC facilities in cities
where AT&T has finalized contracts for public resale.  (Funny, AT&T
doesn't seem to need these "contracts" until some end use comes along
and demands interconnection ... they buy the stuff for their own
purposes without them.)

        This post is both a report and an inquiry.  There as yet seems
to be no central clearinghouse for information about activities in the
AAC arena, and such publicity as exists is spotty, for the most part
being confused local business press reports.

        I hope the Digest might be an early-days central information
point about AAC services availability.

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

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 91 00:30:33 GMT
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home-Based Business Service
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  The March 7 issue of the {Orange County Register} reports that the
local phone companies (Pac Bell and GTE) are turning attention to
home-based businesses. The following paraphrases some of the article:

  Aware that such users are afraid to talk to the phone company for
fear of being forced to get a business line, Pac Bell has announced a
Home Office Service which includes specially trained service reps and
business phone features. GTE is assigning some of its retail stores as
Home Office Phone Marts and intends to annouce custom calling features
for home offices between now and the end of 1992.

  The market is estimated at 33 million people during 1990 including
people who operate home-based businesses and those who do corporate
work from home.  Pac Bell estimates their share of this at two million
 - twice the number of business customers. If such residence customers
wanted a business feature they were refused.

  "Business phones (service) cost more because they subsidize
residential service and provide additional services, such as phone
book listings under the business name."  [Reporters really need some
technical and business background so we don't get press releases
masquerading as stories.]

  Customers will be allowed to keep residential billing status if the
phone is used primarily for personal calls but still get some business
features.  [ They don't say how it will be determined whether the
phone is being used as 'promised', or how long they will guarantee
this deal.  Sounds to me like they just want to open the market for
these services and collect more money without artificial constraints.]

   Pac Bell has set up a special number for inquiries: 811-3340. (This
applies to Orange and Riverside counties according to the article.).
They will also install call forwarding, three-way conference, and
call-waiting for free until April 15. Both Pac Bell and GTE will offer
limited-area 800 lines to Orange County residences; Pac Bell will
waive the $20 installation until May 31.

   "But a bigger change than the availability of new features is Pac
Bell's new attitude". [Uh-huh, Uh-oh]

   Projected features:

   GTE (by 1992): CO-based voicemail, wakeup calls, personal calendars (?),
                  speed dialing, last number redial, two numbers on one
                  phone line (distinctive ringing ?)

   Pac Bell:      select call forwarding, different sounding rings *from*
                  specific telephone numbers, automatic redial of busy
                  numbers, automatic dialing of last incoming call even
                  if the phone was not answered.


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

From: Dave Mc Mahan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can You Disable Call-Waiting AFTER the Call Starts?
Date: 11 Mar 91 04:07:01 GMT
Organization: Dave McMahan @ NetCom Services


I am involved in putting together a product for a medical application.
We are using a phone modem to transfer data from the home of a patient
to a diagnostic center where it can be processed.  Most of our
patients are old and are do not understand the intricacies of the
modern phone system.  The big problem we run into is that many
patients have Call-Waiting.  As most of you know, this causes big
problems for a modem link.  The application allows us to place a voice
call and then switch to modem data when it comes time to retrieve the
info.

My question is, "Is there any way to disable Call-Waiting AFTER a call
has been placed and a voice connection exists?".  I'm looking for an
answer of "No way", or "Yes, and this is how you do it.".

Please e-mail your response to me directly.


Thank you for your knowledge in this matter.


Dave McMahan                            [e-mail]
                    {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!mcmahan


[Moderator's Note: In many exchanges, the party wishing to suspend
call-waiting once a call is underway can do so by flashing, getting
new dial tone and dialing *70. They are then automatically returned to
the call in progress, with call-waiting turned off for the duration of
the call.  Some of the exchanges which allown this suspension of
call-waiting after a call has started require that the phone be
equipped with three-way calling or some other valid reason for
flashing the switchhook in the middle of a call, other than merely to
cancel call-waiting.  PAT]

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

From: "Dik T. Winter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Country/City Code Lists
Date: 12 Mar 91 02:42:15 GMT
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam


There was a request for Country/City code lists.  It would not be
feasable to have such a thing online somewhere.  It would be too big.
Consider that the list I have for the Netherlands contains about 1800
entries.  (Yes, there are so many area codes in the Netherlands!)  The
German list I have is still much larger.  And those are only two
countries.

What might be feasable is a list that given the country code and the
area code returns an approximation of the area where the number points
to.  In the Netherlands (as in Germany and many more European
countries) the initial part of an area code gives a rough indication
of the area involved.  Example:

    [phone]
(this is just made up, and as such totally wrong of course, but it serves
well as an example) means:
    +31    Netherlands
    2903    Schellingwoude (really Uitdam; most Schellingwoude
                 subscribers have 020 area code numbers)
    341    subscriber

I do not think you ever heard about Schellingwoude, but it is only 10
minutes walk from here.  If I walk twenty minutes in that direction
the area code will change!  But: the initial 29 means that the area is
in the neighbourhood of Amsterdam.  The first two digits of a Dutch
area code give a main point of interest.  It works similar in Germany
(although there you might want to use the first three digits).

Historical note: Originally all Dutch area codes were four digits.
The network was set up as a star: the initial two digits indicated a
main centre, the next digit indicited a subcentre and the final digit
indicated the final centre; which might have multiple exchanges.  So,
while Amsterdam is 20 nowadays, it was 2900.  29: Amsterdam, 0: still
Amsterdam, 0: again still Amsterdam, but the 3 in the example above
means Uitdam.  For most important cities the area code has been
changed to two digits.  This was *not* done by dropping the last
digits (as the Amsterdam exmaple shows).  I think a similar original
setup and modification is taking place in Germany.

I have lists for a number of European countries, but I am not really
willing to mail them on request, as that involves mounting a tape and
loading the files etc., and removing them afterwards.  (Yes, our disks
are fairly full.)


dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 09:52 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Update on Rochester, NY (3/11)


I did not post any updates yesterday because things basically remained
the same and the paper was mostly reviewing the aftermath of the Ice
Storm '91.

However, there are some interesting tidbits in today's paper:
Rochester, NY's {Democrat and Chronicle}, Monday, March 11, 1991:

Front page headline:

                      "RG&E admits it erred"

Subheadline:    "Utility underestimated ice's toll"

Front page:
    "After almost a week of telling frustrated customers that their
    power would return in just a few days, Rochester Gas and Electric
    Corp. officials conceded yesterday that they had significantly
    underestimated the damage done by the ice storm.

    "RG&E President Roger Kober {CER comments: What happened to
    RG&E VP Lanier? :)} revealed that 35 percent of the utility's
    lines and other distribution equipment had been destroyed by
    the storm, which began last Sunday night and turned out the
    lights about 225,000 homes.

    "Power was restored to about 7,000 homes yesterday.  Yet
    23,260 customers, all but 660 of them in Monroe County, were
    still in the dark last night.  And Kober predicted that
    service would not be restored completely until Thursday or
    Friday."
    ....

Page 1B: headline:    21,000 homes still lack phones

Page 1B:
    "More than 21,000 Rochester Telephone Corp. customers remained
    without service yesterday, and an official said telephone
    service probably will not be completely restored until the
    end of this week.

    "Repair crews from Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
    and downstate telephone companies were aiding local crews,
    said Diana Melvilled, a Rochester Tel spokeswoman.  More than
    500 outdoor repair workers have been assigned the task of
    restoring service."


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

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: English Info Line in Japan - Town Net
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1991 00:22:10 GMT


I spotted an English-language "NTT News" flyer last month which
mentioned an English-language information phone line run by NTT's Town
Net division.

This is generally intended to offer assistance in English to those in
Japan (visiting or otherwise). Most calls are for Directory Assistance
(about 70%) though calls for emergencies, community information, etc.
are encountered.

The numbers can be called with no charge (other than the normal local
call charges). The numbers as listed in the March '90 NTT News
articles are: Tokyo [phone] [i think that should now be
3201.1010 as Tokyo cut over to 8 digit local numbers since that time;
someone please post if this assumption is incorrect]; Yokohama (045)
322.1010; Narita (0476) 28.1010.

The NTT News address as listed in that issue was Public Relations
Department, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, 1-6 Uchi Sai
Waicho, 1-chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100 Japan.


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

From: "Steven S. Brack" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Northern Telecom in General
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 06:13:26 GMT


    As I sit at this terminal, I'm loooking at a NT Touch*Tone
desk phone.  In outward appearance it is much like the Western
Electric models I grew up with.  But, it does have some good and bad
features.

    Good points:
        Flash button for switchhook signalling.
        Voicemail/ring indicator lamp.
        High-quality handset sound.
        Piggyback RJ11 jack for additional telecom devices.
        REN of 0.8.
        A real-live bell (not electronic)

    Bad points:
        A hinged keypad (keys pivot at top instead of just pushing in)
        Poorly constructed faceplate (feels loose when dialing)

    What strikes me most is how much this telephone resembles Western
Electric equipment.  Did NT buy WE tooling or parts at some point?

    Incidentally, this phone has all sorts of features available
from the switch (owned by the University), including forwarding,
music-on-hold, remote call pickup (picks up any ringing extension you
select, or one ringing in your predefined office area), voicemail,
ringback on busy, conferencing, call transfer, & group ring (rings all
phones in your office, useful as an intercom) -- Steven S. Brack
[e-mail] [e-mail] (Avoid
sending here, if possible) Wine, women, & midterms; not quite Utopia.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #197
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15381;
          13 Mar 91 4:40 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22281;
          13 Mar 91 3:07 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30504;
          13 Mar 91 2:01 CST
Date:     Wed, 13 Mar 91 1:20:53 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #198
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 13 Mar 91 01:20:44 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 198

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How do I Set-Up Caller*ID? [Jim Thomas]
    Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly [John Higdon]
    Re: How is 800 ANI Delivered? [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Debit Phone Cards in NZ [Richard Stephen]
    Re: Calling an Out-of-Area 800 Number [Curtis E. Reid]
    Re: V.32bis and V.17 Adopted by CCITT [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Local Competition - "Bypass Service" [John Slater]
    Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Bob Goudreau]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 00:06 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: How do I Set-up Caller*ID?


[e-mail] (Robert D. Thompson) writes:

> Could someone provide a novice (myself) with some general information
> on how to get the necessary "stuff" and set-up Caller*ID on my
> phone?  My sister has been getting threatening phone calls, and I
> want to catch this loser.

Threatening phone calls are a potential felony. Rather than worry
about Caller ID, call the police. There is nothing you could legally
do even if you had access to the source phone, and any action you took
could subject you, not him, to police enforcement.  In most cities,
threatening calls are considered very serious, and generally the
culprits can be tracked very quickly if not using a public phone.

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

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 01:50 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly


[e-mail] writes:

> With all facilities under one manangment, reconfiguration to
> compensate for malfunction, disaster, or traffic overload could be
> swifter/easier.

But as was to sharply demonstrated in the Bay Area 'quake of 89,
diverse facilities is a plus, not a minus. Calls on AT&T were a joke;
the facilities were completely unavailable. This could have been due
to intentional blockage, but the fact is that I was able to
communicate with my clients while out of the area thanks to several
cheaptone OCCs that had no problem whatever completing my calls.

Likewise, while dialtone was not forthcoming from Pac*Bell offices,
many were able to complete emergency calls via cellular, which in the
case of GTE Mobilnet was working very well.

The point is that if there are alternate means of communication, a
calamity that befalls one will not affect another. IMHO, Pac*Bell
failed miserably during the October, 1989 incident. No one would
second that statement more than Centrex customers who found themselves
without even inter-departmental communications for days. In this case,
those with PBXs (an alternative means of communication that does not
depend on telco COs for internal connections) found that they could at
least call down to the mail room or up to the executive suite.

Handling of emergency conditions is not a valid argument against LEC
competition.


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

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How is 800 ANI Delivered?
Date: 11 Mar 91 07:37:11 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


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

> Are there any other methods of delivering the ANI on 800 numbers other
> than with ISDN?  I don't think AT&T uses anything other than ISDN.

This is just one more example of how AT&T tries to TELL its customers
what they want instead of LISTENING to what they want.  How about
another...

[e-mail] (Brian Gordon) writes:

> ATT wants a fortune [for an 800 number], and the
> representative semi-actively discouraged getting one ("A Call-Me card
> is the same thing", "ReachOut rates are lower", etc.).  There is,
> according to the rep, no choice of numbers.

Back to the ANI issue.  We had (and still have) a very real need for
ANI on some of our 900 services.  We asked both AT&T and Sprint to
tell us what they could do for us.

AT&T sent a team of three people to our office to try and convince us
why we didn't really want ANI ("Many people think they want it, but
they don't really", claimed one of them).  And even if we could
somehow convince them that we honestly did need it, they refuse to
provide it except over ISDN.  Well, that's nice, but we have one
hundred thousand dollars worth of T1 equipment that we're not going to
throw out just to get ANI.

Sprint, on the other hand, happily agreed to provide ANI over T1 using
either MF or DTMF.  And they don't charge two cents per ANI delivery
(as AT&T does).

Guess which company we went with.

AT&T still has so much to learn about dealing with the public.  I
still feel they have the superior network, and I much prefer to deal
with them on a day-to-day basis.  But when they won't provide the
services we need, what choice do we have.

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

From: Richard Stephen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Debit Phone Cards in NZ
Organization: Technology Strategy, Telecom Corporation of New Zealand
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1991 07:24:58 GMT


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

> Telecom New Zealand introduced "Card Phones" in early 1990 to most
> Toll calls from card phones are more expensive that from a home phone.

> ... but Telecom says that maintainance costs of the
> public telephones are much higher, which are reflected in the rates
> for card phones.

In my opinion the above comments are incomplete, partially inaccurate
and slightly emotive.

The facts as I understand them are that national toll calls made from
a public card phone are charged at the FULL RATE irrespective of the
time of day or day. The full rate charge is identical to the charge
applied to a call made from any other phone (eg domestic). There is no
additional charge levied just because it is a card-phone.

At the time, there was considerable public anguish about being levied
the full rate. Telecom countered that since the basic equipment,
including the pole and plastic housing cost a lot more than a simple
domestic phone installation, they considered that off-peak rates could
not be supported.

 From my Wellington Phone Directory:

Telecom NZ maintains a distance based national toll charging structure
whose rate varies according the time of day. There are 8 charging
steps A-I, with A being the smallest (closest distance outside the
free calling area) and I the furthest.

Rate structure:
Full Rate:      Mon-Fri 8am-Noon (FR)
Afternoon Rate: Mon-Fri Noon-6pm = approx 20% off FR
Economy Rate:   Mon-Fri 6pm-10pm; 7am-8am       }
                Sat,Sun & National Hol 7am-10pm }= 40% off FR
Night Rate:     Everyday 10pm-7am = approx 70% off FR


richard.

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

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 09:38 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling an Out-of-Area 800 Number


In TELECOM Digest v11 n194, David E. Wallace writes:

> Note: after writing the above, I re-checked the Oakland phone book and
> found that there *is* a regular number lsited there, under a separate
> heading.  UNITED PARCEL SERVICE has the 800 number above, United
> Parcel Service (at the same address) is listed as 415-568-0200.  It

Sigh.  UPS has played trick on you again.  They did that with me some
years back.  UPS has been very *careful* not to give out the local
phone number of the station and makes sure that all numbers goes to a
regional customer service center whether it's convenient for you or
not.

For example, there is a UPS station about five miles from where I
live.  I *cannot* call them directly; I must call on their 800 number
which routes to a Buffalo customer service center that serves the
Western New York State.

I pleaded and cajouled with UPS to obtain the local number; they
refused.  In fact, when I finally got their local number, about 1.5
years later, they changed all their numbers and I had to go through
this route again.  Now, I have their new local number and I *refuse*
to give it out.  :-) :-)

Anyway, their reasoning is that why should the local station have to
field your calls when they have a customer service center?  Makes
sense yes, but UPS still has not utilized its MIS technology so there
is a two or three day delay in communicating my requests to the
station.

Federal Express is a shining example of utilizing its MIS technology.
In fact, when I called their 800 number to tell them I needed to talk
to the local station here, they told me no problem -- they'd be happy
to transfer my call directly to them (on their 800 line).  Fed Exp
took care of what needed to be done.


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

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: V.32bis and V.17 adopted by CCITT
Date: 11 Mar 91 10:06:19 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>> V.17 is the new modulation scheme that provides 12000 and 14400 bps
>> trellis-coded modulation for Group 3 facsimile.

> Any relation to Telebit's proprietary "PEP" protocol?

We should probably move this to comp.dcom.modems, but anyway...

No, V.17 is not related to PEP at all.  In fact, V.17 is _really_ a
half-duplex version of V.32bis.  The modulation scheme (constellation,
coding, etc.) of V.17 is identical to V.32bis at 7200, 9600, 12000,
and 14400.  But because it is an application-specific modulation
standard intended specifically for Group 3 fax, it is half-duplex.  It
includes a fast turnaround capability, talker echo protection, and
"turn off" sequence, which apply to half-duplex modems only.  V.17
also does NOT include the "rate signalling" bits of V.32bis, but
instead depends on Group 3 negotiation procedures (T.30) to indicate
data rate.


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

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

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Competition - "Bypass Service"
Date: 11 Mar 91 17:22:01 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems UK


In article <[e-mail]>, cyberoid@milton.u.
washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes:

|> Fans of competitive local telephone service should beware the example
|> of British Telecom, which used the existence of the incipient but
|> never seriously competitive Mercury Telecom as the rationale for its
|> total deregulation (or nearly so).  Mercury, with all its hype and
|> smoke and mirrors, provided just the excuse BT needed.  Now Britain
|> has a monopoly with power to set its own rates, offer service at its
|> discretion, and generally set telecom policy for the entire nation.
|> When pressed on its often criticized performance, BT answers, "For the
|> disgruntled, there's always Mercury.  (Hah-hah.)"

Huh? Mercury competes with BT on long distance, not local service.
That's certainly the case for private users. Large businesses can rent
dialtone from Mercury, but they do this largely to save money on long
distance (they get even better discounts than private users via 131, I
believe).

And what's this about "total deregulation"? My posting last week
talked about the imminent licensing of other LD carriers and dialtone
rental from cable TV companies, but it's all in the future. Mercury
_has_ been seriously competitive : it's forced BT to introduce a whole
new charge band for domestic calls (B1), which "coincidentally"
applies to all of Mercury's cheapest routes.


John Slater
Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: "Steven S. Brack" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 18:28:30 GMT


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

=> How about fault tolerance?

=> With all facilities under one manangment, reconfiguration to
=> compensate for malfunction, disaster, or traffic overload could be
=> swifter/easier.

If more than one independent telephone network served the same area,
would that not provide the same, if not a greater, degree of
redundancy?

=> It's just a precautionary measure; It has nothing to do with
=> democracy.

Independent networks would preserve democracy and capitalism, while at
the same time increasing equipment duplication, and hence system
resiliance.

=> [Moderator's Note: I generally agree with you; but I think where a lot
=> of the readers here would disagree is because of Telco's attitudes in
=> the past. They would probably say *if* telco was run in a fair and
=> impartial way; and *if* the utility at all times dedicated itself only
=> to the good of its customers; and *if* Telco was a bit quicker to make
=> new innovations available to all customers; and *if* telco was more
=> responsive to customer concerns, etc. -- then the monopoly status
=> would probably be okay.

There are also some who oppose the telco monopoly because monopolies,
by definition, deny competition.  It has proved an impossible task to
hold the reins on large monopoly industries, such as utilities, as
their power is absolute.  Most PUC decisions are made in favor of the
utilities, not the consumer.  Competition reduces prices, & helps to
ensure a higher quality of service.

=> But because there have been so many instances
=> where Telco has offended a large number of customers in one way or
=> another, people would now rather see competition, even if competition
=> at times causes some inconvenience. I'm not sure I agree. I'd rather
=> see the monopoly continue with very tight reins kept on Telco.   PAT]

While I concur with Pat's reasoning, his conclusion that it would be
better to see the monopoly continue is puzzling.  What demonstrable
benefit is there in a regulated monopoly, vs. the open market?


Steven S. Brack   [e-mail]
[e-mail] (Avoid sending here, if possible)

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

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 17:28:31 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number


> > Interestingly enough, this convention is REVERSED in the United Kingdom:

> > 071-402 7633  ...

> > The thought there, perhaps, is that the hyphen acts as a separator.

> In my native country of Sweden, phone numbers are written as:

> 08-736 91 27  ...

> The hyphen works as a separator, spaces do not, ...

I always had trouble following that logic.  I mean, according to that
algorithm, people with hyphenated last names are doing it all wrong.
For example, "Lobelia Sackville-Baggins" would become "Lobelia-Sackville
Baggins".  This is very nonintuitive, because the "Sackville" is more
closely associated with the "Baggins" than it is with the "Lobelia",
is it not?  Likewise with phone numbers: the exchange and local number
are more closely associated with each other than with the area code or
country code.  I find the connecting hyphen to be a much more
convincing "binding" character than the space, because the "-"
actually appears as a physical link between the two groups of digits
(or letters), while the space appears as a gap, and thus is a natural
separator.  But then, national tastes vary, and what looks obvious and
natural in one place may look exactly the opposite in another!


Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation        [e-mail]
62 Alexander Drive            ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #198
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16310;
          13 Mar 91 5:55 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00512;
          13 Mar 91 4:12 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22281;
          13 Mar 91 3:08 CST
Date:     Wed, 13 Mar 91 2:20:58 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #199
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 13 Mar 91 02:20:45 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 199

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: California Tariff Question [Linc Madison]
    Re: 16550 UART Compatibility With 16450 [Steve Warner]
    Re: Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connection [Ronald T. Crocker]
    Re: Maestro Phones From Northern Telecom [Louis J. Judice]
    Re: Airphones and TDD? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Information Needed on WITS and PREMISE [Dave Levenson]
    Re: 800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card [Ralph W. Hyre]
    Re: Sprint Complaint Followup [Alan Sanderson]
    Re: China Fires Communications Minister [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: China Fires Communications Minister [Steve Wolfson]
    Re: Maestro Phones From Northern Telecom [Andrew Farmer]
    Re: Cellular Phones on a Bicycle [Rich Zellich]
    Nostalgia From a History Newsletter [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 11:04:38 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: California Tariff Question


I wrote recently about a situation in which I felt I was overcharged
for some calling-card calls from Pacific*Bell payphones here in the
San Francisco LATA.  After speaking to two service reps, an operator,
two supervisors, and a manager, I found out the following:

(1) Calling card surcharge on Pac*Bell-handled calls has been REDUCED
from 0.40 to 0.35.  HOWEVER,

(2) An additonal 0.25 surcharge applies on calling-card calls from coin
phones, EVEN IF THEY'RE PAC*BELL PAYPHONES.

(3) Even though San Francisco Central to Berkeley is a ZUM Zone 2
call, billable at 0.08 first + 0.02 add'l, on calling card calls it is
charged at the higher toll rate of 0.17 + 0.07.  This fact is
carefully NOT mentioned in the discussion of Pac*Bell rates in the
phone book.

I didn't get any answer except, "I don't know" on the question of how
or when they snuck this new surcharge through.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

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

From: stables![e-mail], Steve Warner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 16550 UART Compatibility With 16450
Reply-To: Steve Warner <stables!indetech![e-mail]>
Organization: BruderWare
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 23:19:43 GMT


(Disini SW, Emmanuel Disini,PRT) writes:

> Does anyone know if the 16550 UART is pin-compatible with the 16450?

Yes, they are.  I have swapped the 16450 to 16550 on many of my PCs.

Be aware though that the 16550 will work exactly as a 16450 unless
software enables use of the fifo.  QMODEM, and some other [PC BASED]
terminal programs will support the 16550.

If the program you are using fails to explicitly enable the FIFO, it
will have no effect.


Steve Warner   -  Fremont, CA, USA  etc...
replies to:  sun!indetech!stables!sw    (forget what the header says)

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

From: "Ronald T. Crocker" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connection
Date: 11 Mar 91 16:03:12 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


Not being an expert on the subject, I seem to recall that MTS or IMTS
phones were rotary dial, and that they did, in fact, use some kind of
pulse dialing scheme.  Can anyone with (any? more?) information follow
up on this.


Ron Crocker
Motorola Radio-Telephone Systems Group, Cellular Infrastructure Group
[phone] [FAX: [phone]]  [e-mail] or uunet!motcid!crocker

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

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 18:29:28 PST
From: "Louis J. Judice  11-Mar-1991 1401" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Maestro Phones from Northern Telecom


Thanks to everyone for the information on Maestro. I did some checking
on my own and found that there are two versions, the Maestro and
Maestro 1000.  The 1000 has CLASS Message Waiting capability. When
Bell Atlantic implements CLASS Message Waiting across the region, the
ANSWER*CALL voicemail service will illuminate a message waiting lamp
on your home sets. Bell Atlantic Business Systems sells sets from
Eagle Telephonics that already implement the Class Message Waiting.

If you're interested, the following numbers will help (and avoid YOU
having to call six zillion 800 #'s for information!)


Bell Atlantic ANSWER*CALL Marketing:    800-321-7176
Bell Atlantic Business Systems:        800-523-0552 (No Maestro 1000's yet)
Greybar Electronics            908-249-4300 (NT Distributor in NJ)

I'm not employed by any of the above, but at least they all seem to
have some information on this topic!


Lou Judice   Digital Equipment Corp   908-562-4103

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Airphones and TDD?
Date: 12 Mar 91 03:55:09 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:

[ in a comment on my followup to a previous article ]

> While FAA regulations do prohibit the operation of devices that
> interfere with aircraft electronics under Instrument Flight Rules, the
> rules nearly all airliners must fly under, the FAA also makes it clear
> that "the pilot in command is solely responsible for the safe
> operation of the aircraft" (Federal Aviation Regulation 91.3).

FAR 91.19 Portable Electronic Devices:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no person
may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft
allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the
following U.S. registered civil aircraft:

  (1) Aircraft operated by an air carrier or commercial operator; or
  (2) Any other aircraft while it is operated under IFR.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to:

  (1) Portable voice recorders;
  (2) Hearing aids;
  (3) Heart pacemakers;
  (4) Electric shavers;
  (5) Any other portable electronic device that the operator of the
      aircraft has determined will not cause interference with the
      navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to
      be used.

(c) In the case of an aircraft operated by an air carrier or
commercial operator, the determination required by paragraph (b) (5)
of this section shall be made by the air carrier or commercial
operator of the aircraft on which the particular device is to be
used.  In the case of other aircraft, the determination may be made
by the pilot in command or other operator of the aircraft.

> The threat posed by electronics to aircraft has been greatly
> exaggerated.

But why take chances?

> More specifically, the ILS system is designed so that even if the RF
> signal becomes unusable at the worst possible moment, the aircraft may
> still safely abort the landing.

If the aircraft may still safely abort, then by definition, it is
not the worst possible moment, no?

 ---just nitpiking, I suppose---


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed on WITS and PREMISE
Date: 12 Mar 91 04:52:47 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Does anyone know what the acronym WITS stands for?  I've looked at
> every list I've got including one posted to telecom back around the
> end of January.  I've been told it is *believed to be* a telecom
> acronym.

I believe it stands for Wire Inventory Tracking System, a now-obsolete
data-processing system once used by the operating companies to keep
records of local loop connections.


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

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

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card
Date: 12 Mar 91 18:45:30 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


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

> [ Everything 950/800 can do, 10xxx can do better. In addition, 10xxx allows
> [billing to the phone being used, something you do not get with 950/800.]

I have to disagree here.  950 and 800 (feature group B) access give me
grater control over billing than 10XXX implementations, since I can
enter an account # to bill the call to.  Yes, it's more work (have to
remember/ memorize code, requires tone dialing), but I can use phones
at other locations (like my parent's house) and not worry about trying
to pay them for the call when the bill comes (they never want to take
my money.)

Additionally, one of my 950-based carriers doesn't have the $.75
surcharge for using the card - I just pay the per/minute rate.  So I
actually save money over what an equivalent equal access call would
cost using the larger concerns calling cards.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Barton F. Bruce) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 181, Message 1 of 9

> 950 access is over the older feature group B trunks, and it is really
> silly to perpetuate what was ideally a temporary measure.

Except that 950 technology is   [??  truncated line ??   PAT]

> 10xxx access is over the same feature group D trunks that equal access
> uses and should be ALL that is needed. If the carriers would arrange
> for a suitable selection of screening codes to be universally
> available FREE, it would be simple and safe to allow 10xxx0+ type
> access, as you would KNOW that only "bill elsewhere" traffic would be
> accepted. You would order the screening service that fits your needs.

As a CONSUMER of LD services, my only concern is getting good service
at a fair price.  The screening mechanisms you mentioned, which try to
force my traffic onto the establishment's chosen provider, are at odds
with this goal.  This influences my selection of businesses to
patronize.

For example, at the Parker Ranch Lodge, in Waimea, HI, I used 950
access to make a local, toll-free (and hotel surcharge-free :-) call
to my provider's switch.  Other establishments added 50-100%
surcharges to toll calls, and charged twice the coin rate for local
calls, forcing me to find a RBOC (well, GTE) payphone to avoid their
surcharges.  These places are listed prominently (next to COCOT sites)
in my 'places to avoid if possible' book.


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

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

From: Alan Sanderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Complaint Followup
Date: 12 Mar 91 00:34:50 GMT
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.


[e-mail] (Floyd Vest) writes:

(stuff deleted)

> I now have service from MCI.  I have had one billing problem which was
> resolved on the *first* call.  And, yes, I am saving Big Bucks :-).

I had service from MCI, through their FG-B (950-) access.  Some hacker
in Monterey put some charges on the account, so they canceled the PIN
and their fraud lawyer sent a letter asking me to identify any
fraudulent calls.  I did so, and was credited $24.00 for $27.00 in
calls.  They would not reinstate the PIN, but offered to reinstate the
service if I picked them as the primary LD carrier.  The primary
carrier plan did not provide for the volume discounts I had under the
previous plan, so the savings were insignificant.  I kept AT&T, and
MCI billed me for the $3.00 for over two years before they gave up.

After many calls and several written requests, they never did figure
out how to adjust the bill.


Alan Sanderson      Hewlett-Packard AMSO    [e-mail]
US Snail:           1266 Kifer Rd. MS101S      MaBell: 408-746-5714
                     Sunnyvale, CA 94086        FAX:    [phone]
Disclaimer:  <Standard Disclaimer Applies>

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

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1991 10:20:02 EST
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: China Fires Communications Minister


I am not sure if there is as much shady dealing here as in China
regarding Telecom or not, but I do have some dealings with Chinese
students.  A few of them have told me that ini their country, it is
not uncommon for someone related to or friendly with a telephone
operator to get that operator to place calls for them and charge it to
someone they dislike.  It is very difficult to get those charges
reversed.

One interesting note about Chinese Telecom -- according to a former
AT&T operator -- there are three gateways in China.  Beijing, Shanghai
and one other that I can't recall at this moment. Any call out of
China may go out through any one of these gateways, and it is not
uncommon for a call originating in Beijing to be billed as coming from
Shanghai.


Kath Mullholand     UNH, Durham NH

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

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 91 08:36:58 CST
From: Steve Wolfson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: China Fires Communications Minister

> BEIJING -- China's ministers of communications and construction were
> fired as part of a campaign to fight widespread government corruption

    We can only hope it is because he tried to replace all of the
payphones with COCOTs ;-)


Steve Wolfson    Motorola Inc.

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

Subject: Re: Maestro Phones From Northern Telecom
From: Andrew Farmer <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 91 18:55:03 EST
Organization: AFI Communications - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


> [Moderator's Note: On the subject of 'unknown' calls, someone at IBT
> said to me they were 'thinking about' identifying every call to the
> extent known. For example, a call arrives inter-LATA from Los Angeles.
> They seem to be able to pick up some things but not others, so the
> display box in those cases would say something like 'From 213', or
> possibly 213-000-0000 or similar. I think that would be a welcome
> addition to Caller ID instead of just saying 'unknown'.

Bell Canada returns the string "Long Distance" for all LD calls and
"Unknown Number" for calls from local/non-displayable numbers.  The
Maestro phone, however, doesn't store the "Long Distance" string -- it
just stores them as "Unknown".

If the Maestro at least let us know it was LD we could perhaps make
some educated guesses at who it might be, when we're paging through
the list of callers.

I've had a Maestro for about a year now and I agree that it is an
excellent phone.

There are two nice features that were not mentioned in Stephen
Fleming's posting.

First, there is the Call Forwarding light.  If you use the first two
softkeys to define call forwarding on/off, a light will go on as soon
as you forward the line and remain on until you cancel the forwarding.
I often used to forget to cancel the forwading, but the Maestro now
saves me from my mental lapses.

The other nice feature is the internal clock.  The date and time is
automatically reset everytime a 'displayable' call comes in.  It
simply grabs the date and time information that is passed along the
line with all the other caller ID information.  It's nice to know that
the stored times of incoming calls will still be correct, even after a
power failure.

There are, however, a couple of flaws in the Maestro's design.  One is
that it will only store the last fifteen numbers, which I find is an
unreasonably low number.  Also, it will not store the number if
another extention picks up the line, which means that if the answering
maching takes the call, I won't know the number of the caller.


Andrew Farmer                         |  AFI Communications
Internet: [e-mail]     |  P.O.Box 11087, Stn H
UUCP:     ...!latour!aficom!adf       |  Nepean, Ontario
FidoNet:  Andrew Farmer on 1:163/115  |  K2H 7T8  Canada

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

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 91 15:28:19 CST
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephones on a Bicycle


Wouldn't it be simpler and cheaper to just use portable CB's?  Or do
you really expect everybody to be so spread out that they would be
beyond the range of a full-output CB unit?

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

Date: Tue, 12 Mar 91 16:22:10 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nostalgia From a History Newsletter


From the latest newsletter of Harrisonburg-Rockingham Historical
Society (located in the Shenandoah Valley area, which I have visited
several times, in Virginia):

"When did you last hear these sounds? ...

"A telephone operator saying 'Number please' when you picked up a
phone to make a call."

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #199
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08661;
          14 Mar 91 0:49 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21102;
          13 Mar 91 23:24 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13038;
          13 Mar 91 22:19 CST
Date:     Wed, 13 Mar 91 22:12:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #200
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 13 Mar 91 22:12:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 200

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Houston Chronicle Cellular Fraud Story [Joe Abernathy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 02:42:30 CST
From: Joe Abernathy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Houston Chronicle Cellular Fraud Story


[Moderator's Note: Although I do not normally accept copyrighted
material with distribution restrictions placed on it for use in the
Digest, this exception is being made at the request of Mr. Abernathy
who has graciously given me the exclusive republication rights to his
article on the net.  I hope you enjoy reading this special report.  PAT]

                 *****  PLEASE NOTE RESTRICTIONS *****

Permission is hereby granted for one-time redistribution in the
TELECOM Digest / comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup on Usenet and associated
mailing lists or BBS' which normally re-distribute TELECOM Digest. All
other uses, including paper and electronic distribution or storage on
any electronic medium, are strictly prohibited with the exception of
the TELECOM Digest / comp.dcom.telecom archives at lcs.mit.edu.
Republication information can be obtained from Joe Abernathy at (800)
735-3820, [e-mail]. Do not reprint / republish this article
without explicit permission from Mr. Abernathy and the {Houston
Chronicle}. This notice must remain intact with this issue of the Digest.

                  ***** PLEASE NOTE RESTRICTIONS *****

    Criminals dialing for dollars

 Long-distance theft taking heavy toll on cellular industry

{Houston Chronicle}, Page 1A, 3/3/91

By JOE ABERNATHY
Copyright 1991, Houston Chronicle

       Stolen long-distance service is costing the cellular
telephone industry millions of dollars a month and is emerging as the
main line of communications for drug traffickers and organized crime.

    Law enforcement authorities and cellular telephone company
investigators are waging a furious technological battle against the
theft.

   It's not the actual losses the industry is incurring, it's the
people who are using these altered phones that attracts federal law
enforcement to the scene,'' said Earl Devaney, special agent in charge
of the Secret Service fraud division in Washington. They are usually
drug dealers, people selling arms.''

   A recent bust lends an example. Working with a Houston-based
investigative firm, Devaney's agency tracked an enterprise allegedly
moving arms into Israel and drugs into the United States, with
cellular phones providing the communications link.

   But the problem has a much wider base. The perpetrators also
include foreign students or temporary workers, who may innocently or
otherwise chance across an offer for inexpensive international
long-distance service.

   We just had a case where some people came to town and set up
three-way conference calling between Houston, Iraq and Kuwait,'' said
the chief financial officer of one cellular service provider. That
fraud can total up to $30,000 in 24 hours.''

   Wire services have reported that profiteers in the war region,
where basic services are in a shambles, lately have been charging
$5,000 a month for the rental of cellular phones, plus air time.

   Credit and subscription fraud -- phones activated with stolen
personal information -- are half of the problem faced by the industry,
but what has everyone scrambling is the tumbler phone,'' so called for
its ability to tumble illicitly through the electronic serial numbers
that allow cellular phones to go on the air.

   It allows the user to have use of the phone essentially without a
bill,'' Devaney said. It also makes it extremely hard for law
enforcement to intercept these calls as we would do under court order
with a landline phone. So it offers the potential user of the phone a
certain amount of anonymity and cuts down on his or her overhead.''

   Tumbler phones, available on the black market for $1,500 or less,
have been taking the underworld of Houston and other large cities by
storm. They take the phone bill out of telemarketing, take the trace
out of bookmaking and drug dealing. Each one in use can cost a
cellular service provider hundreds of thousands of dollars.

   It's becoming very fashionable, if you're a criminal of any size,
to have one of these phones,'' Devaney said.  If you don't have a
beeper and a phone, you're not really a first-class crook.''

   In the hands of someone armed with the latest technological skills
and information, tumbler phones represent the perfect crime. They
can't be stopped or traced.

   The industry is fighting back as if for its life. Yet the response
is scattershot, with some entrepreneurial cellular companies leaving
security lax for the sake of quick profits.

   Spokesmen declined to reveal what percentage of cellular revenue is
consumed by fraud, although some observers estimate it at 15 percent
to 20 percent.  During 1990, the industry earned more than four billion
dollars from more than five million customers.

   The Secret Service, which is taking on a new role in the fight
against electronic financial fraud on the basis of powers granted in
the 1980s, is the first police agency to respond to this high-tech
crime wave. The FBI became involved in the recent Houston-Iraq case.

   Most local police, although aware of cellular phones' popularity,
are not yet briefed on the massive fraud that is taking place.

   If some of these high-tech units in these metropolitan police
departments would get involved in this kind of fraud, I think they
would help themselves catch some of the people they've been looking at
in their drug investigations,'' said Devaney, who hopes to develop a
partnership between the cellular industry and federal and local law
enforcement. It would give them an alternative for getting these
people off the streets.''

   Thomas Lentini, spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Administration
in Houston, said: There's not a case goes by that we don't see several
cellular telephones. Communications is very important in the drug
trade, and it's basically instant communications.''

   One problem is that the state of the art advances so quickly that
it's difficult for officials to keep pace.  While the industry stops
one leak, technically skilled criminals are chipping away elsewhere.

   Several companies are in a race to offer switching equipment
capable of defeating tumbler fraud. GTE, which is experimenting with
such things as credit card cellular phones in rental cars and
in-flight cellular calls, plans to be the first, hoping to perfect the
technology later this year.

   A spokesman for an industry association said, however, that its
impact won't be widely felt until the middle to late 1990s.

   Until it arrives, it's like war. And like war, the citizens are
being asked to endure hardships.

   One such hardship is call blocking.  For years a quiet practice of
the long-distance companies, it is now becoming a mainstay of the
cellular industry.  Certain calls placed to or from locations
generating bills that frequently don't get paid simply don't go
through.

   A recent example involved a college student who couldn't call a
friend in Israel during an Iraqi bombing. Another case involved a
woman who couldn't call her family in Israel using a calling card from
work. And entire nations in the economic morass of Eastern Europe and
in Central America and South America are blocked. (Such blocking is
legal under current FCC tariffs.)

   Many of the cellular companies are now imposing systemwide call
blocking. GTE Mobilnet, which along with Houston Cellular provides
service to customers in the Houston metropolitan area, requires that
all international calls be placed through an operator, using a major
credit card. Houston Cellular allows direct dialing everywhere, but
only to those customers with good credit ratings.

   Another type of call blocking involves roaming agreements, which
allow cellular users to place calls from outside the area of their
host companies under agreement with other companies. When these agree
ments are suspended, as is now happening, travelers are denied use of
their phones.

   Such steps were triggered by the unique nature of cellular
communications. In order that any number of callers might share the
airwaves, each phone an nounces itself to the cellular network with a
unique electronic serial number (ESN). The local switching equipment
can't tell whether an ESN from another city is phony or stolen, so the
call is completed as a matter of good faith toward the customer.

   We had estimates of electronic serial number fraud totaling about
$38 million in the third quarter of 1990,'' said Eric Hill, a fraud
specialist at the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association in
Washington.

   We've seen a reduction down to about $23 million in the fourth
quarter, but that's only due to the fact that many cellular carriers
were suspending roamer agreements with each other and requiring
roaming calls to be made through operators.''

   So at the inconvenience of the customers, we've seen a reduction in
fraud, but that's not the direction the industry wants to go.''

   Call blocking is often just an inconvenience in the United States,
where traditional phone service is reliable and widely available. To
those doing business in the international market, however, it can mean
the difference between success and failure.

   Essentially, cellular phones are attractive to peoqple in Europe
and Asia because the actual phone system is archaic,'' Devaney said.
They aren't luxury items. They're necessary to do business.''

   When a call is placed, it rides the airwaves to the nearest cell
site,'' a distance of one to four miles in Houston, depending on
population density. The cell site makes note of the ESN associated
with a call, then routes the call into the broader phone network.

   Once in the broader network, a call might next go through the
jurisdictions of one or more regional carriers, and one or more long
distance or foreign carriers. The originating cellular company
eventually will pay each of these companies for the service used,
regardless of whether it is itself able to collect from a customer for
the call.

   The subscriber is of course liable to us, but we're the customer of
the long-distance carrier,'' said the chief financial officer whose
firm was victimized by the Houston-Persian Gulf phone theft operation.

   We estimate that about 20 percent of all roamer revenue goes down
the fraud drain,'' said Hill of the CTIA.

   Fraud is presenting a number of faces to the industry, and
indirectly, to its customers.

   Tumbler phones are normal cellular phones that have been modified
with a specially programmed computer chip to use either a phony
electronic serial number or that of a paying customer. The modified
phones can tumble'' through numbers, placing per haps just one call on
someone's bill before moving on to the next victim or the next phony
serial number.

    Another side to the problem is credit and subscription fraud.
Little more than a thorn to traditional phone service providers, it is
crippling in the young and fractious world of cellular phones.

   It's a growth industry, with very little fraud prevention in
mind,'' Devaney said. Most of the people involved in the cellular
industry are entrepreneurial in nature. They're risk-takers, and that
doesn't always go hand in hand with security.''

    Using fairly straightforward means, crooks can get a phone
activated using the name and Social Security number of a law-abiding
citizen. This phone will then be good for one month to three months of
service, depending on the cellular company's accounting procedures.

   A lot of times, the bad guys will have someone planted in the
cellular company, too,'' enhancing the opportunities to get phones
activated illicitly, said Michael Guidry of the Houston-based security
firm Guidry & Associates.

   A crook won't always stop with one phone. In an increasingly
popular scam referred to as a call sell'' or phone shop'' operation,
any number of phones may be used. For a cost averaging $25 per 15
minutes, these enterprises let customers place anonymous calls
throughout the world.

   Each phone obtained using stolen personal information can generate
up to $270,000 in revenue before the accountants catch it, Guidry
said. If it is instead a tumbler phone, revenue is open-ended, since
its calls can't be readily traced.

   Large-scale abuse also is carried out by crime rings, such as one
that the Secret Service, working with Guidry's firm, recently busted.
Allegedly engaged in making arms shipments to Israel and drug
shipments to the United States, this ring embraced five levels of
organization and over 20 storefronts concentrated in Los Angeles and
New York.

   You're looking at organized crime at its finest,'' said Guidry, who
is regarded by some law enforce ment officials as the top security
expert on cellular fraud.

   Firms such as his replace a missing link between cellular
companies, most of which have no internal security teams, and law
enforcement. Fraud is the industry's problem, but when solving fraud
also solves crimes involving drugs and guns, the police get
interested.

   Although disputed by industry spokesmen, some investigators even
fear that a high volume of criminal use could be helping to shape the
cellular industry.

   Organized crime spurs technology development, and
telecommunications fraud is connected with it,'' said Langford
Anderson of the Communications Fraud Control Association, a
clearinghouse for fraud main tained by the telephone industry. We
think organized crime is responsible for certain developments within
the cellular industry.''

   Regardless of how strong that connection is now, it has the
potential to grow rapidly, much as the cellular industry is itself
rapidly evolving.

   Cellular companies are expanding, they're going overseas, and
they're facing a lot of fraud problems unless they get a handle on it
now,'' said Devaney of the Secret Service. If they go into that with
their eyes closed, the criminals will take advantage of it. Where
there's opportunity for industry growth, there's opportunity for
criminals.

   I'm looking for the industry to join us in this battle.  We're
engaging high-tech criminals on a daily basis in the federal
government now, and the challenge to the Secret Service, the FBI and
other agencies is to at least be able to stay even with high-tech
criminals.

   We depend very heavily on the industries that are being victimized
to help us,'' he said. We've had a great deal of success with the
credit card companies and hard line (phone companies) such as AT&T,
and we're hopeful we'll find similar success in the cellular
industry.''

   A Houston cellular executive predicted that such cooperation, along
with the aging process, would solve today's concerns.

   The problem really is that once we stop the tumblers, they'll find
another way,'' he said. Because it's such a new industry, people try
and find new ways to defraud you every day of the week.''

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

[Moderator's Note: My sincere thanks to Joe Abernathy and the {Houston
Chronicle} for permission to bring you this special report. In the
next issue of the Digest (V11 #201) this topic will continue with a
follow up article discussing recent actions by the Secret Service.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #200
******************************