Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss201-250

Internet Message Format | 1991-03-30 | 861KB

Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09842;
          14 Mar 91 1:55 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19449;
          14 Mar 91 0:28 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21102;
          13 Mar 91 23:24 CST
Date:     Wed, 13 Mar 91 23:13:43 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #201
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 13 Mar 91 23:13:39 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 201

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Secret Service Foils Cellular Phone Fraud [New York Newsday via A. Baheti]
    New Zealand Telecom News [Pat Cain]
    User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu vs. Motorola [B. Berbenich]
    Still More COCOT Sleaze [Peter G. Capek]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 21:16 CDT
From: Arun Baheti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Secret Service Foils Cellular Phone Fraud


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Baheti passed along this article which I am
presenting as part of the two part series on cellular fraud. The last
issue of the Digest (#200) presented a story by Joe Abernathy.  PAT]

{New York Newsday}, March 7, 1991, By Joshua Quittner

    The US Secret Service said one of its agents cracked the code
of counterfeit computer chips to block a kind of cellular telephone
fraud responsible for an estimated $100 million a year in unbillable
long-distance calls.

    During the past two months, the service has quietly
distributed a free software "patch" that blocks unauthorized
long-distance calls at cellular telephone switches.  The patch is
being heralded in New York City, where more phone service is stolen
than anywhere else in the country.  The first day the patch was put
into use in Los Angeles, more than 5,000 illegal cellular calls were
blocked, a Secret Service spokesman said yesterday.

    [...]  The counterfeit chip used by phone cheats exploits a
weakness in the cellular telephone system that allows a caller's first
call to be completed before the billing status is verified ... A
legitimate mobile phone has a silicon chip that generates an
identification number.  When a call is made, that number is relayed to
the carrier, along with the caller's phone number, and the two numbers
are compared to establish billing.

    However "depending on where you're roaming and how busy the
cellular network across the country is, you can make a phone call
before that procedure is completed." [Norman Black, Cellular Telephone
Industry Association] To exploit that weakness, underground engineers
designed a counterfeit chip that generates a different, phoney
identification number on each call, tricking [the cellular telephone
exchange] into thinking each call is the first.

    One illegally rigged phone, confiscated by police in New York
City last year, was turned over to the Secret Service, which
investigates, among other things, telecommunications fraud.  Like a
hacker -- a phone computer cheat -- the agent broke into the chip,
read the microcode, decoded the algorithm at its core, then wrote a
program that would help carriers detect its peculiar pattern.

    Dave Boll, who heads the Secret Service's Fraud Division in
Washington, said that cellular telephones equipped with the
counterfeit chips "sell for as much as $5,000 each".  And he estimated
that such phones are used to make $100 million in unbillable calls
each year.

    [The article goes on, to talk about the call-stealing problem
being the worst in NYC and how the unbillable calls tied up the
network for the paying customers].

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

Subject: New Zealand Telecom News
From: Pat Cain <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 23:18:28 NZD
Organization: Sideways Bulletin Board, Lower Hutt, New Zealand.


This file contains various Telecom news, some of it taken from
newspapers and the rest from NZ Telecom propoganda.


MONOPOLY ON TOLL SERVICE ENDS

              - Clear Communications puts through first call

COMMUNICATIONS Minister Maurice Williamson made the first telephone
call recently to break the Post Office/Telecom monopoly in more than
100 years.

  The call, to Telecommunications Users Association chairman Terry
Ballard in Auckland, used the Clear Communications toll network of
fibre-optic cable laid by Railways Corporation beside the main trunk
line.

  Clear is a consortium jointly owned by Railways Corp., Television
New Zealand, Todd Corporation, Bell Canada International and MCI
Communications of the United States.

  Clear chief executive George Newton said the toll service would be
made available to domestic customers in April without a need for
subscribers to change present Telecom arrangements or lay new lines.

  To use the service, customers will simply dial 050, then the area
code required, and then the telephone number.

  Mr. Newton said the company's toll prices would be less than those
offered by Telecom but prices would be kept secret till the last
minute.  Newton also said Clear had the capability to to offer toll
service bills charged in steps of one-tenth of a minute.  Telecom's
minute step means that a one minute one second call is charged as a
two minute call.

  Snags are Telecom's refusal to share names/addresses of customers it
inherited from the post office system with the new entrant.  In the
meantime this means only people who have registered will be able to
use the service.

  Mr. Williamson said that in recent months he had felt like a
marriage guidance counsellor talking Telecom and Clear through the
delicate and complex interconnection agreements.

  He said he was pleased the Government had not been obliged to step
in and dictate terms to the two companies, which leaves New Zealand in
the unique position of having no court or state-imposed terms of
interconnection.

  The NZ Telecom market is worth $1.2 billion, Clear has already
conneced Television New Zealand to the network and George Newton says
"We are here to stay".  Whether Clear will suceed in their aims
remains to be seen.

[The above is an edited version of report that appeared in {The Dominion}]


REPAIR SERVICE MORE EFFICIENT

To quote:

   "In just 12 months we made these improvements in our Repair Service:
     * We have reduced the number of faults our customer
       have had to report by 28%.
     * We have reduced the number of faults which could not be
       repaired on the day they were reported by 42%.
     * We have reduced the average time to make a repair by 40%.
       (It now takes about 4 business hours, on average, from
       when you report your problem until it is fixed.)
     Your satisfaction with our service is vitally important
     to us and we aim to continually improve on the service
     we give."

Incidentally, Telecom NZ is the biggest spending advertiser in New
Zealand.  Nightly we are subjected to cutesy animal TV adverts (you
know the ones, mummy and daddy animal with lots of babies) telling us
that toll calls are so much cheaper than they used to be and how
wonderful Telecom is.  I think that we're getting fed these adverts so
often that we're starting to get addicted to them and wonder what will
come next.


CHEAPER PHONE OPTION FOR ELDERLY PEOPLE

Local calls for residential telephone users are free.  Recently NZ
Telecom introduced a new option for people over 60 years of age.  To
quote their leaflet:

    The first option is the existing payment method, that is
    the standard line rental of $32.84 (GST included and
    effective from 1 January 1991) and free local calls.  This
    option will suit elderly customers who make a large number
    of calls and rely heavily on their phone for social contacts.

    The second option is the newly released Sixties Plus Phone
    Option which offers a reduced monthly line rental of $19.69
    (GST included) and a local call charge of 11.25cents a
    minute, or part of a minute (GST included).  This option
    will suit those elderly customers who make very few
    outgoing calls and usually rely on their phone for necessities
    such as making a doctor's appointment.

    The new Sixties Plus Phone Option has been introduced as a
    result of talks between Telecom, consumer and older people's
    lobby groups.  IT is available to any Telecom customer aged
    60 years and over whose phone is listed in their own name at
    their permanent address.

I haven't heard any reaction to this offer, but I guess it sounds
reasonable for elderly people who don't call out much.  I'm sure that
bulletin board sysops would quite like it.  Telecom NZ has promised to
keep free local calls unless it "unreasonably effects our profits".


CALLING CARDS INTRODUCED

Calling Cards were recently introduced in NZ.  Calls made using the
Telecom Calling Card may be charged to either a credit card or the
phone account.  It will be interesting to see if we have any of the
fraud problems that have occured in the States.

For those that are interested, the PIN number is four digits, and the
calling card number is sixteen digits.  As far as I can tell the card
number is not related to the users phone number in any way.

The card also has an "International Calling Card number" on it, and
says that users may need to quote this to overseas operators.  I
wonder if this means that in the future we will be able to use calling
cards in any country with any Telco?

The other thing that interested me was the magnetic strip on the back
of the card.  It is in the same place as a standard credit or bank
card.  Perhaps this is for future expansion as there doesn't seem to
be any use for it so far.

The charge for using the card is the usual cost of the call plus
NZ$2.04 for national, NZ$4.50 for international, or NZ$9.00 for
international person to person call.


CELLULAR PAY PHONES INSTALLED ON FERRIES.

Telecom cardphones (same model as most British cardphones) have been
installed on the NZ Railways Ferries that travel between the North and
South Islands in NZ (about a 3 1/2 hour journey).  Calls can be made
anywhere in the country at a charge of NZ$1/minute ($1.20 for first
minute).

Telecom:
    "It provides an interface between the public telephone
    network and the cellular network, allowing calls to be
    placed from the ferry to anywhere in the country during
    its journey between the North and South Islands".

    Customers place a call in the normal way by inserting a Phonecard
    into the slot and when the other end answers, pusing the
    star button.

<end of file>

Pat  <[e-mail]>
Private Box 2060, Wellington, New Zealand

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu vs. Motorola
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 13:12:32 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


At the outset, let me say that my evaluation is almost purely
subjective and is based upon little-to-no evaluation of the
engineering details of the respective units.  That having been said, I
have recently had an opportunity to use both the relatively new
Fujitsu Pocket Commander and the somewhat older Motorola Micro-TAC
model in daily activities.  I'll attempt to convey my impressions of
both units.  I'll try to stay away from giving engineering specs,
because anyone can get those from a dealer or from the manufacturer.
Instead, I'll concentrate on my subjective opinion, having juxtaposed
both units during the course of approximatly ten days.  Please note
that both units were used on the 'A' carrier in Atlanta, Pactel
Cellular.  My thanks to them for letting me evaluate these units.
They're hoping I'll buy one, of course! :-) The jury is still out on
that aspect.  The general pricing of these units is too high for me
yet.  Here goes:

Size: both units are roughly the same size, yet the Fujitsu is
smaller.  When I looked at each unit separately, I could not notice a
size difference.  Each unit has two different batteries, a compact and
an extended life, which affect the depth.  The units are effectively
the same size.

Weight: each unit causes a noticeable sag in an inside jacket pocket,
no matter which battery is attached.  I did not have any sense of
fatigue when holding each unit to my head during conversation, though.
At 12.3 oz., the Motorola is the heavier of the two by .4 oz.  My hand
and arm could not discern any weight difference between the two when
actually in use, however.

Range/reception: there was no significant difference in the
performance of the units.  I used or attempted to use each in similar
or identical settings.  I phoned from a cell fringe, from an interior
room of a metallic building, in the car, on MARTA (rapid rail system)
and on the sidewalk in a high-rise downtown area.  I called from our
computer room and also from my home.  The reception was comparable,
given the same conditions.  The worst coverage for both was at my
home.  Lots of trees at home to block the coverage.  Engineering
flash: trees tend to attenuate cellular freqs.  Matter o' fact,
Atlanta is filled with trees!  Cell siting is the key here, though,
not so much the phone one would use.

Charge life/recharge time: Charge life seemed to be similar here -
bear in mind that this is purely subjective in my case.  Recharge
time?  I didn't make a meaningful comparison here.  I'd just pop them
into the charger at night and pull them out on the way to work.  Each
got a full workday in, given the applicable mix of talk and standby
time.  The batteries would have to go into the stand first thing when
I got home, though.

Features/price: These are individual considerations, each unit has its
stregths and trade-offs but they are definitely in the same class.
The Pocket Commander seems to have the better price (for the time
being), but Motorola has a few models in the DPC line (to which the
Micro-TAC has evolved, I presume) which will/do offer competitive
pricing with the Fujitsu.

Miscellaneous impressions: I liked the buttons and keys of the
Motorola much more.  The Motorola uses a one-piece sealed keypad which
I like a lot.  The Fujitsu uses tactile keys ("they click"), but the
keys don't seem to be sealed against the elements (they may be sealed
under the faceplate - I don't know either way for sure).  The
microphone for the Motorola is on the fold-out/flip-down piece and
seems susceptible to "hissing" when pronouncing the letter 's' sound -
just a matter of holding the unit at the proper orientation, I
suspect.  The mic for the Fujitsi is not on the flip-down piece, but
rather it is in the vicinity of the hinge.  The sound quality on each
is acceptable in my opinion.  The Motorola seems more "substantial" to
me - very subjective.  The Motorola is American-made.  I don't know
where the Fujitsu is made.

Well, that's all that I can think of.  Please bear in mind that I have
not evaluated these units from an engineering view, but from that of a
user.  They are very comparable, but my opinions lean toward the
Motorola.  Bear in mind that the Motorola only allows keyboard
programming of the NAM to be done three times before it must be sent
to a Motorola service center to be reset - if you use multiple
cellular accounts then this is a serious liability.  It is a quirk
that I'd recommend that Motorola remove.  Anyone know why they do
this?  The Fujitsu did not have such a restriction as far as I could
tell.

Conclusion?

On the basis of my unscientific "tests," I would recommend either
unit.  It seems to come down to a user's preference for certain
features.  There is not enough room to delineate the features here,
but it's easy enough to call a Motorola or Fujitsu rep and ask them
for a sales brochure.

If anyone has a specific question about my impressions as a user,
please send me e-mail.  Engineering questions should be directed
toward the respective manufacturers, however.  After all, it is their
equipment.

Hope this has been of use to some of you.


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

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

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 18:28:56 EST
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Still More COCOT Sleaze


In late January, I was visiting Washington, DC.  I was forced to use a
COCT in the basement of the hotel at which I was staying, and had an
bizarre experience which I had intended to write about here, but never
got around to.  It is that I was unable to use 10288 to use AT&T, but,
when I dialed 0, expecting to get either AOS/COCOT operator, after a
LOT of delay and clicking, I got an operator who identified himself as
being "AT&T".  That seemed strange, but I accepted it.  I billed the
call to my AT&T card number.

I've just gotten the phone bill for that period and discover the call
shown as provided by an AOS ($6+ for five minutes, less than fifty
miles) and NOT by AT&T.  I wish I had written down at the time exactly
what happened when I made the call, but the appearance is that of the
AOS identifying itself as AT&T.  Has anyone else experienced this?


Peter Capek

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #201
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12279;
          14 Mar 91 3:58 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25677;
          14 Mar 91 2:33 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27781;
          14 Mar 91 1:29 CST
Date:     Thu, 14 Mar 91 0:39:13 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #202
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Mar 91 00:39:01 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 202

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Voice Recognition Experiment [Tad Cook]
    How Sophisticated Are Network Design Tools [Thomas P. Capotosto]
    AT&T Long Distance Problem [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    Visiting LA From NY With Cell Phone; What to do? [Lance Ware]
    Domain Phone Number Service (was: Country/City Code Lists) [Jeff Carroll]
    Information on OMEGAPHONE III System [Steve Warner]
    911 Referendum in Norridge, IL [George Horwath]
    Caller*ID - Mail Order Decoder Box Wanted [Darrell Broughton]
    PBS Pledge Drive for March, 1991 [Sean Williams]
    Call From Kuwait [John Temples]
    NET & T Sponsors User's Group [Barton F. Bruce]
    Another Example of the 555 Pseudo-Exchange [Roy Smith]
    Thank You and FYI [[e-mail]]
    Headsets: What's Good? [[e-mail]]
    SLC-96 Request For Information [Alastair Reynolds]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Voice Recognition Experiment
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 14 Mar 91 00:00:05 GMT


The Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology is building a
huge database of voices as part of a project to develop voice
recognition for US West directory assistance.

They want to be able to classify sounds according to regional
differences, and they need thousands of samples of speech to do this.

Call 800-441-1037 (I assume this is nationwide ... it may not be) and
follow the voice prompts.  They will ask your last name, where you are
calling from, and where you grew up, and then ask you to pronounce
several words and recite the alphabet.

It takes about two minutes.


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA      Packet: KT7H @ N7ENT.#WWA.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]         MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCIUW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad      or, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The number works from Chicago, and I gave my
specimen yesterday. It does take just a couple minutes, and it was
fun. I suggest everyone provide a specimen, and be sure to mention on
the tape you read about their efforts in TELECOM Digest!   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 10:55:45 EST
From: Thomas P Capotosto <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Sophisticated Are Network Design Tools?
Organization: Ethel's Place


When the internetworking of LANs goes from simple bridging of a few
LANs to a much more ambitious effort of inter-working many types of
LANs distributed over wide areas, how do network designers (e.g.,
network planners, router/LAN/etc. vendors, consultants) cope with the
complexity?  In other words, how sophisticated are the network design
tools being used?

Are these elaborate networks still designed by back-of-the-envelope,
rule-of-thumb or have sophisticated software-based tools evolved to
fill this need?  Most of the router/brouter vendors and consulting
firms are relatively small outfits - do they develop (or purchase)
design tools or are they able to base their designs on experience?
How much faith should I put into the network design recommendations of
router vendors and consultants, for example?  Or with how large of a
grain of salt should I take their input?  Are design tools
commercially available?


Thanks,
Fred

[e-mail]   att!esun!delco

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

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 9:20:58 PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Long Distance Problem


For the last few days I have been in St. Louis at a meeting, trying to
call our DID numbers in California (415) 917-xxxx.  I can complete the
call via ITI, MCI and some other bogus carrier that the hotel uses
(AVN I think it is called), but *not* via AT&T. When I call using
AT&T, I get a weird distorted ringing sound, but never any answer. It
would appear that AT&T is routing the call somewhere else. I have
called AT&T Long Distance Repair, and needless to say they don't
believe me, and seem uninterested when I explain that the call can be
completed on other carriers. What do I do next???!!


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]

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

From: "W.L. Lance" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Visiting LA From NY w/ Cell Phone; What to do?
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 91 01:55:27 GMT


This summer I will be working in LA for about a month, and I would
like to bring my Cell Phone with me and use it. I do not believe
Rochester Tel has any agreements with Pac-Tel or Cellular-One? So I
guess I would have to setup an agreement out there.

Any suggestions on which company to go for? Can any one give me any
ideas on the rates, sign-up fees, etc . . . I will be using the phone
during the day and evenings quite a bit, and would be interested in
the different packages that are available.

Also, on a different note, does anyone know how to program the
Mitsubishi 3000 handheld? This is the phone I would be bringing with
me, and I would like to be able to program it myself.

I will be working near the Palos Verdes Peninsula and San Pedro most
of the time.

I can program one of my phones myself, but my handheld I cannot.


Lance Ware            Mac and IBM Reseller
Try here first: [e-mail] | Then here: [e-mail]
Last Resort:[e-mail]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <![e-mail]>
Subject: Domain Phone Number Service (was: Country/City Code Lists)
Date: 13 Mar 91 17:54:56 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dik T. Winter)
writes:

> 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.

    Well, how about a distributed directory service on Internet?
It seems that it would be feasible to tinker with DNS a little bit to
make it deal with area codes and place names rather than IP addresses
and domain-style names. Eventually something like this will be
required for the integrated digital network (as opposed to the
Integrated Digital Network) anyway - that is, someday an ISDN
connected subscriber will need to do PSTN-number to subscriber-name
translation, and presumably anybody still using TCP/IP at that point
will need to as well.

Or has the CCITT already solved this problem for us?

Followups to comp.protocols.misc.


Jeff Carroll     [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 08:26:27 PST
From: Steve Warner <stables![e-mail]>
Subject: Information on OMEGAPHONE III System


Recently an old omegaphone III system with fifteen or so phones was
donated to a community center for which I do volunteer work.

We were given no programming information.  The system has no serial
port, and the only way I can see to program anything on it is by
changing settings on jumper blocks.

We would like to install it into our facility but need some docs on it
first.  Can anyone help here?

Thanks.

Steve

replies:   sun!indetech!stables!sw

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

From: George Horwath <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: 911 Referendum in Norridge, IL
Date: 13 Mar 91 16:23:22 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


The village of Norridge (suburb of Chicago) will have a referendum on
4/2/91 to determine if 911 should be implemented in the village to be
paid for from general funds. In a letter to residents, the following
costs were itemized:

    Equipment        Approx. $100,000
    Installation                $ 32,000
    Maintenance contract    Approx. $  3,000 per year
    Monthly fee for 8000 phones    $1200 x 12 months = $14,400.

Also, it will take approximatly eighteen months, after requesting it,
for the system to be installed.


George Horwath, Motorola C.I.D.    Only I could say something that stupid.
 ...!uunet!motcid!horwath


[Moderator's Note: Norridge is an example of the curious nature of
area 708. Completely surrounded by the City of Chicago -- yet not part
of the city politically -- Norridge uses 708 and is serviced from the
Chicago-Newscastle CO which also has numerous 312 exchanges,
frequently for places only a few yards (feet?) from the other area
code. The area code bounces back and forth, from 312 -> 708 -> 312 as
you travel down the street from one intersection to the next.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Caller*ID - Mail Order Decoder Box Wanted
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: 13 Mar 91 13:23:34 CST


In article <[e-mail]>, afc-tci![e-mail]
(Joubert Berger) writes:

> I was woundering how much Caller*ID would cost?

> [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]

I am interested in purchasing a decoder box for Caller*Id (here in
Saskatchewan it is known as Call Display).

Does anyone know of a mail order source for such decoders? A Canadian
one would be best but American is okay.

I am hoping to avoid paying $20 a month rental for the only decoder
the local telephone company rents. (They will NOT sell it, either.)


Darrell Broughton   Saskatoon   Saskatchewan   Canada

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Mar 13 20:43:40 EST 1991
Subject: PBS Pledge Drive for March, 1991


As you are all probably well aware, the first PBS membership drive for
1991 is well under way.  "So what!" you may say.  Well, I'd just like
to say that I am a member.

I felt compelled to join when my local telco, United Telephone System,
volunteered to answer phones at the December, 1990 drive.  They were
matching viewers' pledges, and offered Northern Telecom phones to new
members who pledged $60 or more.  (NT seems to be UTS' qvendor-of-choice.
we can't forget the lovely rental phones that UTS offers!)

Well, now it's back to the March, 1991 drive.  This time it's Bell of
Pennsylvania's turn to answer the phones.  They don't seem to be
matching pledges or offering phones though (at least not as I am
watching) ... the pledge bonuses are being brought to you by NOVA --
"the USA's only weekly science program."

Are other telcos in various states doing this, or is it just a local
thing?

By the way, I will be heading north on Saturday or Sunday (not sure
yet) to answer phones for Scranton's WVIA channel 44.


Sean E. Williams              | attmail.com!seanwilliams
333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227      | [e-mail]
Duncannon, PA 17020-0227  USA          | voicemail: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has always been very generous with
their corporate profits. They support programming on WTTW Channel 11
here (public television). They support a variety of artistic things
and special cultural events as well.   PAT]

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

From: John Temples <jwt![e-mail]>
Subject: Call From Kuwait
Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 05:25:04 GMT


My best friend from college, a Kuwaiti, called me this evening.  This
is the first I have heard from him since the Iraqi invasion.  He stood
in line from 2 AM until 5 AM to place the call on one of the few
available phones.  It certainly felt good that I was the person who
received his first call out of the country.  And I'm sure glad I was
home after he waited in line all that time!

The quality of the connection was very good -- there was no more line
noise than a domestic long distance call -- less noise than is typical
for calls from Kuwait.  Also absent was the short "chirp" I normally
hear when picking up the receiver on an overseas call.  This combined
with the total lack of background noise really made it hard to believe
I was really talking to Kuwait.

As for how things are over there -- he said it's even worse than what
we're seeing on CNN.


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

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NET & T Sponsors User's Group
Date: 14 Mar 91 03:26:23 GMT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


NET & T (NYNEX) just had their first ever leased line user's group
meeting!

It took the product manager eight months to get it approved. Times
have changed. The old guard would NEVER have done something like that.

We have been offered the chance to suggest agenda items for future
meetings.  THEY offered such a hot topic as CO-LOCATION before any
user suggested it!

We had a tour of their centralised network command facility, and a
nice lunch.  A fellow user sitting at lunch works at a VERY BIG name
brand company, and he has LOTS of DDS circuits. He learned about
DDS-II and its dramatically lower pricing at this meeting. (Too bad he
doesn't read this news group.)

This just shows telcos traditionally have failed to communicate
properly with their users, and that this type of group NEEDS to be
encouraged. We may yet have carriers that have some idea about what
their customer's want, and customers that have some insight into the
real thinking in the telcos!

This is not complaint hour at a DPU hearing microphone, but is a
serious meeting hosted by them at their facilities, and needs
constructive dialog.

Eventually they may broaden the scope to cover other areas (there were
other questions/suggestions), but for now it is leased line DDS and
T1, T3, SONET, Frame Relay, and NRS related issues. Such things as
disaster recovery are appropriate, and there was a presentation on it
in the first meeting.

If you are a Mass. leased lines customer, and think you should be in
this group, get your sales person to track down the Product Manager
and submit your name. This MAY also extend to all of NYNEX's NE area,
ask.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 11:40:49 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Example of the 555 Pseudo-Exchange


You know how whenever they need a phone number in an movie or an ad or
whatever, they use a 555-xxxx number to avoid using a real one by
mistake?  Well, I just saw an interesting extension of that.  An AT&T
rep was here working out the details of an expansion to our System-25
(another 60 extensions, etc) and was giving an example of either
making a call or somebody calling us (I forget which).  What phone
number did she use?  Of course, 555-xxxx!


roy

PS: Nobody else in the group caught it, I don't think.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 15:12:21 est
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Thank You and FYI


I'd like to thank those who helped answer the acronym puzzle.  The
correct answer for WITS seems to be Washington Interagency Telephone
System.

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

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 15:19:11 est
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Headsets: What's Good?


I'm looking at headsets for use on a help desk.  The only ones I'm
looking at presently is Plantronics.

I don't like VOX (always seems to chop the first syllable).  Does
anyone have any advice?  Are there better manufacturers?

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

From: Alastair Reynolds <[e-mail]>
Subject: SLC-96 Request For Information
Date: 13 Mar 91 15:34:22 GMT
Organization: HP, Queensferry Telecomms, Scotland


Can the person who submitted the Explanation on SLC-96 please repost the
excellent article. This will help me understand the background in a
product definition situation.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #202
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14616;
          14 Mar 91 6:03 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19296;
          14 Mar 91 4:38 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15017;
          14 Mar 91 3:34 CST
Date:     Thu, 14 Mar 91 3:30:14 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #203
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 14 Mar 91 03:30:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 203

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Usage-Based Pricing Comes to Atlanta [Michael Klein]
    Help Wanted: Frame Relay / Stratacom Inc. [Juan Manuel Vozmediano Torres]
    Answer Supervision Information Sought [Barton F. Bruce]
    CFP - Telecommunications Policy Research Conference [Nigel Allen]
    Help Needed With NiCads on my Panasonic Cellular [Scott R. Myers]
    Information Needed to Use Call Manager [Walter M. Amos]
    Help Needed Locating Voice/Data Modem [Larry Rachman]
    Did MCI Give me $20? [Barton F. Bruce]
    Cordless Computing Colloquium, West London [Andrew Findlay]
    Local Phone Rates (Ripoff!) [uwm!carroll1.cc.edu!acct069]
    Ring Detection IC Needed [Laird P. Broadfield]
    Still Another Telephone Scam [lrw![e-mail]]
    Cost Information Needed on Phone/Door Entry System [Kevin A. Mitchell]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 09:14:14 EST
From: Michael Klein <blsouth![e-mail]>
Subject: Usage-Based Pricing Comes to Atlanta


Atlanta, home of (one of the) largest local calling areas, now has a
new Southern Bell residential pricing option.

The current base rate is $15.90 per month, which includes unlimited
outgoing local calls. (Of course, no one pays only $15.90. There is
also $1.30 for touchtone, $3.50 for access, making $20.60 plus tax.)

The new option base rate is $7.95 per month, which includes 24 untimed
outgoing calls.  Additional calls over the 24-call allowance cost
$0.12 each (they are also untimed).  Residential customers will thus
save money if they make 90 or fewer calls per month.

This new option has yet to be widely advertised, but it is available
to the public.  The customer service person I spoke with said it has
been available for "about a month."


Michael Klein   BellSouth Telephone Operations
Atlanta, GA     ...!gatech!blsouth!klein

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

From: Juan Manuel Vozmediano Torres <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Wanted: Frame Relay / Stratacom Inc.
Organization: Dept. Ingenieria de Sistemas Telematicos, UPM, Madrid, Spain.
Date: 13 Mar 91 20:07:35


Hi!. I'm very interested on Frame Relay fast packet switching
technology. I'm trying to get documments on this topic for educational
purposes. Would you anybody recommend me any article/tutorial/draft
about this? And, does anybody know Stratacom Inc. (the FR leader)
address (or fax no.)?  Thanks in advance. (Please e-mail).

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answer Supervision Information Sought
Date: 13 Mar 91 03:01:56 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


Does anyone know for sure if an AT&T 85 can detect and use for SMDR
timing purposes answer supervision from the phone company?

First, on ground start trunks, then can they do it on trunks on a T1
(not ISDN, just 24 vanilla trunks)?

If not, is it lack of hardware support, s/w support, or both?

Is anyone getting answer supervision officially (either tariffed or
special assembly) in any NYNEX territory? If so, can you give USOC
codes or any special codes that would plainly identify it?

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

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1991 17:08:00 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: CFP - Telecommunications Policy Research Conference
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto


* Originally posted by [e-mail] (BRIAN KAHIN)
in newsgroup news.announce.conferences


CALL FOR PAPERS


   The Nineteenth Annual
 TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY
    RESEARCH CONFERENCE


         SEPTEMBER 28-30, 1991
         HOLIDAY INN, SOLOMONS, MARYLAND

The Telecommunications Policy Research Conference (TPRC) is an annual
forum for dialogue among scholars engaged in publishable research on
policy-relevant telecommunications issues and public and private
sector decisionmakers engaged in making telecommunications policy.
The purpose of the conference is to acquaint policymakers with the
best of recent research in telecommunications, and to familiarize
researchers with the knowledge needs of policymakers.  TPRC is
soliciting research papers for presentation at its 19th annual
conference. Applications areas include (but are not limited to):

  1)     Intellectual Property
  2)     Cable Television and Local Exchange Carriers
  3)     Children's Television
  4)     International Communications and Comparative Systems
  5)     Content Regulation and First Amendment Issues
  6)     Privacy in Personal Communications
  7)     Networking Standards
  8)     Operations Research Models and Data Networks
  9)     Diversification of the Local Exchange
  10)    Coordination Science and Research Networks
  11)    Incentive Regulation
  12)    Telecommunications and Education

Papers should be based on current research on theoretical and/or
empirical issues relevant to the making of telecommunications policy.
Submissions should consist only of abstracts of the proposed paper,
typewritten, double-spaced, and no more than 250 words. Submissions
must be received no later than April 1, 1991 Please address all
submissions to Conference Coordinator, TPRC, Inc., P.O.  Box 19203,
Washington, D.C. 20036.

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

From: "Scott R. Myers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Needed With NiCads on my Panasonic Cellular
Date: 13 Mar 91 22:34:01 GMT
Organization: Rutgers University


I have a Panasonic Transportable phone.  I know about the problems
associated with NiCads when you try to recharge them before they've
been totally depleted.  How can I discharge the battery beyond the
handset just cutting off.  I figured something like a light bulb and
some leads to connect to the battery terminals but that seems crude
and slow.  Any suggestions.  Thanks in advance...


Scott R. Myers
Snail:    26 Stiles Street    Phone:[phone]
        Apartment 18
    Elizabeth, NJ 07208
Arpa:    [e-mail]    Uucp: ..!dimacs!srm

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

From: "Walter M. Amos" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed to Use Call Manager
Date: 14 Mar 91 02:48:22 GMT
Reply-To: "Walter M. Amos" <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Black Hole


Several months ago, my household was using AT&T's Call Manager to keep
track of billing for long distance calls. Since moving AND living the
nomadic life for a few months, I have forgotten the method of
accessing this feature.  (Something along the lines of dial 0 + ten
digits - <BONG> + xxyy, where xx was a set number indicating Call
Manager and yy was the "account" number.) Can anyone clue me in to the
magic number I've forgotten.

Alternately (and perhaps more cost effectively), does anyone know of a
similar service from alternate LD carriers?

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

Date: 14 Mar 91 07:01:05 GMT
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Needed Locating Voice/Data Modem


Some years ago, I remember reading an ad for a product that provided a
low speed data link simultaneously with a telephone voice circuit. Now
(of course) I need the info and its nowhere to be found.

The product looked like an ordinary modem, and connected between a
telephone set and a phone line. When a voice call was established
between two of these setups, the modems carved out a chunk of the
voice bandpass and used it to pass data, at (as I remember) about 300
baud. At the same time, a voice conversation could allegedly take
place, with the missing bandpass not degrading the quality that
significantly. Of course, the 'standard' used was completely
proprietary; the modems could talk only to each other. Since this was
before Hayes compatibility was universal, they probably weren't even
compatible in that way.

I don't know if that particular company is still around, or if someone
else nowadays has a similar product. Does anyone out there know of
such a product being sold today??


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX     [e-mail]   516-427-8705 (fax)

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Did MCI Give me $20?
Date: 13 Mar 91 02:53:33 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


I have in front of me a check from MCI for $20. If I were to simply
sign it, I would also be signing a permission slip for them to BE my
default carrier.

I have been told that if someone puts on the back of a check something
like "in full payment for denting your fender" that that is NOT part
of the check and can be legally CROSSED OUT before signing.

There is no wording that I as a layman can find to indicate that the
only condition MCI offers the check under is for you to enter into
this little contract with them and that you must agree by signing what
is printed on the back. I am sure MCI hopes you do it.

As far as I can tell, MCI just gave me $20, and I don't need to leave
that permission to switch wording intact.

Can come legal beagle hazzard a guess as to whether I can simply cross
out all that nonsense about switching my service to MCI, and simply
cash the check as payment for being hassled again by King Slammer?

I am also sure there WOULD be a switch, and then a fight about getting
switched back all NOT at my expense, but that will be the fun part.

Better yet, who has tried it?


[Moderator's Note: Legally, you are on shaky grounds. While the courts
have ruled in recent times that 'accord and satisfaction'; i.e. making
some sort of restrictive endorsement on a check, won't legally hold
up, they were talking about cases where payment of less than the full
amount due was tendered as payment in full on an account. I think in
your case, MCI could still hold you to the intent of the matter, and
claim that you had a contract with them. I doubt they would sue you
for the twenty dollars; they might or might not place you with an
agency to try and recover the money.  I think your suggestion is sort
of a chintzy way to try and get something for nothing.   PAT]

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

From: Andrew Findlay <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cordless Computing Colloquium, West London
Date: 13 Mar 91 12:19:14 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK


Cordless Computing
==================

IEE Colloquium on Wednesday 10th April
At the Lecture Centre, Brunel University, Uxbridge, West London, UK
Organised by IEE Professional Group C14

A new class of computing devices is becoming available:  computers that
communicate by radio, infra-red, and ultrasonics are appearing on the
market.  A variety of new applications is made possible by these
devices, ranging from warehouse management to real-time data collection
from remote or mobile equipment.

This colloquium will be of interest to anyone who has a communications
problem that is difficult to solve with conventional `wired back'
equipment.  The whole range of devices will be considered, from
handheld terminals to static radio dataloggers.  Current applications
will be described, including warehouse control, mobile point-of-sale,
and road traffic monitoring.  The state of the relevant European
standards (CT2/CAI and DECT) will be reported.


Chairman: Dr. Andrew Findlay (Brunel University Computer Centre)

10:00        Registration and Coffee

10:30        Introduction

10:40        An overview of factory-scale communications
        Ted Maley, General Manager, Microlise Engineering

11:10        Design considerations for factory radio data terminals
        Speaker from Microlise Engineering

11:40        Radio data terminals in the mail-order business
        Paul Rudge, Book Club Association

12:10        Roving Point Of Sale terminals
        Dan Isaaman, Pipistrel Systems

12:40        LUNCH

14:00        The DECT and CT2/CAI European standards
        Dr David McFarlane, BT Researh Laboratories

14:30        The development and characteristics of PAKNET
        Dr Malcolm Davie, Racal Research

15:00        Road traffic monitoring using PAKNET
        David Martell, General Logistics PLC

15:30        TEA

15:45        Panel session

16:15        CLOSE


Registration fees:

        Member of IEE or kindred society        36.33
        Non-member                              55.33
        Student member                           6.33
        Student non-member                      21.33

The fees cover tea, coffee, lunch, admission to the colloquium, and a copy of
the colloquium digest.

Advance registration is preferred, by calling the IEE Colloquium Office
on 071 240 1871. Registration on the day is also possible.

Uxbridge is about 10 minutes drive north from the Heathrow junction of the
M4 motorway. It can also be reached by Tube.


Andrew Findlay at Brunel University, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH, UK
[e-mail]          phone: [phone] x2512

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

From: Ron <uwm!carroll1.cc.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Local Phone Rates (Ripoff!)
Date: 14 Mar 91 01:44:41 GMT
Reply-To: Ron <uwm!carroll1.cc.edu![e-mail]>
Organization: Lightning Systems, Inc.


Not wanting to start a big discussion on what your phone company
charges for service, but:

I'm wondering if $50.00 a month is a little too high for just having a
phone in the house?

I have unlimited calling within my local area, and since I live in a
so called "fringe" area, I have "metro" service which is a one-way
calling plan so I can place unlimited called to the greater Milwaukee
area.

They officially cut over to Equal-Access today, and now they want to
increase our bills by 32%-38%.

I think it's outrageous and will be attending the PSC hearings to
voice my opinions.


Ron    [e-mail]  or  carroll1![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: My bill for local service from IBT is about $100
per month. Of course, I have loads of features on my lines.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Ring Detection IC Needed
Date: 14 Mar 91 03:44:06 GMT


Can somebody point me toward a ring-detection IC?  I've checked my
recent Harris, Dallas, and SS databooks, and I find lots of Call
Progress Detectors, but what I want is ring-detection.  Preferably for
more that one line per package (I'm thinking 10-20 lines into the
device, maybe even 25 and hook up directly to a 21X termination.)

Thanks!  (P.S.  Do the ICLID ICs coming out these days have a ring
indication line, or do they assume you've got a separate ring-detect
circuit?)

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

Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 19:09:27 EST
From: lrw![e-mail]
Subject: Still Another Telephone Scam


The latest in phone scams occurred this week in New York.  Employees
of a large company with pagers received phone inquiries from 540
numbers, which are billed the same as 900 numbers.  When the number is
called, the customer is automatically charged $55.00.  Employees from
other companies around New York have also been hit by this scam.

Although the company's phone switches are protected from making
outgoing calls on 900 and 540 numbers, the employees may use phones at
customer sites in response to a page.  The New York office has alerted
employees to this scam.  We can expect similar activities in other
areas in the future.

Above provided F.Y.I.

Regards,

Jerry

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

From: "Kevin A. Mitchell" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cost Information Needed on Phone/Door Entry System
Organization: Datalogics, Inc.
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 91 22:05:10 GMT


My condo association is planning one of those entry systems that
causes the telephone to ring in the tenant's unit. There is great
debate about the cost of the phone calls. Does anybody have examples
of apartment buildings that use this system, and how much they pay in
phone calls? Please reply by mail with the costs and the number of
residential and commercial tenants.

For reference, our installation would have 178 residential and 14
commercial tenants (mostly doctors, CPAs, etc) receiving visitors.

We're concerned about the cost and the possible economies of a more
expensive system that patches directly into the phone system.

Thanks.


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


[Moderator's Note: An article in the Digest over a year ago discussed
two types of front door entry systems which work over standard phone
lines. If someone finds it and sends it in I will reprint it; else I
will comment on it in detail in a day or two.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #203
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01901;
          15 Mar 91 23:29 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32292;
          15 Mar 91 21:49 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20853;
          15 Mar 91 20:46 CST
Date:     Fri, 15 Mar 91 20:45:10 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #204
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 15 Mar 91 21:45:05 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 204

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Need Some 'Dynamic Memory' Help [Alan Sanderson]
    Re: Alphanumeric Paging [Derek Andrew]
    Re: 950 Access [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: Home Telephone Tap Detector [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Call Back Modem Needed [Winston Lawrence]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Robert L. Oliver]
    Re: Microwave / Optical Links for Audio [Alan Sanderson]
    Re: Can 50 Conductor Phone Cable be Used For LAN? [Alan Sanderson]
    Re: UK Deregulation - Big News [John Slater]
    Re: Phonefiche Directories [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Where Do You Live? In a Cave? [Mark A. Emanuele]
    Re: The Status of 1+703 Dialing [Carl Moore]
    Re: NXX Count (1-15-91) [Carl Moore]
    Re: Headsets: What's Good? [Al L. Varney]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Alan Sanderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Some 'Dynamic Memory' Help
Date: 15 Mar 91 01:39:02 GMT
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.


Christopher Wolf asks for information regarding dynamic RAM.

I have a few suggestions:

1.  If you have a choice, and modest memory requirements,
    use static RAM.  It is very simple to use.

2.  If you have a large memory requirement, dynamic RAM is
    much less expensive, but does require some additional
    interface circuitry.  Most newer parts can operate in
    a mode which provides "automatic refresh" - in which
    you provide a CAS before RAS sequence, and the part
    keeps track of its own refresh address.

3.  Get the memory data book from the part manufacturer.
    It will provide timing specifications, sample circuits,
    and application suggestions.  Many parts from different
    vendors are interchangeable.  Possible sources:
    NEC, Hitachi, Samsung, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD),
    Texas Instruments (TI).

4.  If you are using a microprocessor, it will normally have
    a way to generate a refresh signal.  Look at its timing
    diagrams.  Check out the schematics of a PC clone or
    similar piece of equipment.  For DRAM, you will have
    to demultiplex the row and column addresses for the
    memory at appropriate times.  DRAM controllers are
    available, but are not necessary if you can generate
    the appropriate signals with a few gates and flip-flops,
    or a PAL (if you have a method to program it).
    Have fun with your project.  You should learn a lot
    from the attempt.


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: Derek Andrew <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alphanumeric Paging
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskatchewan, Canada
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 16:02:04 GMT


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail].
dec.com (John R. Covert):

>> 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?".

You are both correct. The first implementation of alphanumeric paging
at our location worked similar to the above method. It was upgraded
and now you must enter special codes and compute a checksum for each
message. It is too inconvenient to try to compute and enter this
checksum from an ascii terminal.


Derek Andrew, Manager of Computer Network & Technical Services
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskachewan, Canada, S7N 0W0
[e-mail], [phone],  52 11 23N 106 48 48W
 ...and they that weave networks, shall be confounded. - Isaiah 19:9

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1991 10:08:32 EST
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 950 Access


I don't know where University of Nebraska is located, or what kind of
switch their CO has, but here at UNH, admittedly in the wilds of NH,
Durham's #5 crossbar does not route 950 numbers.  Apparently it
doesn't understand them.  (The CO only went equal access a few months
ago -- in a perhaps related manner, it does not do direct-dial for
international calls, either.)  Since we have our own PBX, we solved
the problem by routing 950-numbers over various FX lines to more
advanced switches.  It costs us a minimal amount of money -- probably
two or three cents per minute in lost revenue for a toll call that
can't use the FX line while the 950 call is on, but the volume of such
calls is low, and we feel it's a good service to offer.

Since we have T-1, we also offer IDDD, which confuses some of the Durham
residents who live on campus!.


Kath Mullholand        UNH, Durham NH

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

From: Jeff Carroll <![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home Telephone Tap Detector
Date: 15 Mar 91 00:01:23 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


In article <[e-mail]> Kevin Boyd <8156boydk@vmsd.
csd.mu.edu writes:

> 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.

    Mode one is cake to anyone familiar with Ohm's Law. Mode two
sounds like the "sing-around" method of detecting wireless bugs, which
I remember reading about some time ago somewhere (if I can remember
where, I'll post - Gordon Liddy's "Will", maybe?)

    Modes three and four sound like either b___sh__ or a method of
defeating particular well-known bug designs. I can't imagine any
general way to provide the functionality described.

    Opinions? Well, IMHO, you could probably duplicate the
functionality of modes one and two for $25 worth of parts and an
afternoon at the library. As for modes three and four, I'd ask for a
demonstration...


Jeff Carroll  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Call Back Modem Needed
From: Winston Lawrence <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 13:10:01 EST
Organization: The Dorsai Diplomatic Mission


 From [e-mail] (Steven M Harclerode):

> I am searching for a modem that will call back a pre-assigned phone
> number when it is called. I am looking for it in regards to trying to
> make a dial link more secure by having the local end call a modem. The
> modem answers, then hangs up and calls the preprogramed number to run
> the communication over.

There is a unit called the secure access multiport (SAM) manufactured
by a company named LEEMAH we have two of these units at work that have
never been used primarily because of a) the need for someone to
actively manage the device (check reports, change numbers e.t.c) b)
The need for users to switch their modem from originate to answer to
use the device, and c) A number of users need access from a wide
variety of locations.

Also, with any device that does this type of thing you would want the
incoming and outgoing lines separate otherwise the caller might hold
the line (by not hanging up) and the device is then fooled into
thinking it called a new number when in fact the line has never been
released.

My 1984 technical manual for the SAM does not list a phone number or
address for LEEMAH or I would include that information here.

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

From: "Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: Rabbit Software Corp.
Date: 15 Mar 91 00:12:25 GMT


Thought I'd add some interesting information: all of the literature
which I receive regarding my AT&T Universal Card uses the following
phone number formats: For standard phone numbers, they use
(NPA) NXX-XXXX For their 800 numbers, they use 800 XXX-XXXX.

Interesting.  I suppose what they're trying to indicate is that the
area code is optional if you're WITHIN the NPA, while the 800 is
always required, and thus a non-optional part of the number.


Robert Oliver
Rabbit Software Corp.        215 993-1152
7 Great Valley Parkway East     [e-mail]
Malvern, PA  19355        ...!uunet!cbmvax!hutch!robert

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

From: Alan_Sanderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Microwave / Optical Links for Audio
Date: 15 Mar 91 21:30:12 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: Alan_Sanderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can 50 Conductor Phone Cable be Used For LAN?
Date: 15 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: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: UK Deregulation - Big News
Date: 15 Mar 91 18:00:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems UK


In article <[e-mail]>, tuvie!iiasa.local!wnp@
relay.eu.net (Wolf PAUL) writes:

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

|> ) Good news on the whole, I feel.

|> Your last sentence above does not sound so good to me.

Why not? More competition should bring LD charges down further. And
BT's last big monopoly, dialtone, is ripe for being opened up.

|> 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?

Simple: in the Bad Old Days the P.O. was a monopoly provider of
telecoms service. Now they'll be one of many LD providers, and the
government would like to introduce competition in the mail sector too.

|> On a different note: what exactly are "lifetime telephone numbers"?

The idea is that you are given (or, for more money, you choose) a
phone number which you carry with you for the rest of your life,
wherever you go in the country. Nice idea, but a nightmare to
administer, I fear. And the days of looking at the STD code to
determine where a number is located are numbered.  It's going to be
hard to work out what the charge will be for a given number.


John Slater
Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: Jeff Carroll <![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phonefiche Directories
Date: 15 Mar 91 03:35:59 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> 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.

    My understanding is that Southwestern Bell and possibly one or
two other LECs have refused to release this information to UMI, or
indeed to anyone else. The obvious implication is that Phonefiche is
not a universal solution.

    My personal experience is that Phonefiche is in general not as
good a solution to the problem as the roomful of phone books. My
problems with Phonefiche fall into three general categories:

1)    Knowing which fiche to look at for a phone number located
in an obscure suburb or outlying area. (Yes, Phonefiche comes with a
little cross-reference index booklet, but those easily get lost at
your typical public library.)

2)    Needing a phone number in a small, isolated rural community.
(The roomful of phonebooks was usually more complete in this regard;
in my experience, about 70% of cases I was interested in were
covered. With Phonefiche the percentage is considerably lower.)

3)    Needing a number in one of Phonefiche's geographical "holes",
mentioned above.

    In summary, if I need a phone number in a remote community, I
try to wait until I'm at the Seattle Public Library, which still has a
large collection of paper phone books.


Jeff Carroll   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Emanuele)
Subject: Re: Where Do You Live? In a Cave?
Date: 15 Mar 91 19:15:11 GMT
Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc.


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

> Also, when a person dials 411, a message announcing the new area codes
> could be played instead of the current one.

That is JUST what NJB is doing for the 201/908 changeover. After a while
it gets to be a pain in the a**, but I SURE wwill NOT forget the new AC.


Mark A. Emanuele   V.P. Engineering  Overleaf, Inc.
218 Summit Ave   Fords, NJ 08863    [phone]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 13:31:07 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Status of 1+703 Dialing


Responding to article by Greg Monti (forwarded by John Covert):

It is noted that Leesburg (Va.), which is in the Culpeper LATA, is
being added to extended-area calling to/from Va. suburbs (Washington
DC area).  Notice that Herndon-Leesburg calling was already local.

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 17:32:05 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NXX Count (1-15-91)


Arnold Robbins <[e-mail]> writes:

> I was in college in NYC in 1978 when it was just being introduced
> there...

In reference to 1+NPA+7D for out-of-area calls, right?  That was done
in late 1980 when NYC (then only in area 212) had to prepare for
N0X/N1X prefixes.  (Did John Lennon ever hear of this before his
death?)

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

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 91 13:53:14 CST
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Headsets: What's Good?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> I'm looking at headsets for use on a help desk.  The only ones I'm
> looking at presently is Plantronics.

> I don't like VOX (always seems to chop the first syllable).  Does
> anyone have any advice?  Are there better manufacturers?

Well, better is in the mind of the user ... but I've been happy with
the UNEX (not UNIX(tm)) Ventel headset.  They are at:

  UNEX  (A DYNATECH COMPANY)
  27 Industrial Ave.
  Chelmsford, MA  01824
  [phone]          <- their format, not mine :-)

Headsets available:
 Ventel I    Over-the-ear eartip unit
 Ventel II   Over-the-ear foam earbud
 Ventel III  One ear muff
 Ventel IV   Two ear muffs
 Ventel V    One or 2 ultralight ear muff (Walkman(tm) style)
              (I have 2 ears, so I use the 2-ear version)

 Microphones are noise-cancelling, left or right side.

 Headsets connect to:

   Operator/Supervisor Amplifier -- "traditional" 2-prong or modular plug

   Desk Amplifier -- connects phone to headset and handset, allows switching
                     between them during a call.

   Electronic Telephone Headset Amp. -- compatible with a range of non-carbon
                     handset phones, such as AT&T Merlin, 7303, etc. and
                     other vendors of telephones.


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #204
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03948;
          16 Mar 91 1:24 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04065;
          15 Mar 91 23:53 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13555;
          15 Mar 91 22:50 CST
Date:     Fri, 15 Mar 91 22:05:31 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #205
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 15 Mar 91 22:05:20 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 205

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Northern Telecom in General [Julian Macassey]
    Re: 800/950 vs 10xxx [Blake Farenthold]
    Re: 800/950 vs 10xxx [Jack Dominey]
    Re: Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connection [Joseph Tucker]
    Re: How do I Set-up Caller*ID? [Eric Skinner]
    Re: Maestro Phones From Northern Telecom [Eric Skinner]
    Re: Cellular Telephones on a Bicycle [Nicholas J. Simicich]
    Re: Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connection [John Higdon]
    Re: Information Wanted on Combination DID/DOD Trunk [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Calling an Out-of-Area 800 Number [Charles Bryant]
    Re: Alphanumeric Pagers [Laird P. Broadfield]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Northern Telecom in General
Date: 15 Mar 91 15:07:58 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: Invisible Tatoos Inc  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 197, Message 7 of 7

> 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.
 ...
> What strikes me most is how much this telephone resembles Western
> Electric equipment.  Did NT buy WE tooling or parts at some point?

    Northern Telecom (NT) at one time was called Canadian Bell;
their R & D division was and still is as I recall called Bell Northern
Research (BNR). This accounts for the similarities between US and
Canadian Telco equipment and practices.

    Many companies make clones of Western Electric (AT&T) 500 and
2500 sets. 500 sets are rotary desk phones and yes, 2500 sets are the
Touch Tone model. I am not sure if Western Electric ever receieved
royalties on their phone designs. I know they get royalties on the
modular plugs - or used to when I was buying them.

    The following companies make 500 and 2500 set clones: ITT,
Comdial (Stromberg Carlson), Northern Telecom. Then there are the
Korean clones usually imported by Vodavi, these are often labelled
Premier.


Julian Macassey, n6are  [e-mail]  ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 22:54:21 CST
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800/950 vs 10xxx


[e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce) in discussing 10xxx access
points out with respect to call agrigators:

> 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.

What about 10xxx011 <country code> <city code> <number>?  This is the
problem with a "simple" scheme to allow 10xxx0 access, you can make
international calls and the accounting software and blocking software
in cocots and hotels gags.  As I understand it some companies have been
burned by this and this is one of the arguments delaying universal
10xxx0 access. They have to keep checking digits after the zero and a
lot of older hardware just doesn't do it.

I make no comment abuyt the potential to take out revenge on your
favorite COCOT by trying this.


UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake
Internet: [e-mail]

Blake Farenthold         | Voice: 800/880-1890     |    MCI: BFARENTHOLD
1200 MBank North         |   Fax: [phone]     |    CIS: 70070,521
Corpus Christi, TX 78471 |   BBS: 512/882-1899     |  GEnie: BLAKE

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Mar 15 09:01:10 EST 1991
Subject: 800/950 vs 10xxx


In TELECOM Digest V11 #199, Ralph W. Hyre <[e-mail]>
writes:

> 950 and 800 (feature group B) access give me greater control over
> billing than 10XXX implementations, since I can enter an account #
> to bill the call to.

This is called "making a virtue of necessity."  Using 10xxx makes
billing to another account *optional*; 950/800 access *requires* the
user to input an account of some kind - even if it's the account that
belongs to the phone in use.

> Additionally, one of my 950-based carriers doesn't have the $.75
> surcharge for using the card - I just pay the per/minute rate.

This, on the other hand, is a real advantage - albeit not one that's
inherent in using 950/800 access.  Remember too that there are some
circumstances where you can avoid card surcharges from larger
carriers.  AT&T's Reach Out billing plan includes this as an option.


Jack Dominey   AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA
v:404-496-6925 AT&T Mail: !dominey

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 09:40 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connection


Is it possible to take a phone that only has pulse dialing and convert
it to tone dialing?


Joseph Tucker


[Moderator's Note: Well, sure it is. You would open the phone,
disconect the dial and associated wires, yank it out and insert a
touch tone pad there instead. Of course, the shell would not fit
correctly since the cut out on the rotary dial phone is round, and the
cut out you'll be needing is square. Why bother, given the inexpensive
and high quality touchtone phones on the market?  I could walk from
home to the Radio Shack, buy a phone and bring it back quicker than I
could modify an old dial phone.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 10:50:16 EST
From: Eric Skinner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How do I Set-up Caller*ID?


In TELECOM Digest V11 #198, [e-mail] writes:

> 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.

Interestingly, I had a friend in Montreal who was receiving a large
number of *harassment* calls, and Montreal police refused to do
anything about it.  Bell Canada refused to do anything, saying it was
completely the police's responsibility.  The police's line was that
since they were "too busy," they did nothing about harassment calls
unless "physical harm" was "explicitly threatened."

The solution was to switch phone numbers ($27.00) and get an unlisted
number ($4.00/month or so).  We were not impressed.


Eric Skinner               [e-mail]
University of Ottawa       [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 11:04:44 EST
From: Eric Skinner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Maestro Phones From Northern Telecom


In TELECOM Digest Volume 11, Issue 199, Andrew Farmer <afd@aficom.
ocunix.on.ca> writes:

> 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".

Just the other day I received a collect call from a local payphone.  I
would have expected it to display "Unknown" as the call was placed
through the operator, but instead, the display was "Long Distance."
Go figure.

About a week ago I spoke with someone at Bell Canada customer service
about the fact that Caller*ID (here, at least) displays the actual
originating phone number, instead of the billing phone number (ie. it
might display any of a company's actual trunk numbers).  She recorded
my complaint, and indicated that "changes" to Caller*ID's
implementation were forthcoming in June, but would not give me any
further details.


Eric Skinner                                [e-mail]
University of Ottawa                                  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Probably the reason it said 'long distance' was
because the payphone was a COCOT, and the Alternate Operater
Disservice involved in handling the collect call was not really an
Operator, and they splashed the call via DDD from some other location.
Your telco saw it coming in from another LATA as just a regular call.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 11:29:15 EST
From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephones on a Bicycle
Reply-To: Nick Simicich <[e-mail]>


I mentioned this in email to the originator, but for the route they
want to travel, cellular phones are a really bad idea.  There will be
lots of dead spots where people will be cut off.  They would be better
off renting VHF radios or using CB's, as Rick Zellich suggested.
Besides, do they really want to dial a bunch of numbers and pay two
airtime fees every time the bike at the front of the pack wants to
call the bike at the back of the pack?  They won't have any broadcast
capability, either, so if the manager wants to broadcast to all of the
workers, it will mean a bunch of separate calls.

I think that they just want to key a mike and say who they are talking
to, and then talk.

Having cellular phones in the cars to call EMS or the police would be
a good idea.  But to use them for primary communication sounds really
bad.


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

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 11:20 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connection


"Ronald T. Crocker" <motcid![e-mail]> writes:

> 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.

Yes, they did. All number transmission was "rotary" based on IMTS.
When you would come "off hook" on your mobile unit, it would look for
an idle channel that was in operation. With IMTS, there were not many.
When the mobile found a channel with idle tone, it would key up and
identify itself by "dialing" its assigned phone number for the base
system. Dialing consisted of a tone that was frequency shifted once
for each pulse. It sounded like a series of "tweedles".

If your mobile number was valid, the system would return dial tone.
Your call was placed using the rotary dial provided. However, instead
of using hard wire to send DC pulses, it used that frequency shifted
tone. The dial would come off home and the tone would begin. As the
dial returned, each pulse would be represented by a shift in the
tone's frequency. A person monitoring the line could easily determine
the dialed number.

For the record, there was another way calls could be rotary dialed
without hard wire. Many LD tandems used to respond to pulses of 2600
Hz and would complete calls based on numbers "dialed" in this manner.
Hence, 2600 Hz would serve as both supervisory and signaling carrier.
It was called "SF" (single frequency).


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Information Wanted on Combination DID/DOD Trunk
Date: 15 Mar 91 09:35:09 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


>> I am now attempting to get a combination inbound DID trunk with
>> outbound dialling. I don't really care about passing the PBX extension

In many places DID trunks are ONLY incoming. They have to let the CO
outpulse or tone the last N digits of the dialed number so the PBX
knows which station to ring.

Priced the way they are here, to protect the really over priced
Centrex service, you certainly don't want to waste any of these for
out going traffic.

The first ten or so cost $80 each. All beyond that are $40. A normal
two-way ground start trunk is $20.

BUT there is now a way to get two-way DID trunks at somewhat better
pricing depending on your mileage from the CO:

If they are ordered as a package delivered on T1, you get two-way
service.  TT is in there too. If you only want 15, tough, you still
pay the same as for 24.

There is a fixed component, and a mileage component. Now that
CO-LOCATION is happening, and nice folks like Met Fiber charge a flat
$425 to ferry a T1 ANYWHERE they cover in Metro Boston, there is a
mileage insensitive option.

Of course as soon as Teleport provides an alternate source of
dialtone, we may even get answer supervision and ALL other reasonable
requests simply by asking - eventually even from the RBOCs.

If your switch can do T1, and the CO is ESS, ask about two-way DID
trunks!

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

From: [e-mail] (Charles Bryant)
Subject: Re: Calling an Out-of-Area 800 Number
Organization: Datacode Communications Ltd, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 16:25:06 GMT


It's a bit late now for such a major change, but it seems to me that
one solution would be to make 1-800 a prefix to a normal number. If
you leave off the 1-800 you get through to the same line but the
caller is charged. That would also allow callers from outside the US
to get through. I assume it is not possible to dial a free number
outside of one's own country.

BTW Ireland also uses 1-800 to introduce free calls, but this is
relatively recent. The previous procedure was to call 10 and ask for
`Freefone FooBar'. Note that 10 is just the normal operator number.

And while I'm here, I dislike the +353 1 XXXXXX notation for my phone
number. It should be possible to put in optional spaces for
legibility: +353-1-XXX XXX and they should not be the same as the
character separating the area code from the country code and local
number to avoid confusion and to allow for two-level area codes or
some such thing.


Charles Bryant ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Alphanumeric Pagers
Date: 15 Mar 91 04:05:02 GMT


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

> 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 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.

There *is* a semi-standard for this, usually referred to as the "iXO"
protocol.  It apparently originated at, or in conjunction with, a
company called iXO Inc. in Manhattan Beach, CA.  The document I have
is a faded copy, dated 1986, purporting to be from Motorola's Paging
Division to iXO, discussing final changes to the "Automatic Paging
Protocol".

I got my copy from one paging vendor (now defunct) and have had at
least two others (including Pathetic*Bell Paging) tell me that they
support it.

Unfortunately, both of the above outfits only support the protocol for
loading messages for ALPHAnumeric pagers (due apparently solely to a
mental block) so you can't computer-send even numeric-only messages to
numeric-only pagers.

(I saw another message go by in which the writer mentioned typing "M"
and entering an interactive mode.  This is explained in the iXO
document as the way to enter "manual operation", so it appears he was
seeing an iXO protocol as well.)

Also worth noting is that SkyPager *does* have computer entry of
pages, but *not* anything that would be easy to write an
automated-entry program for.  Also, you have to ask about 30 different
people at SkyPager before any of them will admit to this capability.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #205
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05166;
          16 Mar 91 2:33 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17476;
          16 Mar 91 0:57 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04065;
          15 Mar 91 23:53 CST
Date:     Fri, 15 Mar 91 23:27:26 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #206
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 15 Mar 91 23:27:03 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 206

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Did MCI Give me $20? [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Did MCI Give me $20? [Richard Lerner]
    Re: Did MCI Give me $20? [Gary W. Sanders]
    Re: Did MCI Give me $20? [Tim Irvin]
    Re: Did MCI Give me $20? [Henry Mensch]
    Re: Can You Disable Call-Waiting AFTER the Call Starts? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Debit Phone Cards in NZ [Charlie Lear]
    Re: Voice Recognition Experiment [Frederick Roeber]
    Re: Voice Recognition Experiment [Marion Hakanson]
    Re: Information Needed to Use Call Manager [Ravinder Bhumbla]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 11:26 PST
Subject: Re: Did MCI Give me $20?


> I think your suggestion is sort of a chintzy way to try and get
> something for nothing.   PAT]

Of course it is, but the real question is whether such sales
techniques are deceptive.  It's been done before.  Usually the
conditions are in fine-print grey tones on the back of the check.  The
offering company is counting on your greed, stupidity, and that you'll
deposit the check without realizing what the conditions are.

Frankly, I think that they should lose the $20 times the number of
checks they sent out.  I sure wish I'd get one of those for the line
that I use for incoming only.

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1991 18:15-EST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Did MCI Give me $20?


[e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce) argues that he can cash the
$20 check from MCI without giving them permission to change his Dial-1
service.

Lets be reasonable here!  MCI makes its intent clear.  It wants to
give you $20 "cash" to change to MCI, rather than giving rebates on
some future bill.  Why do you want to pervert this promotion on some
legal technicality?  Do you really think that wasting peoples' time
fighting to have your Dial-1 restored "all NOT at [your] expense" is
reasonable?  It is arguments like these that make the US one of the
most litigious countries.  You would rather have MCI spend its money
on promotion lawyers, and have your local phone company waste its
resources on your "fun", than on improving the phone system.

> I am also sure there WOULD be a switch, and then a fight about
> getting switched back all NOT at my expense, but that will be    the
> fun part.

Yuck!

I happen to be a Sprint customer and do not approve of MCI's alleged
slamming.


Rick Lerner ([e-mail])  Carnegie Mellon University

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

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 91 08:26:52 EST
From: Gary W Sanders <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did MCI Give me $20?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> I have in front of me a check from MCI for $20. If I were to simply
> sign it, I would also be signing a permission slip for them to BE my
> default carrier.

I think everyone in the world is getting the MCI checks ... the check
says if you sign you agree to the switch plus any local telco charges.
What happens if you don't sign and cash the check? I very seldom sign
checks that I deposit via an ATM. I wonder if I get my $20?  I'll bet
MCI would still try to switch me. Being an AT&T employee I don't want
that now, do I ...


Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio
[e-mail]         614-860-5965

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

From: Tim Irvin <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Did MCI Give me $20?
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 10:12:07 -0500


In TELECOM Digest V11 #203, Barton F. Bruce writes:

> I have in front of me a check from MCI for $20. If I were to simply
> sign it, I would also be signing a permission slip for them to BE my
> default carrier.

I always understood that the law was that if anyone sends you
something through the mail unsolicited, you are free to keep it as a
gift with no strings attached no matter what might be implied in the
mailing.

I used this to my advantage a few years ago when a credit card
protection company sent me numerous $5 checks.  I was to write my
credit card number on the back of the check, sign it, and cash it.  I
would then be signed up for their protection.  I simply wrote "NO
THANK YOU" on the line for the credit card number and cashed them.
(After eight or nine of these - I'm on a lot of mailing lists - it was
a rather nice gift.)  Each time they would mail the cashed check back
to me with the checking account number on the bottom cut out (so it
couldn't be re-cashed I assume), and remind me that I had forgotten to
give them my credit card number.  I would just throw these away and I
never heard back from them again.

Someone who has experience with the law might want to let us know what
the legal issues of this may be.  But for now anything that comes in
my mail unsolicited I will be more than happy to take.  I hope MCI
gets the same mailing lists that the credit card protection service
got.  I'd love eight or nine free $20 checks :).  Unfortunately, I am
already signed up with MCI as a 10XXX carrier on both my lines, and
they probably are removing current customers from this promotion
(would be kind of pointless).


Tim Irvin


[Moderator's Note: The legal issue is, very simply that they did NOT
 -- contrary to your assertion -- send you 'something of value
unsolicited in the mail which you are free to keep'. Unsolicited, yes.
They sent you a contract; asked you to sign it; and offered to pay you
on the spot if you would sign it. By tampering with the negotiable
instrument enclosed, you commited fraud.  The Credit Card Protection
people -- likewise a scam perpetrated on innocent consumers -- can sue
you to recover their money if they like. They probably won't, but in
any event, you are now listed as a mail order deadbeat with at least a
few companies.  I hope you got something nice with the $40 you made in
the process.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 06:30:34 -0500
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did MCI Give me $20?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Barton F. Bruce <[e-mail]> writes:

> I have been told that if someone puts on the back of a check something
> like "in full payment for denting your fender" that that is NOT part
> of the check and can be legally CROSSED OUT before signing.

If you find a bank that will accept a check modified like this then
you are in good shape.  These banks just don't exist (you see, they're
not in a position to verify that the modification is approved by the
drawer of the check ... moreover, they're not interested, since
there's more money to be made by accepting check deposits which do not
carry qualified or conditional endorsements).

> [Moderator's Note: ... I think your suggestion is sort
> of a chintzy way to try and get something for nothing.   PAT]

Basically, this is true, IMHO.  Fighting sleaze with slime is a tactic
of dubious utility.

If you really *must* have the twenty dollars, you could deposit the
check and then close down the phone service they would switch to MCI.
of course, not everyone is in a position to do this.


# 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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can You Disable Call-Waiting AFTER the Call Starts?
Date: 14 Mar 91 13:59:02 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Mc
Mahan) writes:

> 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.".

In New Jersey, the subscriber must subscribe to the feature that
allows disabling of call-waiting for this to work.  This is a feature
that may be ordered and priced separately from call waiting.

If disable call waiting is purchased, then the subscriber may disable
call waiting on an established call by flashing the switchhook, and
dialing *70, and may then expect to be reconnected with the call that
was in progress.


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


[Moderator's Note:  Illinois Bell gives *70 for free.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Debit Phone Cards in NZ
Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ
Date: 14 Mar 91 23:16:09 NZD (Thu)
From: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> Richard Stephen asserts:
(quoting Ben Kinchant)

>> 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.

Au contraire. They are complete, accurate and impartial. In my
opinion.

> 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.

That, Sir, is absolute garbage. I find it absolutely appalling that
someone concerned with corporate strategy within NZ Telecom would even
think of posting that without making a token effort to verify "the
facts" (as you understand them).

You see, I happen to be one of the users of the NZ Telecom network.
And having blown my last $5.00 cash on a phone card to make an
emergency call from Auckland to Wellington (since there were no
old-fashioned coin phones anywhere) I can tell you that I was not
amused at being cut off three minutes and forty seconds into my call.

I just took the liberty of phoning the toll operator, who being a most
helpful and obliging sort, found the rates immediately.

Wellington-Auckland full rate:    76c/minute
    "        "     coin phone:    90c/minute
    "        "     card phone: $1.60/first minute, $1.20/min thereafter

"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.

There is, Richard. At over 210% the nominal full rate (a staggering
701% of the night rate) you bet there is considerable anguish.

Especially among those who can't afford a private phone and are
dependent on callboxes to keep in touch. Just how many million is
Telecom spending in its current "cute-animals-on-TV" advertising
campaign again?  Perhaps if Telecom spent more on what people want and
less on propaganda we might all be a little happier with NZ Telecom's
service.


Charlie Lear  [e-mail]

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

From: Frederick Roeber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Recognition Experiment
Date: 15 Mar 91 06:35:46 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
writes:

> The Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology is building a
> huge database of voices as part of a project to develop voice
> recognition for US West directory assistance.

> They want to be able to classify sounds according to regional
> differences, and they need thousands of samples of speech to do this.

> Call 800-441-1037 (I assume this is nationwide ... it may not be) and
> follow the voice prompts.  They will ask your last name, where you are
> calling from, and where you grew up, and then ask you to pronounce
> several words and recite the alphabet.

How available will this information be?  Gee, I can think of lots of
*really* *neat* *uses* for a database of people's voices connected
with their names, current cities, and cities of birth.  (Re: current
cities: I think most people will call from home or work.)

Maybe I'm too paranoid, but were I able to call, I think I'd leave out
my name.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Marion Hakanson)
Subject: Re: Voice Recognition Experiment
Date: 15 Mar 91 20:14:59 GMT
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
writes:

> The Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology is building a
> huge database of voices as part of a project to develop voice
> recognition for US West directory assistance.

Hey, neat, the speech guys here will be glad to know folks all over
are calling in.  I thought I'd contribute a little second-hand info on
the (telephone) technology involved.  First, I hear it was a, um,
challenge to get a USWest 800-number into our location (GTE
territory).  I'm not sure how that was resolved.

> [Moderator's Note: The number works from Chicago, and I gave my
> specimen yesterday. It does take just a couple minutes, and it was
> fun. I suggest everyone provide a specimen, and be sure to mention on
> the tape you read about their efforts in TELECOM Digest!   PAT]

Uh, it's not a tape.  They first had a scheme which used a modified
answering machine wired up to a DSP board in a workstation.  This
didn't work too well, but along came an off-the-shelf magic box (I
think they have two now) which has a phone connector on one "side" and
a SCSI connector on the other.  I hear there's a PC inside of it, and
some DSP magic (16-bit sampling?), and it's made by a company called
Gradient Technologies.  If you want more details, I'll have to track
down the folks in the know and let them type at you.

About the only thing I have to add is that they sure do fill up a lot
of disks with their speech samples.  They also use up a lot of Exabyte
tapes for backups, and they soak up plenty of SPARC cycles, as well.


Marion Hakanson         Domain: [e-mail]
                        UUCP  : {hp-pcd,tektronix}!ogicse!hakanson

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

From: Ravinder Bhumbla <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed to Use Call Manager
Date: 15 Mar 91 00:49:20 GMT
Reply-To: Ravinder Bhumbla <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, San Diego


"Walter M. Amos" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Several months ago, my household was using AT&T's Call Manager to keep
> track of billing for long distance calls. Since moving AND living the
> nomadic life for a few months, I have forgotten the method of
> accessing this feature.  (Something along the lines of dial 0 + ten
> digits - <BONG> + xxyy, where xx was a set number indicating Call
> Manager and yy was the "account" number.) Can anyone clue me in to the
> magic number I've forgotten.

Ok.  Here is how it works on AT&T (I don't know about other long-distance
companies).

1. Each roommate selects an individual two-digit code (any number
   between 00 and 99).  If the roommates are born in different
   years, the year of birth is a convenient code

2. For U.S. AT&T long-distance calls,

a) dial: 0 + area code + number (for example 0-619-555-1212)
b) on receiving the <BONG>
   dial: 15nn (where nn is the individual 2 digit code)

   So the entire sequence for the example U.S. long-distance call is:
   0-619-555-1212 <BONG> 15nn

3. For international calls,

a) dial: 01 + country code + city code + number (for example
   01-91-11-670619)
b) on receiving the <BONG>
   dial: 15nn (where nn is the individual 2 digit code)

   So the entire sequence for the example international call is:
   01-91-11-670619 <BONG> 15nn

In your phone bills, the long-distance calls will be sorted by the
two-digit code


Ravinder Bhumbla   [e-mail]    U. of California, San Diego


[Moderator's Note: Does one have to specifically sign-up to use the
Call Manager feature? The reason I ask is I just now made a zero plus
call and and after the gong, entered 15xx, followed by the # to
terminate dialing and speed the process. It was accepted no questions
asked. I wonder what it will look like when billed. Incidentally, I
see that 10732 is still accepting cals from non-subscribers also.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #206
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06455;
          16 Mar 91 3:27 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15352;
          16 Mar 91 2:01 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17476;
          16 Mar 91 0:57 CST
Date:     Sat, 16 Mar 91 0:51:32 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #207
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 16 Mar 91 00:51:23 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 207

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly [Louis Linneweh]
    Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly [Bryan Richardson]
    Re: Update on Rochester; and Telco Monopoly [Wm. Randolph Franklin]
    Re: Still Another Telephone Scam [S. M. Krieger]
    Re: Wanted: Stories of Corporate Toll Fraud [F. E. Carey]
    Re: Help Needed With NiCads on my Panasonic Cellular [Dave Platt]
    Re: Visiting LA From NY w/ Cell Phone [John R. Covert]
    Re: Debit Phone Cards in NZ [[e-mail]]
    Re: New Telephone Numbers for Amsterdam (The Netherlands) [Rop Gonggrijp]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Louis Linneweh <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly
Date: 15 Mar 91 19:45:20 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (Steven S. Brack) writes:

> 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?

In a word: standards.  De facto, perhaps; obsolete, quite often;
archaic occasionally; but usable standards none the less.  For the
public and even for telephony equipment suppliers.  They just couldn't
change the system fast enough toget a marketing advantage.  Hmmmm.

I used to know how to place a long distance call from a pay phone
virtually anywhere in the country.  I used to feel confident my kids
could call me from those same phones.  That is simply no longer true
today.  Sure, a lot of committees could set standards and a lot of
laws could enforce them.  But they don't and they are not effective.

So far the basic telephones have remained compatible.  At least I
haven't called anyone I wasn't able to talk to and hear in return.
But I worry about ISDN, Open Network Architecture, and the burgeoning
features available.  Will I always be able to talk to the person I
called?  OK, I'm exagerating, I suppose.  None the less, I don't
always know how to make a call from a pay phone anymore.  That's a
terrible step backward!

That's my reason for supporting the regulated monopoly of the phone
company.

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

From: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly
Date: 15 Mar 91 14:31:01 GMT
Reply-To: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Purdue University


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> writes:

> [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.

At the risk of sounding like another one of "those AT&T employees," I
thought I'd give a little background on the earthquake and the network
management techniques AT&T used.  Actually, after the earthquake, AT&T
facilities were operating properly, albeit under an extremely heavy
load.  The day after the quake was the busiest day in the AT&T network
ever (at that time).  Most residents of Northern California had
problems completing calls because they couldn't get to the AT&T
network because of failures in the local network.

As regards to intentional blockage, the philosophy is to permit as
many calls as possible OUT of the affected area, while severely
limiting the number of calls INTO the affected area.  Thus,
intentional blockage was used around the rest of the country (to the
tune of 90% of attempts were not allowed to try to complete), while
all calls reaching the AT&T network from the bay area were allowed
through the network.


Bryan Richardson     [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University
Disclaimer:  Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions.

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

From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Update on Rochester; and Telco Monopoly
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 15 Mar 91 20:00:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Curtis E. Reid) writes:

> Front page headline:

>                      "RG&E admits it erred"

>Subheadline:    "Utility underestimated ice's toll"

Funny, that's the same thing that Niagara Mohawk said when Albany NY
was hit by an ice storm on Oct 4 a few years ago.  We had no power for
56 hours, which was about average; some had none for a week.  It took
the power company several days to realize what had hit them.  The
Rochester situation sounds much worse than ours though.

By the way, you can't trust the power company spokesman about when the
power has been restored.  A NiMo spokesman once told our local
newspaper that another blackout had been fixed by such-and-such a
time.  Funny, my lights were still off then.  After the {Albany Times
Union} published my letter of complaint (August 3, 1989) the spokesman
sent me a full page letter saying that when he had talked to the paper
the blackout had been in principle almost completely as good as fixed,
so he had said that it was fixed.  Sounded like PooBah in the Mikado
explaining that when the Mikado ordered something done, it was as good
as done, and so they said that they had done it, though they hadn't.

Please note that these incompetent power companies are all monopolies.
The only way to express dissatisfaction is to buy a generator, which
many people have done, or go to cogeneration if you're big, which RPI
is considering.  If monopoly status would give the phone company
better disaster recovery capabilities, why doesn't this apply to power
companies?

An RPI prof has patented a natural gas powered heater and cogenerator
designed for homes with gas but no power.  It's the obvious solution,
and is thermodynamically efficient, but I don't know its commercial
status.

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

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 12:43:54 EST
From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Still Another Telephone Scam
Organization: Summit NJ


> The latest in phone scams occurred this week in New York.  Employees
> of a large company with pagers received phone inquiries from 540
> numbers, which are billed the same as 900 numbers.  When the number is
> called, the customer is automatically charged $55.00.  Employees from
> other companies around New York have also been hit by this scam.

This is another example of needing a college education, and then some,
to use a telephone nowadays.  Things were really easy when the cost of
a call was based on only time of day, time of the call, and mileage.

Anyway, what makes this more confusing (I have seen the ads for 540
numbers, since most of the TV stations serving 201/908 land are in NY
City) is that they appear to be a NY Telephone invention.  In 201, 540
is a central office code assigned to Morristown, NJ (about 30 air
miles west of NY), so how is someone in 212, 516, 718, or 914 supposed
to know that a seven-digit number, that in some places in this country is
a "normal" phone number, is going to be a high priced call instead of
just a few message units?


Stan Krieger                    All opinions, advice, or suggestions,
AT&T Unix System Laboratories   even if related to my employment, are
Summit, NJ                      are my own and do not represent any
att!attunix!smk                 public or private policies of my employer.

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 02:43:15 EST
From: F E Carey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted: Stories of Corporate Toll Fraud
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


KEITH MAYDAK wrote (on the Telecom Library BBS):

> 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.

Good luck.  Most companies are extremely reluctant to disclose such
losses.  This is one reason that loss estimates range so wildly - from
under a million per year to over a billion a year.

I'd suggest you start with the Communications Fraud Control
Association Rami Aburhamdeh, Executive Director, 7921 Jones Branch
Drive, Suite 300, McLean, VA 22102 (703/848-9768.

Recent court cases are another source of loss info and these should be
public records.  For a recent case see the Leslie Doucette case.  She
was sentenced last summer to 27 months in prison.  She was running
some kind of voice mail fraud scheme.  Sorry I can't give a case
number but it was heard in U.S. District Court in Chicago.  I would
expect the victims to be identified in court records.

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 10:38:36 PST
From: Dave Platt <ntg![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed With NiCads on my Panasonic Cellular
Organization: New Technologies Group, Inc.  Palo Alto CA


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

> I have a Panasonic Transportable phone.  I know about the problems
> associated with NiCads when you try to recharge them before they've
> been totally depleted.  How can I discharge the battery beyond the
> handset just cutting off.  I figured something like a light bulb and
> some leads to connect to the battery terminals but that seems crude
> and slow.  Any suggestions.  Thanks in advance...

What you've suggested is crude and slow ... and, if you're talking
about a typical NiCd battery pack, it can damage the cells.

The _only_ safe ways to discharge NiCd cells are either [a] one at a
time, or [b] with the cells connected in parallel.  In either case, a
light bulb or a resistor does a fine job.  This is easy to do if you
have single 1.2-volt cells (e.g. AA or C or D size); you can home-brew
up a discharging fixture with a battery holder, light, and resistor
from Radio Shack.

Discharging NiCd cells that are connected in series (e.g. when they
are wired up in a battery pack) is a BAD idea.  The reason is that
it's quite common for one cell in the pack to have slightly less
capacity than another (manufacturing differences, etc.).  If you try
to discharge the battery all the way to zero, the weakest cell will
reach zero volts while the other cells are still "live".  As the
remaining cells continue to discharge, the current will be flowing
through the dead cell ... in effect, trying to "charge" it in reverse
(as if you'd put the cell into a charger backwards).

This will damage the cell ... it may lose some of its ability to store
electricity, and/or develop an internal short.  Because the cell has
been weakened, it will run down even sooner the next time you use it
 ...  and if you then attempt to drain the whole battery, you'll damage
the weakened cell even sooner.  Eventually the cell may short itself
completely, and your battery pack's output will be 1.2 volts below
what it should be ... your phone will probably reject it.

It's true that some NiCd cells have been shown to exhibit a "memory"
effect, if you repeatedly discharge them to an identical point and
then recharge them.  I've heard that modern NiCd batteries have pretty
much eliminated the memory effect.  In real-world use, the memory
effect is likely to do much less damage to the cells in your battery
than over-discharging them will.

NiCd cells have a very flat voltage output ... they deliver very close
to 1.2 volts until they've almost completely discharged, at which
point the voltage drops off very rapidly.  This is unlike the behavior
of lead-acid, carbon-zinc, and alkaline batteries, whose output
voltages drop off more gradually and smoothly as they discharge.

Well-designed NiCd-powered equipment will detect the voltage dropoff,
and will shut down immediately to avoid over-discharging the cells and
damaging the battery pack.  So, your best bet is probably to keep a
spare well-charged NiCd battery with your phone.  When the phone
reports "Low battery" and shuts down, it means that the battery you've
been using has only about 5% of its capacity left and should _not_ be
discharged further.  You can then swap in the new battery, and
recharge the old one without worrying about the memory effect.


Dave Platt    VOICE: [phone]    UUCP: ...apple!ntg!dplatt
USNAIL: New Technologies Group Inc. 2468 Embarcardero Way, Palo Alto CA 94303

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 12:38:32 PST
From: "John R. Covert  15-Mar-1991 1524" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Visiting LA From NY w/ Cell Phone


> I do not believe Rochester Tel has any agreements with PacTel or
> Cellular One.

According to the Cellular Telephone Directory published by
Communications Publishing Service in Seattle (orders taken at 800
366-6731), Rochester Telephone Mobile Communications has a roaming
agreement with PacTel Cellular.

There is no "Cellular One" in L.A.; the "A" carrier is "Los Angeles
Cellular Telephone", which has one of the shortest lists of roaming
agreements of any cellular carrier in the book.

PacTel's roaming rates are not bad, but the last time I was out there
they were one of the lousy companies I'll never make LD calls on,
because I won't DTMF my calling card number over the air.

Both L.A. carriers charge 1/2 minute of airtime for all incomplete
calls.

In fact, in California, the PUC has determined that rates will be
identical for both carriers in L.A.

These rates are $50 signup (the PacTel Rep I spoke to on 800 851-9815
was somewhat uncertain about that) and $45/month with .45 peak and .27
off-peak.  Peak is 7a-7p.  There's also an off-peak plan for $25/month
with peak at .90 and off-peak at .20.

If you're going to use the phone mostly off-peak and don't care about
the no-long-distance calls except by credit card problem, roaming
rates are no daily fee, peak .70 and off-peak .27.


john

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Debit Phone Cards in NZ
Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecom Corporation of New Zealand
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1991 22:59:21 GMT


Charlie Lear ([e-mail]) writes in response to my article:

> That, Sir, is absolute garbage. I find it absolutely appalling that
> someone concerned with corporate strategy within NZ Telecom would even
> think of posting that without making a token effort to verify
> "the facts" (as you understand them).

> "There is no additional charge levied just because it is a card-phone."

Agreed. Mea Culpa ! Its been a long time since I used a public phone,
simply because I haven't needed to. Yes, I too could have phoned the
operator to check first. Thankyou for the information.


richard.

These are my opinions entirely, and do not represent my employer in any
way whatsoever.

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

From: Rop Gonggrijp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Telephone Numbers for Amsterdam (The Netherlands)
Date: 15 Mar 91 14:01:44 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic


[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.

Well, not really. The 74XXXX exchange can still be called with and
without the 6. I would say it is at least a remarkable coincedence
that the PTT happens to have a lot of their lines on there (and KLM
rents 747 747).


Rop Gonggrijp ([e-mail])  Editor of  Hack-Tic (hack/phreak mag.)
Postbus 22953  (in DUTCH)  1100 DL  AMSTERDAM   tel: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #207
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11500;
          16 Mar 91 6:43 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10035;
          16 Mar 91 5:06 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06474;
          16 Mar 91 4:02 CST
Date:     Sat, 16 Mar 91 3:29:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #208
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 16 Mar 91 03:29:08 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 208

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Houston Chronicle Cellular Fraud Story [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Houston Chronicle Cellular Fraud Story [Norman Yarvin]
    Cellular Air Time Charges Around the World - Who Pays? [David E A Wilson]
    Re: 10xxx vs. 950-xxxx Variances With Calling Card [Steven Schwartz]
    Re: New Zealand Telecom News [Henry Mensch]
    Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play? [Tad Cook]
    Re: Still More COCOT Sleaze [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: Did MCI Give me $20? [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: V.32bis and V.17 Adopted by CCITT [Colin Plumb]
    Box Needed to use Single Line Phone on 1A2 [Charles Jay Pilzer]
    Beware of Hotel Telephone Services [Ralph Moonen]
    AT&T Problem Solved [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    Caller-Identification Tool [Brian Holmes]
    Source Wanted For Telephony Magazines in Spanish [Teodoro G. Alonzo]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: Houston Chronicle Cellular Fraud Story
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1991 04:45:28 GMT

>   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.''

Hmmmm.  1440 minutes in 24 hours, so the combined cost of calling Iraq
and Kuwait is about, ahhh, $22 a minute, or $11 to either one alone
per minute.

That is fairly sensational.  It should have been written up
in the {National Enquirer}.


Floyd L. Davidson  |  [e-mail]   |  Alascom, Inc. pays me
Salcha, AK 99714   |    Univ. of Alaska      |  but not for opinions.


[Moderator's Note: It does seem a bit steep, doesn't it!  Even if you
took an entire weekend -- 48 hours -- you'd be looking at $5.50 per
place/minute, which is still too high, considering international phone
charges are $2-3 per minute maximum. What does the cell phone cost per
minute? And is the connection left open all the time; never closed
once in 24 hours?  Someone gave Joe some bum information, I'm afraid.  PAT]

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

From: Norman Yarvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Houston Chronicle Cellular Fraud Story
Date: 15 Mar 91 04:42:13 GMT


[e-mail] (Joe Abernathy) writes:

>   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.

The above paragraph contradicts itself blatantly.

Abernathy presumably has access to Usenet, and is possibly
computer-literate.  Why then doesn't he include the critical fact that
the insecurity of cellular phone systems which his article mentions
can be completely eliminated by the simplest of security arrangements?
(i.e. not just blindly accepting new ESNs)

There are of course more sophisticated attacks.  Once cellular
companies turn off the automatic enabling of new ESNs, thieves may
take to stealing ESNs off the air.  Even this can be prevented, but
only by adding encryption, which would obsolete existing phones.

Media accounts that I have seen uniformly fail to properly represent
the ephemeral nature of the structures that are violated in
phone/computer crime.  These are not physical systems, whose structure
 -- and whose security -- is severely limited by costs of materials.
If they do not include watertight security, that is because they were
designed or are operated in violation of some very simple principles.

Having real security is a minor nuisance to all involved, but both the
picking up pieces after fraud and the blocking of calls where fraud is
rampant are major nuisances.  The sooner these basic aspects of
computer security become a part of our society's common knowledge, the
better.

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Air time Charges Around the World - Who Pays?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 02:16:02 GMT


I know from reading this Digest that in the USA the cellular phone
user pays air-time charges for calls received as well as those
originated.

Here in Australia the originator of the call pays (but the air time
charges do not add to the cost of all calls - just those over
distances of less than 165km. Over 165km cellular calls and land-line
calls cost the same per minute).

What methods of charging do other countries use for their cellular systems?


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

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

From: Steven Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 10xxx vs. 950-xxxx Variances With Calling Card
Reply-To: Steven Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Expert Systems Lab., NYNEX Sci. and Tech., White Plains NY
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 20:37:46 GMT


I had a similar situation in Brookline (Boston) MA.  When I moved in
two years ago, I selected MCI as my primary carrier, then called MCI
to request a calling card.  The card number comprised my home phone,
ending with the "passcode" "1234".

Some time later, I called the MCI/AAdvantage number to associate my
MCI account with my American Airlines AAdvantage account.  I then
received a second calling card, with the AAdvantage logo; this card's
number was my home phone plus "5678".  One of the numbers was only
valid on 950-1022; the other worked only on 10222+.  Calls using
"1234" showed up on my New England Telephone bill as an MCI
attachment.  Calls using "5678" showed up on my separate MCI bill,
which included 1+ calls from my home phone.  I believe -- I'm not
certain -- that "1234" worked on 10222+.


S. H. Schwartz                [e-mail]
Expert Systems Laboratory        914-683-2960
NYNEX Science and Technology Center     White Plains  NY 10604

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 06:37:00 -0500
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Zealand Telecom News
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Pat Cain <[e-mail]> writes:

> Telecom cardphones (same model as most British cardphones) have been
> installed on the NZ Railways Ferries that travel between the North and
> South Islands in NZ (about a 3 1/2 hour journey).
> minute).

Similar facilities exist on the Star Ferry which runs between Hong
Kong Island and Kowloon ... although i don't recall (off-hand) whether
the star ferry phones accept the telecom phonecards ...


# 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

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

From: hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: How do You Hook up a Phone For a Play?
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 1:09:55 PST


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

> 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.

> Once more, to contact them:

>     Proctor & Associates
>     15050 Northeast 36th
>     Redmond, Washington 98052
>     1-800-824-9719

The 46220 sells for $179.  They are also stocked by GTE Supply and
North Supply.

Proctor can also be reached at:

phone:    [phone]
Fax:      [phone]
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]

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

Subject: Re: Still More COCOT Sleaze
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 22:39:06 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Peter G. Capek) writes:

>  when I dialed 0, expecting to get either AOS/COCOT operator, after a
>  LOT of delay and clicking, I got an operator who identified himself as
>  being "AT&T".  That seemed strange, but I accepted it.  I billed the
>  call to my AT&T card number.

I'd bet that, if you pressed the operator, you'd find that s/he was
saying "ATNT" instead of 'AT&T'.

I steer clear of COCOTs for long distance. Here in Minneapolis, a fair
number of AT&T COCOTs are appearing, and I've used them for local
calls.  It's surprising, at first, since they hand you dial tone,
accept the number, and after a brief pause you hear another dial tone
and the number you dialled being pulsed out.  When the second blast of
dial tone comes on, it sounds strange by comparison. (The locally
generated DT you get at first isn't quite a match for DT from the CO.)

I haven't checked the keypad to see if it remains active. (I'll do that
next time I see one of these phones.)


Roy M. Silvernail |+|  [e-mail]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did MCI Give me $20?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1991 07:14:16 GMT


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

> In TELECOM Digest V11 #203, Barton F. Bruce writes:

-> I have in front of me a check from MCI for $20. If I were to simply
-> sign it, I would also be signing a permission slip for them to BE my
-> default carrier.

> [Moderator's Note: The legal issue is, very simply that they did NOT
> -- contrary to your assertion -- send you 'something of value
> unsolicited in the mail which you are free to keep'. Unsolicited, yes.
 ...
> you to recover their money if they like. They probably won't, but in
> any event, you are now listed as a mail order deadbeat with at least a
> few companies.  I hope you got something nice with the $40 you made in
> the process.  PAT]

If being listed as a mail order deadbeat means I get a lot less mail
from mall order companies ... then send me those checks!  (And I
thought it would cost ME money to get off the lists)!

I'll take my chances on being sued for fraud.  In most states, $5 or
$10 is well below the limit at which you can be sued in Superior
court, and it costs more than that to file for Small Claims court.

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: V.32bis and V.17 Adopted by CCITT
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1991 10:31:51 GMT


[e-mail] (Peter da Silva) wrote:

> 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?

Not the slightest.  V.17 looks a lot like V.32bis, which looks nothing
like PEP.  The resemblance is as close as Latin is to Japanese.


Colin

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

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 0:07:57 EST
From: Charles Jay Pilzer <ursaco![e-mail]>
Subject: Box Needed to use Single Line Phone on 1A2
Organization: URSA Consultants, Chevy Chase, MD.


I have an old phone system in my home that came from my office.  I
think it is 1A2 equipment.  It has ten button phones with transparent
square buttons and uses A-A1 lines to signal the busy lights.  I want
to use some modern single line phones on the system.  I got a box from
TT Systems Corporation in NJ called a "key system adapter" which has a
sandwich plug in the 50 pair line and buttons with busy leds for the
first five lines.  They don't make it any more.  The new box they have
is a TA-50.  But when I use it it causes the bells on all other
extentions to fail when that line is selected on the box.  The phone
connected to the box rings.  I would like to use these boxes but can
not solve the problem.

I also have a box that was made by Northern Telecom which sort of
matches the phones that also has six lighted square buttons, that I
use to switch a single line phone.  This box does not have a circuit
like the T-10 to make the A-A1 connection, but I have solved that with
a small relay that senses talk current.  The questions I have are what
is this box called and where can I buy some?

Thanks for any reply.


Charles Jay Pilzer    [e-mail]
URSA Consultants    !uunet!beartrk!ursaco!cjp
Chevy Chase, MD        Compuserve     73777,2216

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 13:35 MET
Subject: Beware of Hotel Telephone Services


When I was in the States a while ago, I learned to be careful of
telephone calls from hotels. I was staying at a Hotel in Naperville,
just near the AT&T plant there, and decided to give a friend who lives
in Washington DC a call. I dialed a 0 for an external line, and dialed
1 NPA SN and the phone went on the other side, however, nobody
answered the phone after about eight times ringing.

I tried it again the next day, also to no avail. Finally I got
through. I also placed a call to a friend in The Netherlands (where I
live) and got through, and arranged for him to call me collect at work
the next day.

When I left, I got my hotel bill, and on the bill where _all_ the
calls I made, including the ones that were never answered.  This
amounted to $7.00 of charges for calls that didn't succeed. When I
asked them how this was possible, they told me that 'due to the
equipment not being able to detect a call being answered, it starts
billing automatically after 15 seconds.'  I told them that the call
had never gone through, and they instantly deleted the charges from my
phone bill. The weird thing however was that the call to the
Netherlands never even showed up on my bill. As if the billing
equipment wasn't capable of detecting international calls....

Well, I will check my hotel bill every time now, to check for bogus
telephone charges. Also I would like to know if a setup like this is
legal. I mean, can they charge for a service not delivered?


Ralph Moonen     [e-mail]     ([phone]

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 8:28:09 PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Problem Solved


Finally, late Wednesday the long distance problem I described was
solved to by AT&T Long Distance Repair. The tech apparently had great
difficulties convincing her supervisors that it was possible to make
the call via other carriers, but *not* via AT&T. If you did, the
result would be endless ringing at a bogus number which never
answered, and according to the tech, "we don't test ring-no-answers..."

The problem turned out to be an incorrect routing entry in the San
Jose office, new prefixes are indeed entered manually which can lead
to these kinds of problems.

I wonder if I would have been able to get this fixed if there hadn't
been other carriers ....?


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]

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

From: Brian Holmes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-Identification Tool
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 01:44:10 GMT


There is an application for the Mac where it can register incoming
phone-numbers before you even pick up the line using the
caller-identification feature available in some CO's.  Is anyone aware
of such program and hardware which would make this possible on a Sun?


PHONE:    [phone]  FAX=577-5626          Wayne State University
BITNET:   [e-mail]               5925 Woodward
INTERNET: [e-mail]                 Detroit, MI 48202  U.S.A

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 16:24:18 EST
From: Teodoro G Alonso <[e-mail]>
Subject: Source Wanted For Telephony Magazines in Spanish
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Hi,

    Does anybody know of telephony magazines published in Spanish?
I you do please send me email with the following information:

NAME:
PUBLISHER:
    ADDRESS:
    PHONE:
ISSN (OR EQUIVALENT):

    If there interest, I'll post a summary to the net.

MUCHAS GRACIAS

Ted Alonso     [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #208
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25129;
          16 Mar 91 20:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17071;
          16 Mar 91 19:12 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22407;
          16 Mar 91 18:07 CST
Date:     Sat, 16 Mar 91 17:39:19 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #209
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 16 Mar 91 17:38:59 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 209

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    American Information Technologies Corp. Seeks Name Change [Richard Wurth]
    Telecommunications Emergency in El Salvador [Jym Dyer]
    The FCC and 900 Numbers [Brian Kantor]
    LEC Anti-Competitive Practices [John Higdon]
    I Want to Buy a COCOT [Steve Ligett]
    Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [John Kennedy]
    Update on Rochester, NY (3/16) [Curtis E. Reid]
    Re: Maestro Phones from Northern Telecom [John R. Covert]
    Re: Maestro Phones From Northern Telecom [Eric Skinner]
    Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly [John Higdon]
    Re: Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connection [Brian Gordon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 09:46:00 EST
From: Richard T Wurth <[e-mail]>
Subject: American Information Technologies Corp. Seeks Name Change
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs/Lincroft, NJ


According to a proxy statement dated March 1, 1991, American
Information Technologies Corporation is seeking shareholder approval
of a "Proposal to Amend the Certificate of Incorporation to Change the
Corporate Name" to Ameritech Corporation.

In recommending shareholder approval, the Board of Directors cites the
contrast between the widespread recognition of its informal trade name
Ameritech, a contraction of its formal, and the lesser degree of
recognition for its longer, formal name, American Information
Technologies.

(Speaking solely for himself, this shareholder concurs with the
proposal.)


R. T. Wurth / LZ 1H-303 / AT&T-Bell Labs
mtfmd!rtw or [e-mail] (Mail to cbnewsj!rtw may get lost.)
307 Middletown-Lincroft Rd. / Lincroft, NJ  07738 / 908 576 6332

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

From: Jym Dyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecommunications Emergency in El Salvador
Date: 16 Mar 91 11:57:14 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Berserkeley


[From ACTIV-L]

> From: [e-mail]
> Subject: Emergency Situation in El Salvador

              EMERGENCY SITUATION IN EL SALVADOR!!!

On Monday March 11 Salvadorean Telecommunications and Treasury
Ministry workers went on strike.  They are represented by the two
following unions (respectively) ASTEL and AGHEMA.

As of today, Tuesday March 12, all the work places have been occupied
by Treasury Police, well known as the the brutal political police of
El Salvador.

A most urgent situation is taking place in La Delera where 75 police
have surrounded a work site which has 25-30 striking workers inside.

At the moment this is all the information available.  More concrete
information will be posted as it arrives.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Call or telex the following numbers demanding:

     (1)  The demilitarization of the workplace
     (2)  Respect for the right of workers to strike

US Ambassador Walker: 011-503-267100 (voice)
                      011-503-20657 (telex)

National Police: 011-503-714422 (voice)
                 011-503-20459 (telex)

                            THANKS!!

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

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 01:07:21
From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: The FCC and 900 Numbers


In the news today there was mention that the FCC is proposing a rule
that 900 numbers must announce the cost of the call at the beginning
of the connection and allow the caller to disconnect then without
being billed.  I think that's a wonderful idea, and would suggest that
the ruling be such that the TELEPHONE COMPANY handling the 900 call
should provide that automatically - they can do it, since they already
have the voice intercept equipment, and since they're doing the
billing, they also know what the charges would be.  By having the
telco do the announcement, there'd be no chance for a sleazeball 900
service operator to collect money without the announcement in
disregard of the law.


Brian

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

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 00:54 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: LEC Anti-Competitive Practices


In light of recent discussions concerning the relaxation of
restrictions preventing LECs from entering the enhanced services
marketplace, it might be of interest to know that hearings on this
very topic are going on right now in California. Behind closed doors,
testimony is being given concerning competitive abuses by Pac*Bell.

Some examples of this abuse:

Pac*Bell offers voicemail and more recently "The Message Center". This
is in direct competition to voicemail bureaus. But Pac*Bell has an
advantage. Besides being able to subsidize its voicemail business with
regulated revenues and offering a very low (artificial) price that VM
bureaus cannot touch, it can integrate the service with the CO switch.
If a customer has messages waiting, telco can provide stutter dial
tone to the customer so that he knows to check the voicemail.

Through its Pacific Telesis subsidiaries, Pac*Bell is wooing customers
to Centrex by offering extended area paging and other services that
cross LATA (and even state) boundaries without having to bother the
customer with nasty old IEC arrangements. Sort of the return to "one
stop shopping" as it were.

The temptation here is to say, "If the customer gets a good product at
a reasonable price, what harm is there?" The problem is that if
Pac*Bell and telcos in general are allowed to stomp out the
competition by unfairly taking advantage of their position as utility
network providers, ultimately there will be a return to the old days
of no choice and take it or leave it pricing.

Pac*Bell would like to see things both ways, in its favor of course.
On the one hand, it wants no competition in the handling of standard
local service. On the other, it wants to compete with it customers in
the marketing of enhanced services such as Centrex, voicemail,
audiotex, and in the future, terminal equipment. This just cannot be
allowed to happen, unless we are prepared for a return to the old days
of Ma Bell, only this time with many mini-tyrants rather than one
national behemoth.


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

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

From: Steve Ligett <[e-mail]>
Subject: I Want to Buy a COCOT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1991 17:08:23 GMT


I'm gathering information for our school board.  We would like to have
a pay phone in our school.  It would be primarily for local calls made
during times that the school building is open, but the office is not.
For example during town meetings, school board meetings, sports
events, etc.  It would not be used during the school day, and could be
hooked up to use one of the existing lines.

Neither the phone company nor the local COCOT company are interested
since it won't bring them much revenue.

I know that COCOTs are not popular in this group, but this seems like
a reasonable use for one.  We'd label it to make sure that folks
weren't fooled into thinking it's a normal pay phone, including a note
like "Go to the Lyme Store or Nichol's Hardware for cheaper calls."

What do you think?  Is this a good idea?  Where/how do I buy such a
phone?  How much do they cost?  Is there another way to do this?

Please reply by mail or post as you see fit.  I used to read the
telecom group regularly, but I don't any more.  I'll keep an eye on it
for a while now (and I did check that this isn't answered in current
articles).

Thanks!

[e-mail] or ...!dartvax!steve.ligett

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

From: John Kennedy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws
Date: 16 Mar 91 14:49:05 GMT
Reply-To: John Kennedy <[e-mail]>
Organization: Second Source, Inc., Annapolis, MD


Does anyone know of localities where the cable TV companies are
required to provide signal to a demark rather than pretending to know
where the cable is routed within the house?

Around here, the cable companies want to account for and charge the
subscriber for each piece of equipment connected to the cable.  It
seems that cable legislation is a few years behind that for the
telephone industry.

Have there been any cases involving a subscriber who has, say, an
entire house wired for watching the output of a VCR, yet the incoming
cable is attached to only that one device, the VCR?

Is there legislation afoot anywhere that is attempting to modernize
this?


John Kennedy            [e-mail]
Second Source, Inc.     Annapolis, MD

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

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 12:14 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Update on Rochester, NY (3/16)


A quick brief update:

*    Power is still out among 1,000 RG&E customers.

*    Phone services is still out among 10,000 RTC customers --
    progress was slowed until RGE finishes their work which
    then significant progress will be made.  (Telephone wires
    share the same poles as electrical wires.)

*    Estimated damge including insurance claims totals
    $374 million!  (Reported to be the largest -- larger than
    the damage in North Carolina when Hurriane Hugo struck.)

*    I don't believe there are any outage of cable subscribers.

*    Wood chips and wood mulch are estimated to produce about 11,000
    cubic yards a day!  I heard that the county already has 500,000
    cubic yards piled up at many places!


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

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

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 02:20:35 PST
From: "John R. Covert  16-Mar-1991 0520" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Maestro Phones from Northern Telecom


> Just the other day I received a collect call from a local payphone.  I
> would have expected it to display "Unknown" as the call was placed
> through the operator, but instead, the display was "Long Distance."
> Go figure.

> [Moderator's Note: Probably the reason it said 'long distance' was
> because the payphone was a COCOT, and the Alternate Operater
> Disservice involved in handling the collect call was not really an
> Operator, and they splashed the call via DDD from some other location.

Remember, though, that this happened in Canada, where they do not yet
have COCOTs, AOSs, or LATAs.

It's really very simple.  The Bell Canada Operator Services System is
connected to the network via the toll switch, even when handling local
calls.

john


[Moderator's Note: You're correct. Canada remains relatively
unpolluted where telecom is concerned as of yet.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 12:17:31 EST
From: Eric Skinner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Maestro Phones From Northern Telecom


(Collect call from payphone caused erroneous message on Call*ID box.)

> [Moderator's Note: Probably the reason it said 'long distance' was
> because the payphone was a COCOT, and the Alternate Operater
> Disservice involved in handling the collect call was not really an
> Operator, and they splashed the call via DDD from some other location.
> Your telco saw it coming in from another LATA as just a regular call.  PAT]

Impossible.  No COCOTs in Bell Canada territory (yet -- knock wood.)
Interestingly, operators here still identify themselves as "Bell
Operator."


Eric Skinner                      [e-mail]
University of Ottawa                         Ottawa, Canada

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

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 03:33 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


Louis Linneweh <motcid![e-mail]> writes:

> In a word: standards.  De facto, perhaps; obsolete, quite often;
> archaic occasionally; but usable standards none the less.  For the
> public and even for telephony equipment suppliers.  They just couldn't
> change the system fast enough toget a marketing advantage.  Hmmmm.

Standards are as firm as ever since the breakup. Bellcore, the God of
telephone standards and blessings is as healthy as ever. In fact, of
necessity, the standards are now fully documented and available to all
instead of being secretly tucked away with the attitude that "only the
phone company and its employees need to know about such things".

> I used to know how to place a long distance call from a pay phone
> virtually anywhere in the country.  I used to feel confident my kids
> could call me from those same phones.

Is that so? I remember many years before anyone had ever heard of
Judge Greene. Traveling around the country, I found some phones could
direct dial long distance and some could not. Of those that could not,
sometimes it was necessary to dial "0"; from others "110"; from still
others "112". Of those that could dial long distance direct, some
required a "1"; some required a "110"; some a "circle digit"; some
requested the calling number while others did not. Oh, and by the way,
almost none of the payphones would allow the customer to dial his own
long distance call (at least before TSPS).

> OK, I'm exagerating, I suppose.  None the less, I don't
> always know how to make a call from a pay phone anymore.

Yes, you are. And being very short sighted at that. You have focused
on the one major aberration of divestiture, COCOTs. The problem here
is that no one is enforcing regulations already in place. And I am
very curious: what is so hard about placing a call on a COCOT? All of
the complaints that I have heard center around the cost and deception
regarding the long distance carrier, not that it requires any special
effort or knowledge to place the call.

> That's my reason for supporting the regulated monopoly of the phone
> company.

It is a pretty weak one. Besides the seven RBOCs in this country there
are hundreds of independent telcos providing LEC services. They were
there before divestiture as well. Did you feel that your precious
standards were being violated by all of these different companies
then?  If hundreds of telephone companies around the country can
maintain standards, then two or three LECs can maintain them in a
particular community. Claiming that monopoly is necessary to preserve
the ease and convenience of telephony is a wheezing old argument that
even the telcos are beginning to put to rest.


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

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

From: Brian Gordon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connection
Date: 16 Mar 91 17:37:01 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


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

> Is it possible to take a phone that only has pulse dialing and convert
> it to tone dialing?

> [Moderator's Note: Well, sure it is. You would open the phone,
> disconect the dial and associated wires, yank it out and insert a
> touch tone pad there instead. Of course, the shell would not fit
> correctly since the cut out on the rotary dial phone is round, and the
> cut out you'll be needing is square. Why bother, given the inexpensive
> and high quality touchtone phones on the market?  I could walk from
> home to the Radio Shack, buy a phone and bring it back quicker than I
> could modify an old dial phone.  PAT]

Gee, I'm less imaginative.  I'd just replace the mouthpiece with one
of those "touch tone mouthpiece" devices and just ignore the original
dial.


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


[Moderator's Note: What I particularly dislike about those tone pad in
the mouthpiece devices is how easily they seem to get the buttons
stuck and gummed up. If you hold the receiver on your shoulder with
your head cocked to one side it is easy to get saliva sprayed on the
pad as you are talking. If you rely more on what you hear in your ear
rather than what you see your fingers doing when dialing (to insure
you have dialed corectly) then you have a more difficult time. Maybe
some of those things are well built and sturdy, but I have yet to see
one in use after a couple months that was not nasty from the close
proximity to the mouths of everyone who had eaten/smoked cigarettes
while talking on the phone, plus having buttons that were starting to
get stuck.  I'd not think of those things as a real conversion.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #209
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11040;
          17 Mar 91 12:44 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07573;
          17 Mar 91 11:22 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10924;
          17 Mar 91 10:17 CST
Date:     Sun, 17 Mar 91 9:46:59 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #210
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 Mar 91 09:46:49 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 210

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    GTE / California Helps Prevent Slamming [Ken Jongsma]
    California PUC Schedules CLASS Hearings [Ken Jongsma]
    COCOT Phones in Colorado [Andy Rabagliati]
    The Order of Repair [John Higdon]
    AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign [John Higdon]
    Gathering Bits of Info From Bellcore [David Leibold]
    Telecom Articles Worth Reading in IEEE 'Proceedings' [[e-mail]]
    FCC Proposed Regs on Public Access Phones [Blake Farenthold]
    Re: I Want to Buy a COCOT [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Cellular Telephones on a Bicycle [Allyn Lai]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: GTE / California Helps Prevent Slamming
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 12:45:45 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


According to an bill insert, GTE California is now offering an
authorization form to prevent "slamming" by other long distance
carriers. There is no charge for this form. Returning it to GTE will
allow your account to be coded such that your written permission is
required for a carrier change.


Ken Jongsma               [e-mail]
Smiths Industries         [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan    ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

Subject: California PUC Schedules CLASS Hearings
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 12:58:37 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


According to a GTE Bill Insert, the California Public Utilities
Commission will be holding hearings on the following CLASS (GTE calls
them SmartCall) features:

   Calling Number Delivery Display (Caller ID)
   Automatic Call Return        (Returns call to last caller)
   Automatic Busy Redial        (Checks for free line for 30 minutes)
   Special Call Forwarding      (Allows up to 12 numbers to be designated
                                 for call forwarding)
   Call Blocking                (Allows up to 12 numbers to be routed to
                                 a recording)
   Special Call Waiting         (allows a destinctive call waiting beep to
                                 be assigned to 12 numbers)
   Special Call Acceptance      (allows up to 12 numbers to ring. All others
                                 get a recording.)
   VIP Alert                    (Distinctive ring for up to 12 numbers)
   Customer Originated Trace    (Records Caller Number at Telco)

The public hearings will be held:

   Mar 27 - San Francisco       Mar 28 - Sacremento
   Apr 1  - Anaheim             Apr 2  - Victorville
   Apr 3  - San Diego           Apr 4  - Norwalk
   Jun 24 - San Francisco (Formal Evidentiary Hearing)

In 1989, California passed a law requiring that callers be allowed to
block Caller ID on an individual basis. GTE proposes to allow per call
blocking at no charge, but not per line blocking. They note that even
with per call blocking, all other features would still be able to use
the caller's number.

The CPUC will also accept written comments. 90 minute workshops on how
to present evidence at formal hearings are also available.


Ken Jongsma               [e-mail]
Smiths Industries         [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan    ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

From: Andy Rabagliati <[e-mail]>
Subject: COCOT Phones in Colorado
Organization: SGS-Thomson/Inmos Division
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 04:00:45 GMT


Having got burned again on a COCOT in Colorado Springs, (it took my 50
cents for 411 then returned busy), I decided to call the PUC in Denver
to find out the state regulations regarding COCOTs.

I found that COCOTs were specifically exempted from PUC regulation.

They suggested there might be an FCC docket that covered COCOTs, since
the state had nothing to say.

I called the FCC [long phone chase deleted] and eventually got a very
helpful lady who said yes, there were some FCC regulations regarding
alternative operator services, but things like 411, 911 were local
issues, and FCC did not concern themselves with these. She would mail
me what they had.

I called Denver again, and asked - what about 911?

Hmm ... let me conference you in with our legal counsel.

No rules at all. I pressed them on this, and they suggested that I
call Colorado Springs city council to see if they had local
regulations.

I have not called them yet - but I very much doubt that they cover
issues like the name, address or phone number of the service provider,
411, etc.

Having followed the discussion here on California laws, I was very
surprised to find that Colorado COCOTs are exempt from PUC regulation.

Is this common?  Any suggestions for a course of action?  (I am not
a voter - as I am a UK citizen).

Cheers,

Andy

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

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 20:00 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: The Order of Repair


This talk about the problems in Rochester reminds me of a telling
situation that happened right here in my neighborhood a couple of
years ago.

Almost simultaneously the cable, ALL of my phone lines, and the
electricity went dead. A short time later, fire engines were screaming
down the street. It seems that some trees had caught fire in the next
block and had taken out all the services on the poles nearby. In my
inimitable fashion, I went to a payphone to report all three. I
realized the cause, but wanted to have a trouble report on file so
that if there were any screwups later, I would be able to refer to my
initial complaint, not to mention get credit for lengthy service
interruptions. By the way, always report an outage (particularly
telephone) even if you know the cause and know it is being handled so
that you can get that credit later.

What is interesting is the order in which the services were restored.
Within a very short time after the fire was extinguished the cable was
restored. I have some battery operated TVs and was able to observe
this for myself. An hour or so after that, the electricity came back
on. The next morning I discovered that phone service was still
missing, but at 9AM a Pac*Bell supervisor knocked on my door to tell
me that the entire block was without phone service (I knew that) and
he came by my place because I was the only one who called in trouble.
He explained that the reason it was taking so long was that there was
shock hazard from the PG&E restoration work.

As it turned out, telephone service was restored by late afternoon,
about twenty-four hours after the outage began. Not very impressive.

So it breaks down like this:

The cable company had its act together. Its service restoral (while
hardly essential) was first rate. PG&E took three hours to restore
service. PG&E is probably the worst electric utility on the planet so
for them it was probably miraculous. Never mind that the fire was
originally started by primary wires arcing in the trees because PG&E
felt it unnecessary to do any trimming. But wiping up the rear was
Pac*Bell, who was too wimpy to even begin work on its cable until the
next day.


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

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

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 00:38 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign


AT&T's current TV ad compaign is probably the biggest waste of money
Madison Avenue has ever experienced. It is the one that says, "To be
sure you get AT&T, dial 10-ATT-0 and then your number."

What is wrong with this? It does not work. There is not (to my
knowledge) a COCOT on the planet that will allow a call of the form
'10288+0+10D' and actually route the call through AT&T. So what is all
of this advertising buying the company? A lot of ill will from
confused and frustrated customers who discover that there is no way to
do what the ads say, is what.

If AT&T will not accept the real world of COCOTs and provide something
other than 10288 access, then it should at least save its advertising
money for a better campaign, no?


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

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gathering Bits of Info From Bellcore
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 00:53:16 EST


I recently called up Bellcore to see if a few bits of information
could be gleaned out. The starting point was one of the Bellcore main
numbers, [phone]. I phoned there, asked for the Numbering/
Dialing Planning Group (as mentioned in their Notes on the  ...
publication). The operator who answered mentioned [phone]
as the number. I asked to be transferred (assuming it was within the
same PBX), the receptionist said something that sounded like "Sure!"
and a few moments later, the carrier whine was gone, replaced by the
eerie silence of local DC current (ie. disconnection).

So ... over to Numbering/Dialing I go ... someone over there was able
to tell me that July, 1995 was still the target date for introducing
the "interchangeable" NPA codes (that is, expanding the number of area
codes when the current batch of codes with '0' or '1' in the middle
run out).  However, another person, Bob McEleese (sp?) at (201)
740.4592 was more responsible for things like NPA assignments.

Away I go over to that number, encountering a voice mail along the way
which mentioned that 800/900/CIC (10xxx codes?) matters could be
discussed with someone else (whose name I forgot) at [phone].
Anyway, a message was left.

The next day, I got a call back from Bellcore. They wouldn't give out
what the new 416 code was going to be, but did say there were no other
Canadian area codes facing a split at this time.

Anyway, that's the basic idea ... thanks are extended to Bellcore for
the info gleaned above.

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

Subject: Telecom Articles Worth Reading in IEEE 'Proceedings'
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 07:58:16 -0800
From: [e-mail]


The Proceedings of the IEEE had a couple of issues with some good
Telecom related stories.  The January, 1991 issue had an article on
the intelligent network that makes 800 more flexible and stuff.  The
February, 1991 issue has nothing but ISDN articles!  These should be
on interest to everybody that doesn't live in John Higdon's exchange :-).


Malcolm

P.S.  A reader complained that the Oregon Graduate Institute speech
collection effort was an invasion of privacy.  If that's what you
believe then lie.  All they want is speech samples.  It is a lot
easier to ask for specific information then it is to ask people to
make up the information.  (Call 800-441-1037)

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

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 00:57:33 CST
From: sun!pro-party.cts.com!blake (Blake Farenthold)
Subject: FCC Proposed Regs on Public Access Phones


Patrick-

  I'm sending (as a seperate letter) the Notice od proposed rulemaking
from the FCC on choosing your own carrier from public phones.  You
might want to include them in the Archives.  Interesting that the
proposed rules deal with 1-800 and 950- access but are not as strict
with 10xxx calls.  Looks like AT&T may need an 800 number for network
access yet.


UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake
Internet: [e-mail]

Blake Farenthold         | Voice: 800/880-1890     |    MCI: BFARENTHOLD
1200 MBank North         |   Fax: [phone]     |    CIS: 70070,521
Corpus Christi, TX 78471 |   BBS: 512/882-1899     |  GEnie: BLAKE


[Moderator's Note:  Your lengthy file has been placed in the Telecom
Archives with the other AOS related files, and I thank you. Interested
readers can access the Telecom Archives using standard ftp commands
 from an Internet site: ftp lcs.mit.edu ... then login anonymous and
give your [e-mail] for the password. Once on line at MIT, then
'cd telecom-archives'. Non-Internet readers (i.e. Bitnet, Fido, UUCP)
can use various archives mail servers to reach the archives, such as
the service available from [e-mail].    PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 00:54:13 EST
From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Stuff: Family and Friends, PrimeTime 800
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I just got off the phone with Carla ... Family and Friends is where
you give MCI twelve numbers and you get a 20% discount on calling to
those twelve numbers. (She said it works with Primetime.) Signup
starts March 18. However, the 20% discount is only valid if the
designated number is also a MCI customer...

Also, PrimeTime 800 has been cancelled as of March 1. It was only a
promotional product and they still have the regular 800 service.


Bill

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Buy a COCOT
Date: 17 Mar 91 02:43:31 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> I'm gathering information for our school board.  We would like to have
> a pay phone in our school.  It would be primarily for local calls made

Here in MA, NET & T will put in a phone in other than truely public
places, BUT someone pays a monthly charge to have it there. I think
that after the volume reaches some level consistantly, it can be
reclassed and is free.

If you have UNLIMITED local calling (no per call and no message units)
available, and you have some trunks that are screened (no 0+ type LD
billable to you will work, but 0+ billed elsewhere [CC, Collect, or
3rd party] will and 1+ will), set your switch to route that station to
screened trunks for local or 0+ calls, and to disallow 1+. GIVE the
call away - it costs you nothing. Possibly have a vanilla time clock
that cuts the line except in the off hours it is really needed.

If the access time is only school committee meetings and other
selected evenings, and the total hours of availability are SO few, it
may well just make sense to GIVE local calls away if you can otherwise
prevent any toll abuse. The cost of a coin phone might NEVER be
recovered, and the hassle and expense of keeping it working is simply
not worth it. Have the building's PBX handle keeping them local. Have
the SMDR output keep track of expenses and simply try it for a while.

If you have no PBX, there are relatively inexpensive toll diverters
that can be wired between this phone and some office line you use.

Or add an honor box for dimes or quarters. Have a sign that means it
that says significant loss will result in removal, and excess over
cost will be contributed to the scholarship fund. Publicly report how
much gets so contributed, and all the nosey town folk will gossip
about cheapskates that don't contribute. You are not in Boston or NYC.

If you DON'T have unlimited local calling, you can get a limited
functionality DUMB-DUMB COCOT phone that blocks ANY LD service, and
simply connects the mike and eats the coin when the customer pushes
the CLEARLY LABELED button that indicates the caller wants to pay and
talk.  Better get one that allows 911, and check if any FCC rules are
being violated by blocking all LD. Get the cheapest that blocks fraud
and collects some money. If you miss a little, tough. This is not
supposed to be a major money maker, just a reasonable convenience for
town folk.

Try GTE Supply. There was a mag called "PAYPHONE" that I think changed
its name. Some COCOT reader can probably supply it. There were plenty
of ads in it.

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Telephones on a Bicycle
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 10:30:28 PST


This is in repsonse to the person who was thinking of using cellular
telephones for communications at a bike race.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned ham radio yet.  There are amateur
radio clubs that specialize in providing communications for public
events such as bike races.  Using radios, as opposed to cellular
telephones, has the advantage that all stations situated on the bike
route can hear each other.  This isn't practical on a cellular phone.
Of course cellular phones have the advantage of being able to make a
direct phone call without having to go through an "autopatch".

Probably the ideal would be to get a local ham club to provide primary
communications and then have a few cellular phones situated at
strategic places along the route.


Allyn Lai    kb6odf   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #210
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13394;
          17 Mar 91 14:53 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04652;
          17 Mar 91 13:27 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16622;
          17 Mar 91 12:22 CST
Date:     Sun, 17 Mar 91 11:35:57 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #211
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 Mar 91 11:35:45 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 211

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Information Needed to Use Call Manager [Ravinder Bhumbla]
    Re: Information Needed to Use Call Manager [Curtis E. Reid]
    Re: 800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Cellular Air time Charges Around the World - Who Pays? [Alan Laird]
    Re: Houston Chronicle Cellular Fraud Story [Joe Abernathy]
    Re: The FCC and 900 Numbers [John Higdon]
    Re: Voice Mail, Fax Card  [David Ptasnik]
    Re: Telephone Makers of Old [Jim E. Dunne]
    Administrivia: comp.dcom.telecom Distribution [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ravinder Bhumbla <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed to Use Call Manager
Date: 16 Mar 91 21:01:26 GMT
Reply-To: Ravinder Bhumbla <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, San Diego


In article <[e-mail]>  I explained AT&T's Call
Manager plan and the Moderator asked:

> [Moderator's Note: Does one have to specifically sign-up to use the
> Call Manager feature? The reason I ask is I just now made a zero plus
> call and and after the gong, entered 15xx, followed by the # to
> terminate dialing and speed the process. It was accepted no questions
> asked. I wonder what it will look like when billed.

No, you do not have to sign up for this plan.  You just go ahead and
start using it.  By the way (this may be my imagination), it seems to
me that even when I do not use a #, the call gets completed quite
fast.  You would expect that, as this process is similar to a
Calling Card call, there would be delay while the process waited for
the remaining ten digits of the calling card.  Probably the 15 signals
that this is a Call Manager call.

As for the question about your bill.  It will come with the call
listed under a section entitled - Account Code 00xx.  I have been
using this for about an year now and it is really useful when at the
end of the month you need to figure out the bill for three roommates.

And, by the way, this DOES NOT cost anything more that a regular 1+
call.  I have received mail from a lot of readers wondering that as the
process is similar to that for a Calling Card call, it would cost more.


Ravinder Bhumbla  [e-mail]  U. of California, San Diego


[Moderator's Note: I wonder if Calling Cards automatically do
NOT use PINS in the 15xx series to avoid billing conflicts.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 12:18 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed to Use Call Manager


I just tried to call a zero plus number then pressed 15nn after the
bong.  The system reported the card is invalid and asks me to reenter
a valid number.  So, it does not work here.  (I use AT&T.)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: 800/950 vs 10xxx And 800 vs Call Me Card
Date: 17 Mar 91 04:25:14 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, "Ralph W. Hyre" <rhyre@
cinoss1.att.com> writes:

> 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.

Sorry, I must not have made myself clear. I think 10xxx should always
work, and should be free as long as the call is being billed
elsewhere. I also think 950 should quietly die, but don't really care
all that much.

What I was suggesting was for one purpose. The purpose was to have the
telcos make life easy for the Hotels that are trying to protect
themselves from toll fraud and from expensive equipment purchases.
THEIR lobby groups were at the front of the battle trying to KILL
10xxx universal access. 950 they probably are handling 'ok'. 10xxx
presented problems.

I was simply suggesting that the TELCOs could have made the hotel's
life easier (for a small and affordable charge - ha!) and then just
maybe the lodging industry wouldn't have done battle with 10xxx.

I simply want the hotel to be able to safely let you use 10xxx access
without vast expense on their part, and NO risk to them of toll fraud.
The only 10xxx traffic the telco could allow on such a screened trunk
would be bill elsewhere type. If the hotel wanted dual use trunks,
telco could allow 1+ (and yes optionally 011+ for the nit-pickers) of
bill to the BTN traffic where the hotel's call accounting box could
handle it.  All this latter type traffic could ONLY be to the default
carrier.

> This influences my selection of businesses to patronize.

As well it should! And DO let them know why wou will not be back.
Better yet ASK EXPLICIT questions before you make hotel reservations.
You then get to tell them why you are not booking with them.

There is a sleazoid mall north of here in Woburn MA. Though I do like
a few of the stores in it, I use their other branches and tell them
why.  That mall has sunken to COCOT level.

A local supermarket's landlord had installed COCOTs. I told the
supermarket's central management that it made them look bad especially
when the (BIGGER + BETTER) market just down the street has better
parking, a free (rather than 50 cents) bank machine, and 10 cent NYNEX
coin phones. He was clearly already sensitive to all issues, could do
nothing about the parking acreage, or the cash machine service charge,
but he quickly did fix the COCOTs. Both phones are now NYNEX 10 cent
ones. And it was HIS remote CA base mega-pig absentee landlord that
had done it.

Do complain loud and long. If they think it hurts their business they
may well change it.

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

From: Alan Laird <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Air Time Charges Around the World - Who Pays?
Date: 16 Mar 91 20:10:00 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.


> Here in Australia the originator of the call pays (but the air time
> charges do not add to the cost of all calls - just those over
> distances of less than 165km. Over 165km cellular calls and land-line
> calls cost the same per minute).

> What methods of charging do other countries use for their cellular
> systems?

In the UK the originator also pays for the call, but the charges are
rather unbalanced.

Placing a call from a cell phone to any other cell phone or to any
fixed phone in the country costs 25p/min peak (33p in greater London)
or 10p/min off peak, where off-peak starts at 9.30pm.

Making a call from a British Telecom phone to a cell phone will cost
44p/min peak and 33p/min off-peak where off-peak starts at 6.00pm Also
BT start charging almost immediately (presumably as soon as they
connect to the cellular system) so you get full charges for failed
calls (engaged, cell phone unreachable etc).

Does anyone know what Mercury charges for calls to cell phones?

As regards the recent reports of cellular fraud in the states, I was
recently given a credit limit on my cellular account of 100 pounds per
month. I wonder if there is any connection between these two.  Anyone
know what cellular fraud is like in the UK or Europe.  In the UK at
least, we don't have roaming (both cellular carriers cover the whole
country, well a large part of it) so I imagine fraud could be
considerably lower.


Alan  I  M  Laird,   Department  of  Computer  Science,
University  of  Strathclyde,   Glasgow  G1  1XH,    UK.
[e-mail],  041 552 4400 x3081,  0836 320786

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

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 19:30:38 CST
From: Joe Abernathy <chron!magic322![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Houston Chronicle Cellular Fraud Story


[e-mail] (Floyd Davidson) writes:

>>   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.''

> Hmmmm.  1440 minutes in 24 hours, so the combined cost of calling Iraq
> and Kuwait is about, ahhh, $22 a minute, or $11 to either one alone
> per minute.

[Moderator's Note: Actually, its $20.83 per minute, but go on ... PAT]

You overlooked one thing, however. It's three-way conference calling,
so the cellular company is paying for both those lines in both
directions across the ocean.

Norman Yarvin <[e-mail]> writes:

> Abernathy presumably has access to Usenet, and is possibly
> computer-literate.

Still haven't found an alternate source for your alt.sex feed, eh,
Norman?

> Why then doesn't he include the critical fact that
> the insecurity of cellular phone systems which his article mentions
> can be completely eliminated by the simplest of security arrangements?

Pointless hostility aside, I disagree that a simple solution is
possible to the problem. At the inception of the industry, yes, the
problem would have been more simple. But at this stage, what is
required is fast, precall account validation at the switch, made
possible by a central repository of valid ESNs and PINs. GTE just
completed a field test in Los Angeles of such a system, which
validated calls in two or three seconds.  The problem is that nobody
will be buying it until the current stuff wears out.

Your other question/flame suggested that it is not possible for the
industry to offer a coherent response to the problem while still
having individuals service providers contributing to the problem. That
suggests to me primarily that you aren't a cellular telephone user, or
at least that you didn't purchase your phone in a competitive market.
In Houston, for instance, we have two providers, and one is much more
of a staid, traditional company, while the other is fiercely
entrprenuerial. I don't mean to link them to problems within the
industry because at this stage neither of them is running a
particularly lax ship. But this sort of situation amply illustrates
how the industry can both be solving a problem and making it worse at
the same time.

Regards,

Joe Abernathy    [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Addressing only the first part of your response let
me ask what do you mean 'paying for both lines in both directions' ??
There is ONE charge per call. There are TWO calls in progress at the
same time, admittedly both international. At the highest rate possible
for either call, the cellular company is paying maybe $3 per call/minute.
on the international link. *Maybe*.  So we have $6 per minute plus the
cellular phone charges.  Are these thirty or forty cents per minute
each?  If you can squeak $7 per minute out on this, that would be a
very generous estimate.  Charging for everything you can think of, how
do you begin to approach $10.42 per call/minute, or $20.83 per minute
overall?  And that $20.83 per minute -- using your $30,000 per day
estimate -- means the connection is left up continuously, otherwise
the rate per minute of use must of necessity be even higher. Sorry,
Joe, I really think you got a bum steer.  If the source lied to you
about the losses involved, what other information might have been
incorrect?   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 16 Mar 91 20:55 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: The FCC and 900 Numbers


Brian Kantor <[e-mail]> writes:

> In the news today there was mention that the FCC is proposing a rule
> that 900 numbers must announce the cost of the call at the beginning
> of the connection and allow the caller to disconnect then without
> being billed.  I think that's a wonderful idea, and would suggest that
> the ruling be such that the TELEPHONE COMPANY handling the 900 call
> should provide that automatically - they can do it, since they already
> have the voice intercept equipment, and since they're doing the
> billing, they also know what the charges would be.

Guess what? This is exactly how it is done in Japan. The charge
announcement and grace period is handled by NTT before the IP ever
gets the call. Unfortunately, it is a little more complicated here
since there is a plethora of carriers and it is they, not the local
telco that "knows" the rate. Each and every LEC that could possibly
handle a 900 call would have to have the current rate database from
each and every carrier that has 900 service. Just because an LEC does
the billing does not mean that it has the billing information. It
simply passes on billing data to the customer that is provided by the
IEC.

But if this could be accomplished, we might be able to curb some of
the deception now going on such as:

* "Call our super sleaze lines for FREE. That's right, for FREE. [Rate:
    free first minute, $15 thereafter.]

* "Only $2.00 per minute". [Rate: $2.00/min--20 minute minimum]

It is stuff like this that brings about calls for regulations.

> By having the
> telco do the announcement, there'd be no chance for a sleazeball 900
> service operator to collect money without the announcement in
> disregard of the law.

This would also be applicable in the COCOT industry. Just think if all
payphones, COCOTs and utility coin phones, were operated from utility
coin COS lines. The coins would only be collected if the call was
indeed completed, the rate would be quoted by the telco, and there
would be a one-stop shop for complaints.

But there will always be complainers. People would much rather moan and
groan about the evils of 900 slime rather than simply call the telco and
have it blocked individually from their phones.


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

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Mail, Fax Card
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 14:30:35 PDT


About a week ago someone requested info on a combined voice mail, fax,
answering machine PC board.  It is available in the DAK catalog for
under $500.00.  They have a free 800 number that lets you test drive
the voice mail application.  I don't have the numbers here at work,
but this should get you on the right track.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 91 13:12:52 CST
From: "Jim E. Dunne" <motcid!void![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Makers of Old


I've got an old telephone, acquired from a GTE service area in far
Northern IL.  Embossed on the bottom is "THE NORTH ELECTRIC MFG. CO,
GALION, OHIO", and stamped on the bottom is "50 CYCLE RINGER".  Its
housing is Bakelite, and it has the brown cloth-covered cord that PAT
described on his Western Electric "Model Z".  I had it hooked up in
the early 80's, and it worked fine except for a low volume
characteristic (might be due to the cheesy speaker wire connection I
made for it!).

It didn't ring when it was hooked up; I'm guessing because of the 50
Hz ringer vs. the 20 Hz ringer of today that I have read about in the
Digest.  My question is, who were the phone manufacturers of old?  I'm
sure that Western Electric made the phones for the Bell system, but
who made the phones for the "other" companies?  And how/when did these
other service providers, and their hardware makers, come on the scene?

Finally, let me state that I very much enjoy reading the TELECOM Digest
and derive a special pleasure from the Chicago-based bent that Mr. Townson
offers.  As well as the sarcastic wit of John Higdon et al.!


Jim Dunne                Motorola Cellular        ...uunet!motcid!dunne

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

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 11:16:22 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: comp.dcom.telecom Distribution


This is just a note to advise readers of comp.dcom.telecom that
distribution of TELECOM Digest is now handled a little differently
than in the past.  Previously, each issue of the Digest was being
gatewayed to accuvax (or casbah).acns.nwu.edu for posting. The
procedure now is that the articles are sent direct to a few
well-connected nntp servers using 'nntpxmit', and transmitted directly
into the news stream, bypassing inews and other preliminaries here
completely.

Early results have been encouraging.  Many of you will see different
path lines -- often considerably shorter -- than in the past.
Naturally I can only use nntpxmit with sites which have authorized me
to do so (or allow anyone to do so by default). The three or four
sites I am using now are working quite nicely.  Let me know if you see
anything wrong or encounter problems.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #211
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22832;
          17 Mar 91 23:56 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24662;
          17 Mar 91 22:34 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31438;
          17 Mar 91 21:29 CST
Date:     Sun, 17 Mar 91 21:16:36 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #212
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 17 Mar 91 21:16:24 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 212

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Jack Powers]
    Re: Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connection [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Can You Disable Call-Waiting AFTER the Call Starts? [Stan Brown]
    Re: Call Forwarding Around the Nation [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: Northern Telecom in General [John McHarry]
    Re: Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connection [Ken Dykes]
    Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign [Daniel M. Rosenberg]
    Re: The Order of Repair [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Ring Detection IC Needed [Dave Mc Mahan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws
Date: 17 Mar 91 02:57:09 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> Have there been any cases involving a subscriber who has, say, an
> entire house wired for watching the output of a VCR, yet the incoming
> cable is attached to only that one device, the VCR?

Lots of folks have those 'RABBIT' boxes that ferry the output of the
cable box to remote rooms, and relay the infa-red control signals back
to switch channels. That must be legal considering the 'nice' stores
that sell it.

Locally here they encode and charge for the regular channels - even
WGBH channel 2, the educational one. But they will give you a healthy
hunk of wire to fish where you wish because they only do crude
installs. They generally assume they will get to crunch the F fittings
on later, but many just do their own.

It is time for competition in the cable industry to force the issue of
letting all those 'cable ready' TVs be usable without boxes.  Maybe
when the telco wants to provide TV or the cable folks want to do phone
service everyone should write and show up for DPU hearings. Fat chance
it will do any good, but just sometimes it may.

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

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 17:04:53 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws


I have heard (but not verified) that the city of Las Vegas, NV has
cable service to a demarc and inside wiring is the customer's
responsibility. Charging is supposed to be on a "per premises" basis.

One of the reasons cable companies give for hanging on to inside
wiring (besides the obvious one) is that the FCC holds them
responsible for RF radiation from their systems, and they shouldn't be
held responsible for something they don't own and control. I think
their ability to cut off the service from outside gives them all the
control they need.

Please post any news on this subject. I am on the local Cable
Commission in my home town and would like to see a demarc arrangement
part of our next franchise agreement.


Jack Powers  [e-mail] fax [phone]
Usual Disclaimer: Opinions, if any, are mine, if anyone's.

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connection
Date: 17 Mar 91 03:26:00 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> Is it possible to take a phone that only has pulse dialing and convert
> it to tone dialing?

Sure, but hardly worth it. When TT was still young, and most phones
were rotary 500 sets, there were kits that would do it. They came in
two flavors.

One had a round plastic insert that was punched for the TT buttons
that would fill the old rotary dial whole, and the other would have a
whole new housing. You got to reuse most everything else. Later there
were versions that were even notched for the modular jacks you were
likely to want add with the new housing.

Back then places like North Supply often stocked phones less ringers
because whatever tuned party line ringer that was needed would be
added in the field.

Also back then it was still illegal use your own phones. Not having a
ringer meant the test desk couldn't count it. A ringerless 500 set was
$11, and a TT 2500 was $28. The versions with a straight line ringer
were about $4 more. A replacement TT pad by itself was $23. The kit to
convert a 500 to a 2500 was only peanuts less than the whole 2500 set.

The dial brackets for a rotary dial go straight up inside, while for a
TT pad they offset in towards the center a bit as the TT pad is
narrower.  The rebuild kits included little spacers to allow the TT
pad to mount in a rotary dial phone. They also included an auxiliary
terminal strip for the extra connections the earlier transmission
networks wouldn't have screws for.

Eventually electronic TT pads got down to maybe $10, and got static
proofed so they were reliable. Kits would then have been cheaper, but
so were complete phones.

An imported 2500 set with an extra jack for hotel guests to plug their
modem into and a message waiting light in ever pleasing ASH color, and
by the case of eight may cost between $20 and $25 each during the
regular 'specials'. You can even find much cheaper ones, but you may
wish you hadn't. As you leave a NY subway, you may be able to buy one
for less than $5, but you definitely get what you pay for.

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

From: Stan Brown <emory!Dixie.Com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can You Disable Call-Waiting AFTER the Call Starts?
Date: 17 Mar 91 15:46:04 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Services


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Mc
Mahan) writes:

> 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.".

In reference to this question, has anyone been sucessful in making
this work for outgoing calls placed by a Hayes compatible modem?  What
I don't know how to do here is get the modem to flash the switchook.


Stan Brown    P. c. Design     404-363-2303    Atlanta GA
(emory|gatech|uunet) rsiatl!sdba!stan


[Moderator's Note:  On my US Robotics Courier 2400 modem, you use '!'
to force the modem to flash the hook. But on outgoing calls, why
wouldn't you just insert *70 on the front of the dialing string
instead, as in ATDT *70-123-4567?  If you want to flash the hook after
the modem is already on the line, I guess you would get the modem's
attention, with three plusses or whatever, followed by ATDT !*70 O,
where the final letter 'O' means for the modem to go back on line.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 22:37 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Fowarding Around the Nation


In V11, #171, [e-mail] (Scott Hinckley) writes:

> 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.

> 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 number already in the chain, that is it.  PAT]

The evolving finer points of call fowarding ... I have had both
experiences, but it seems the circumstances were different. With CF on
1AESS, I have found that:

Intra-switch: CF from A to B will end at B regardless of whether B is
forwarded as well.

Inter-switch: CF from A will go to wherever B is fowarded to, etc.  I
have not tried loops though.

So I wonder if I am correct ... is this universal, or dependent on the
generic the switch is running? How do other switches deal with this?
And finally, does anyone know exactly if one switch will pass
information to the next on whether the call is CF'ed or normal, or
what was the CF'ed number, etc? (We know that with CLID it is the
originating number that is passed along, right?). Does the
implementation of SS7 allow the receiving switch to get more
information, or treat the call differently?


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

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

From: John McHarry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Northern Telecom in General
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA
Date: 17 Mar 91 21:58:58 GMT


Actually, Northern Telecom used to be Northern Electric.  It was
originally owned by AT&T.  As a result of an earlier consent decree
(1954?)  AT&T was required to divest itself of its foreign
subsidieries.  It transferred Northern Electric to Bell Canada, which
was also started by the Bell family, but was never, so far as I know,
part of AT&T.

Originally Northern Electric was sort of a parallel to Western
Electric.  It built things to the same drawings supplied by Bell Labs.
I met a guy who worked in their engineering department when his job
was to white out the WE logo on the drawings and substitute NE.  I
know they built identical 500 sets, and, I think, 2500s.  They also
built #5 Crossbar.  As part of the sale to Bell Canada the licensing
of new designs was phased out gradually.  I think it ended for good
about 1974.  A result of that was the creation of Northern Electric
Laboratories, which became Bell-Northern Research.  It is
Bell-Northern because part of it is directly owned by Bell Canada.

Bell Canada holds about 51% of Northern Telecom.  The rest is publicly
traded.  Northern Telecom Limited owns all of Northern Telecom
Incorporated, the US subsidiery.  Actually there is now a holding
company called Bell Canada Enterprises at the top of the pyramid.  It
was set up to get the parent corporation out from under some
regulations.

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

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 07:53:11 EST
From: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rotary Dial w/o Wire Connections
Organization: Thinkage Ltd.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 205, Message 4 of 11

> Is it possible to take a phone that only has pulse dialing and convert
> it to tone dialing?

> [Moderator's Note: Well, sure it is. You would open the phone,
> disconect the dial and associated wires, yank it out and insert a
> touch tone pad there instead. Of course, the shell would not fit...

Unless of course he is not allowed to actually replace the phone unit
or otherwise not "in control" of it.

Perhaps, maybe, who knows, he wasn't asking quite the right question,
but rather wants to know if its possible to send tones out of a
dial-only set to access a voice-mail system.

He could get a $12 beeper from a "radio shack generic". More expensive
versions have memory for several numbers You hold it to the mouthpiece
to enter the tones.


   - Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada    [43.47N 80.52W]
         [e-mail]  [129.97.128.1]        watmath!kgdykes


[Moderator's Note: You mean one of those things the newspaper story
said 'all the drug dealers use' to call pagers from rotary dial phones
after the stupid city council made telco remove all the TT phones? :)  PAT]

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

From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign
Date: 17 Mar 91 20:49:48 GMT
Organization: World Otherness Ministries


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

> AT&T's current TV ad compaign is probably the biggest waste of money
> Madison Avenue has ever experienced. It is the one that says, "To be
> sure you get AT&T, dial 10-ATT-0 and then your number."

> What is wrong with this? It does not work. There is not (to my
> knowledge) a COCOT on the planet that will allow a call of the form
> '10288+0+10D' and actually route the call through AT&T. So what is all

I'd venture to say that it does not *always* work. John may have
already noticed that many Genuine Local Bell Operating Company phones
don't always use AT&T as the default carrier, but someone else clearly
marked on the instruction card. (The phones at the Palo Alto Veterans
Administration Hospital, genuine Pac Bell, for example, use NTI or
somesuch, and 10288 works fine.)

And there are a few reputable COCOT's I've encountered in airports and
hotels (okay, not many) where 10288 works.

Moreover, imagine if a lot of people run into phones where 10288 does
*not* work. It should, right? Which could very well help to focus
attention on dishonest COCOT service providers.


Daniel M. Rosenberg         Stanford Univ CSLI      Opinions here are my own
[e-mail]  {apple,ucbvax}!labrea!csli!dmr  BIT:dmr%csli@stanford


[Moderator's Note: I think AT&T's strategy may well be to keep
promoting 10288, getting everyone primed up for it, then start suing
on a case by case basis those COCOT operators who refuse to allow it.
AT&T will of course have the full authority of the FCC behind them in
any such suits they choose to bring.   PAT]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Order of Repair
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1991 16:25:10 GMT


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

> So it breaks down like this:

> The cable company had its act together. Its service restoral (while
> hardly essential) was first rate. PG&E took three hours to restore
> service. PG&E is probably the worst electric utility on the planet so
> for them it was probably miraculous. Never mind that the fire was
> originally started by primary wires arcing in the trees because PG&E
> felt it unnecessary to do any trimming. But wiping up the rear was
> Pac*Bell, who was too wimpy to even begin work on its cable until the
> next day.

Let's see ... the cable company had one "pair" to restore, and was
probably lowest on the pole, having been established last.  PG&E also
had one pair to restore, well maybe four if the pole had the maximum
number of house drops. Power is life-critical in that your forced-
air furnace won't work unless the fan can be powered and the medicine
in your refrigerater will get warm.

I don't blame the phone company for not wanting to work while PG&E is
on the pole stringing 12KV wires.  And how easy is it to put up a new
splice box (or two) in the rain with only the truck's spotlight for
illumination?


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: Dave Mc Mahan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ring Detection IC Needed
Organization:  Dave McMahan @ NetCom Services
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1991 22:57:38 GMT


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

> Can somebody point me toward a ring-detection IC?  I've checked my
> recent Harris, Dallas, and SS databooks, and I find lots of Call
> Progress Detectors, but what I want is ring-detection.  Preferably for
> more that one line per package (I'm thinking 10-20 lines into the
> device, maybe even 25 and hook up directly to a 21X termination.)

Most of the ring detectors I have seen implement this function with an
opto-isolated circuit.  Basically, there is a large resistor in series
with the LED side of the optoisolator placed across the phone line.
The resistor is chosen to bleed minimal current from the line during
normal on-hook operation and while a voice is connected.  The value I
recall seeing is on the order of 40K or 50K ohms, but check with me
and I'll verify that.

I also seem to recall a DC blocking capacitor somewhere in there, but
it has been a while (actually two days, but it's been a TOUGH
weekend!! :-) since I looked at these things.  I have a couple of data
books that contain example circuits with these shown.  The output of
the opto-isolator is fed into a CPU that get interrupted on every ring
pulse and sets a flag saying that a ring is occuring.  When it stops
receiving the pulses after it gets them, it clears the flag.  You
could do the same thing in pure hardware using a retriggerable one-
shot.  If you want more info on various sources of example circuits,
e-mail me and I'll send you names of data books.


Dave McMahan    [e-mail]
{apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!mcmahan

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #212
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01919;
          18 Mar 91 9:07 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16635;
          18 Mar 91 7:40 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16788;
          18 Mar 91 6:35 CST
Date:     Mon, 18 Mar 91 5:53:09 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #213
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 Mar 91 05:53:01 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 213

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Help Needed With NiCads on my Panasonic Cellular [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Did MCI Give me $20? [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Maestro Phones From Northern Telecom [Andrew Farmer]
    Re: Telephone Makers of Old [[e-mail]]
    Re: The Order of Repair [John Higdon]
    Some Realities About Repair of Damaged Aerial Telephone Cables [L. Lippman]
    Anyone Remember the "Tele-Trainer"? [Larry Lippman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Help Needed With NiCads on my Panasonic Cellular
Date: 17 Mar 91 01:45:23 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, ntg![e-mail] (Dave
Platt) writes:

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

>> handset just cutting off.  I figured something like a light bulb and
>> some leads to connect to the battery terminals but that seems crude
>> and slow.  Any suggestions.  Thanks in advance...

> What you've suggested is crude and slow ... and, if you're talking
> about a typical NiCd battery pack, it can damage the cells.

Somewhere I ran into a reference to a special charging circuit that
obviates the need for full discharge to prevent shallow discharge
memory.

This charger also recharged VERY fast from whatever state the battery
was in and there was something about high current short pulses and
blowing away whiskers. A custom module was needed for each battery
size to 'tune' the charger's action properly.

It sounded like a wonderful device, but was several hunderd dollars.

Some HAM, maybe Pennsylvania area??, was making them.

Does anyone know if this sort of charger really works, and if there is
a more affordable universal one with built in ability to do any size
battery? Perhaps one is now mass produced, and 'hand built' prices can
be avoided.

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did MCI Give me $20?
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1991 03:37:45 GMT


I've gotten similar checks (for $5) for "insuring" my credit cards (!).
I've always just deposited them and left the credit card part blank.
I can certainly use the money. About three weeks later I get a letter
reminding me that I haven't given them a credit card number, which I
ignored. If someone send you something unsolicited in the mail, it's
yours.


[e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Maestro Phones From Northern Telecom
From: Andrew Farmer <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 22:55:53 EST
Organization: AFI Communications - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


[e-mail] (Eric Skinner) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Probably the reason it said 'long distance' was
> because the payphone was a COCOT

Bell Canada still maintains a monopoly on phone service in Ontario and
Quebec, thus we don't have COCOTs up here.  My guess is that any
'collect' call will trigger the "Long Distance" display (since most of
them would be).


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: Sun, 17 Mar 91 20:45:07 -0800
From: 99700000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Makers of Old


I suppose way back in ancient times there were lots and lots of them.
Anyway, the ones I can think of, aside from North (which is still in
business) were Stromberg-Carlson, and Kellogg (Switchboard and Supply,
not the breakfast cereal outfit), and Automatic Electric, and Leich.

Then someone mentioned Gray telephone pay stations, and I distinctly
remember seeing once in a non-Bell town a pay phone with a name
something like "The Gray Telephone Pay Station Company" on it - other
than that and the Automatic Electric dial it looked just like a
Western Electric phone.

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

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 23:01 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: The Order of Repair


"Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Let's see ... the cable company had one "pair" to restore, and was
> probably lowest on the pole, having been established last.

It is a dual cable system. Have you ever worked with the type of coax
that is used in cable systems? It is semi-rigid and a bear to
manipulate. Also, it is installed ABOVE the telco cable (as are most
that I have seen around the country). So the cable people had to work
around the damaged telco cable to fix the TV feed. The fact that PG&E
was working on the 12KV lines did not seem to bother them much.

> PG&E also had one pair to restore, well maybe four if the pole had
> the maximum number of house drops.

PG&E had house drops, three 12KV primary wires and a transformer to
replace. Maybe since it was that company's negligence which caused the
fire a decision was made to hustle it.

> I don't blame the phone company for not wanting to work while PG&E is
> on the pole stringing 12KV wires.  And how easy is it to put up a new
> splice box (or two) in the rain with only the truck's spotlight for
> illumination?

That is a good excuse for after the sun went down (at 9PM), but what
were they doing for the previous seven hours? When electricity came
back, there were still three or four hours of daylight left. Actually,
this is a common story with Pac*Bell. When the trouble people come out
and determine that the job will require cable splicers, then you can
be assured that it will be a "next day" job. Besides, what would one
need a phone for anyway? To report a fire? :-)


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

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

Subject: Some Realities About Repair of Damaged Aerial Telephone Cables
Date: 17 Mar 91 23:40:50 EST (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> This talk about the problems in Rochester reminds me of a telling
> situation that happened right here in my neighborhood a couple of
> years ago.

> Almost simultaneously the cable, ALL of my phone lines, and the
> electricity went dead. A short time later, fire engines were screaming
> down the street. It seems that some trees had caught fire in the next
> block and had taken out all the services on the poles nearby.
> [details deleted]

> What is interesting is the order in which the services were restored.

    I don't see anything surprising here, as I will point out in
detail.

> Within a very short time after the fire was extinguished the cable was
> restored. I have some battery operated TVs and was able to observe
> this for myself.

    There are one, or perhaps two aluminum-sheathed coaxial cables
involved.  The necessary splices for two coaxial cables can be made in
less than ten minutes, with the greatest amount of time being that
required to get the ladder in position.  Lashing say, twenty feet of
new of coaxial cable would probably not require more than half an
hour.

> An hour or so after that, the electricity came back on.

    No big deal, either.  My guess is twenty minutes per
individual primary or secondary conductor per pole span, and/or sixty
minutes per pole span for new triplex with one or two service drops.

> As it turned out, telephone service was restored by late afternoon,
> about twenty-four hours after the outage began. Not very impressive.

    I suspect you may be rather harsh on the local telephone
company.  Since you have not described the type of cable or estimated
a pair count (which I suspect you probably could do), I can't give a
really specific response.  However, I'll address a few general issues.

    First, in the case of damage to a telephone cable, it is
necessary to cut out an entire defective section, and replace it with
a new section of cable which must be spliced at *both* ends.  If you
had a 100 pair cable, one would have to splice 100 pairs at one end of
the section, and 100 pairs at the other, for a total of 200 pairs or
400 individual wire connections.

    If it were a major feeder cable, the pair count could be 200,
400, 600 or more pairs - multipled by two for the number of splices.

    While much cable splicing is performed using multiple splices
that splice 25 pairs at one time (like 3M MS2, WECo 710, etc.),
instead of the traditional one-wire B-connector or 3M UG connector,
such splicing still takes time.  The last thing that any cable splicer
wants is to go back and open up a splice because of a split or
transposed pair.

    The worse possible scenario is that the damaged cable was
lead-covered pulp insulation.  Ever see the color coding on a 101 pair
pulp cable?  You have fifty pairs of white/green, fifty pairs of
white/red plus a red/blue tracer pair.  Repair of such a cable
requires identification of EACH pair from BOTH the CO end and the
subscriber end.  Consider how much labor is required if say, you had a
404-pair or higher pair-count pulp cable.

    The cable in question may well be pressurized; it certainly
will be if it is a pulp cable.  Repair of damaged pressurized cable
usually involves building a "pressure" dam at each end using epoxy
cement, along with creating a pneumatic connection to temporarily
purge the cable with dry nitrogen.  Pneumatic continuity is later
restored when the splices are complete.

    Sheath preparation of aerial cable requires care in order to
maintain a low-impedance grounding path, in addition to any sealing
requirements if the cable is pressurized.

    Following a cable break, the first thing that a telephone
company will usually do is check their outside plant records to see of
any emergency services or special service lines are affected.  If
*justified*, "restoral boards" may be set up at both ends of the
damaged cable section to effect temporary continuity for critical
pairs.  Using a restoral board approach, critical pairs could be
temporarily restored in a few hours; the longest delay is searching
plant records and getting pair identification data to the field.
Placing restoral boards crowds the damage site and significantly
prolongs the repair and splicing process.  Ain't no way that restoral
boards will be used for POTS pairs.

    If many pairs are affected, a craftsperson in the CO may pull
the protectors to open the circuits and clear any potential permanent
signal alarms.  Following the cable repair, the protectors are then
replaced to restore service.

    All of the above takes *time*.  My guess is that a two-person
crew can replace a 100 pair cable section in about six hours if the
cable is PIC and unpressurized.  A four-person crew can reduce that
time by about one third.  A longer time is required if more than 100
pairs are involved, but it is not a linear relationship since certain
common work must be performed regardless of the number of pairs (i.e.,
a 200-pair cable may require only 20% more time than a 100-pair).  If
the cable is pulp, all bets are off.  A well-utilized 101 pair pulp
cable may well require fifty or more labor-hours to repair due to all
of the necessary identification procedures.

> The cable company had its act together. Its service restoral (while
> hardly essential) was first rate.

    Give me a break.  Their repair effort was absolutely trivial
by any reasonable comparison!

> PG&E took three hours to restore service. PG&E is probably the worst
> electric utility on the planet so for them it was probably miraculous.

    Sounds about right for one pole span.  No big deal here; one
visually matches a few wires.  Not even any color codes to match. :-)
No checking of plant records is even required (except to identify any
life-support locations).

> But wiping up the rear was Pac*Bell, who was too wimpy to even
> begin work on its cable until the next day.

    First of all, unless there is some dire crisis (sorry, but
POTS service does not qualify), a telephone company will generally not
work on aerial cables while the electric power utility is still
working on the same poles.  This is just standard safety practice in
the telephone industry; I'm sorry if you think it's "wimpy".  The fact
that the CATV company completed their repair before the electric power
utility does surprise me, however.

    Replacing aerial cable during nighttime hours (which I assume
we have here) is a very undesirable situation due to the difficulty in
obtaining good site illumination.  Yes, I know there are such things
as flood lights, but the attention to detail necessary for telephone
cable repair work is orders of magnitude greater than for electric
power lines.  If solely POTS subscribers were affected, and if the
damage occurred at night, in my opinion a reasonable "value judgment"
on the part of telephone company outside plant supervision would be to
wait until morning.

    So, let's say damage occurred at 7:00 PM, the electric utility
completed its work by 10:00 PM, the telephone company elected to
repair on the day shift, and one shift was required to effect repairs,
the overall time to restore service may well be 24 hours.  While you
may not be very happy about the situation, this is just a fact of
life.


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

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

Subject: Anyone Remember the "Tele-Trainer"?
Date: 17 Mar 91 23:43:23 EST (Sun)
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 four-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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #213
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03836;
          18 Mar 91 11:22 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09639;
          18 Mar 91 9:46 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06937;
          18 Mar 91 8:41 CST
Date:     Mon, 18 Mar 91 7:52:00 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #214
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 Mar 91 07:51:44 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 214

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Front Door to Apartment Phone Service [TELECOM Moderator]
    Dial "0" for Mickey Mouse [Paul Coen]
    New Online Service? [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign [Peter da Silva]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 7:31:25 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Front Door to Apartment Phone Service


Several days ago, an inquiry was made here about Front Door to
Apartment phone service, sometimes known as Enterphone or Interphone
Service. A message appeared in the Digest some time ago about this,
and I will try to recap that earlier message for those who missed it.

Prior to divestiture, Illinois Bell (and perhaps other telcos) offered
a type of hybrid central office service which allowed for calls
between the front (or security) door in an apartment building lobby
and the individual apartments, using a three digit code. The call
would ring in on the actual phone line in the specified apartment. The
service was called 'Enterphone', and involved dedicated pairs between
the apartment building and the telco central office.

A person in the lobby would use the phone -- typically a well secured
wall phone with an armored cable to the handset -- to dial a three
digit code for the tenant desired. These codes were listed in a
directory by the phone, and did not give actual apartment numbers or
phone numbers, but merely the three digit code.

The central office would get this information, and translate it to a
specific wire pair going to the apartment. They did NOT translate it
to a phone number and then redial that phone. By translating to the
wire pair, the idea was the door code would always work with the
specified apartment, regardless of the phone number actually in
service there.

When a visitor dialed the desired three digit code, the central office
would go on the associated pair and test for busy. If not busy, it
would seize the pair, and send a special ring (a very short double
ring of the format ding! ding! ... ding! ding!). This told the
apartment tenant that the call was coming from the front door rather
than elsewhere, giving them the opportunity to avoid answering if
desired.  If the pair was busy, then the central office sent a call
waiting tone instead.

The tenant would answer the phone (or flash, if on a call), and be
connected with the door. If on a call, then the central office call
would be put on hold while the tenant was connected to the door. All
calls from the door had a one minute (combined ringing and talking)
time out. The idea was, this was intended as a front door intercom;
not an actual phone line.

After identifying the party at the door, the tenant could dial '4' to
unlatch the door for a pre-detirmined period of time -- usually five
or ten seconds. Or, they could simply hang up and refuse entry to the
person in the lobby. If they were on a call waiting, dialing '6' would
deny entrance, disconnect the door call and return them to the call on
hold.  If a central office call came in while the tenant was talking
to someone at the front door, then that call also sent a call waiting
signal.

One special 'control' pair from the central office was used to send a
small amount of current to a relay in the apartment building which in
turn controlled the electric door striker. The amount of time it would
hold open was set in the central office by pre-arrangement with the
management of the building.

Usually there were a few extra administrative extensions tied into the
Enterphone system, such as a phone for the on-premises management
office or caretaker. When tenants were out (or the management office
closed) then calls via Enterphone could be picked up by an answering
machine if the tenant otherwise had one on the line. Calls could NOT
however be forwarded elsewhere. Even if the tenant had their phone
call forwarded to some other location, the Enterphone would 'ring
through', since it was not really dialing the phone number, but simply
grabbing the specified pair temporarily.

One disadvantage to this system was that the pairs coming to the
building had to be expressly dedicated to that building ... no pair
swapping on the poles to meet the needs of the neighborhood otherwise,
since this would cause the front door line for the apartment in
particular to go out unless a corresponding change was made in the
central office, which was rarely the case. In the central office
itself, there were jumpers between the Enterphone device and the
frames, and these had to be tagged with warnings not to swap them out,
etc.  Another disadvantage was that if something went wrong en-route
to the building; i.e. a cable out due to fire or flood, etc, then this
caused the apartment building front door to go out of service as far
as intercom service / electronic opening was concerned, although of
course it could still be opened with a key.

In the normal course of business, the Enterphone system usually
carried a guarenteed two hour repair turn-around, 24 hours per day,
seven days per week. Obviously it was a critical application. If an
apartment was vacant or occupied but without regular phone service
(tenant on a credit disconnect, etc) then the phone in the apartment
would still work for Enterphone purposes only. Usually the caretaker
of the building had two or three plain black rotary dial phones which
belonged to telco that he was allowed to give new tenants on a
temporary basis until they got their own phone installed. This allowed
them to use the front door intercom from the time they first moved in,
even if their own phone was not installed for a couple days.  And as
noted above, it did not matter what the tenant did with their own
phone, or whether they had an unlisted number, changed their number,
etc. Enterphone was independent of the actual service in the
apartment.

The cost of the service was billed to the apartment building, and the
rates (as of about 1980, prior to divestiture) were as follows:

$1.10 per month per apartment.
$5.00 per month for the phone from the lobby to the CO.
$5.00 per month for the circuit from the CO to the door-opening relay.
$50.00 per month for the common equipment in the CO.

The lobby phone was touch-tone if desired for an extra dollar or so
per month. It could likewise be a speaker phone mounted in the wall
without an actual receiver attached (the first button pushed on the
touch tone pad would open the circuit -- usually those models used a
dummy digit such as '1' as first-digit-filler for that purpose) for a
couple dollars extra per month. An 'extension' of the lobby phone
could make a line appearance on a (for example) six-button, five-line
phone in the manager's office, allowing the manager to call any
individual apartment via the Enterphone for a couple dollars extra per
month.

So, a fifty unit apartment building would pay about $115 - $120 per
month for the service. It was a very reliable service, and offered
great security to tenants, since a visitor who did not know what
apartment was desired had to ask the person on the phone while they
were at the door. The tenant was free to answer or not, and admit them
or not. The special ring tipped off the tenant as to the nature of the
call.

Then came divestiture, and in His Wisdom, the Judge ruled that
Enterphone was just the sort of service telcos should NOT be allowed
to offer. Was Enterphone to be considered Customer Premises Equipment,
or Central Office / Centrex equipment?  Well, the decision was telcos
could no longer offer it, but to avoid a great deal of inconvenience
to existing customers, they were permitted to 'grandfather' the
service and continue making it available only to existing customers
for (I think) another ten years.

About the time of divestiture, the same service became available as
purely CPE, or Customer Premises Equiment. All that really happened
was the 'common-equipment' which had previously been located in the
central office, renting for $50 per month started showing up in the
basement of apartment buildings, where it was typically mounted in or
near the main terminal box for the building. Instead of being rented,
it was offered for sale, at somewhere around $2000.

Pairs coming into the building are tied down on one side of the common
equipment -- which also had been given a new name -- <I>nterphone --
with an 'I' instead of an 'E' in the process. The house pairs go out
the other side of the unit and off to the apartments as always. Under
this arrangement, although keeping the house pairs properly lined up
remains critical to the functioning of the Interphone, telco is free
to do as they wish with pairs to <-> from the central office, as long
as they tie them down correctly on 'their side' of the Interphone, of
course.

The service functions the same as the old Enterphone, with distinctive
ringing, call waiting and three digit codes from the door to each
apartment. Of course there is no longer a charge for each apartment
line. Nor is there a charge for the lobby phone or the circuit and
relay to open the front door, since these things now belong to the
apartment building itself. When it breaks down, you get it fixed
wherever you like, at your convenience :) ... but the companies which
sell Interphone (it is manufactured by GTE of Canada) will also sell
you a maintainence contract with prompt repair service.

Of the two units I am familiar with, one was Enterphone; the other was
Interphone. They were virtually identical, except the Interphone unit
has a speakerphone in the lobby with sturdy metal touchtone buttons
built into the same metal panel in the wall ... nothing there for
vandals to tamper with. In that 96-unit apartment building, the digit
'1' activated the speakerphone, and the two digits following called
the apartments and caretaker's office. The common equipment was about
the size of an Apple computer, operated on a 110 volt AC power supply,
weighed about ten pounds and hung on the wall next to telco's inside
terminal box in the basement.

Various CPE suppliers sell/service Interphone. You can inquire at any
large telecommunications equipment company. I can't honestly say what
the price would be now-days.

This sort of system is much superior to the arrangement where you dial
a code (or punch a speed-dial button) on a phone and have it
translated into a seven-digit number it dials on a regular phone line.
The reason is, those systems are useless if the apartment phone is
busy (and does not have call waiting) or if there is no working line
in the apartment. Likewise, if the person is gone and has call
forwarding, they probably do not want a visitor at the front door to
have their call forwarded to wherever. Finally, the apartment complex
has to pay for calls over a regular line using speed dialing
techniques, and there is the risk someone will place unauthorized
calls over the front door phone as well unless it is controlled
carefully.

Admittedly, the speed dial / abbreviated dialing to a seven-digit
number scheme is a less expensive way to go if you want front door to
apartment intercom service over regular phone lines. But a system like
Interphone, while more expensive to install, costs less in the long
run with no phone charges, no risk of unauthorized long distance
calls, and no concern about the apartment phone being busy or out of
service. And quite obviuously, the caretaker does not have to
reprogram Interphone every time a new tenant moves in or an existing
tenant changes their phone number, as is the case with the units which
merely outdial on a regular phone line using speed dial codes.

I hope this gives the original writer a few ideas to work with.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 20:41 EDT
From: Paul Coen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dial "0" for Mickey Mouse


Well, myself and eight friends just came back from a spring break
camping trip -- we spent four days at Walt Disney World.  One of the
things that we played with was the payphones, naturally.

They seem to be ITT units, very similar to the "standard" Bell
payphones, with the addition of a credit card slot located on the
mounting plastic for the keypad (under the keys).

They are clearly marked as belonging to "Vista Telephone" or something
to that effect; based on the "Vista" in the name, as well as the
picture of Mickey Mouse (which did NOT inspire confidence -- I was
expecting to get an operator with a Mickey voice) on the information
card.

The 1+ and 0+ service defaults to AT&T.  I never had an occasion to
make a local call, so I couldn't say.  10xxx codes work (and they did
with the four or so other COCOT companies whose phones I used during the
trip).

By the way, there are two AT&T public phones at EPCOT (one of the
theme parks).  They are both located in the AT&T-sponsored part of the
"Communicore East" building, along with the games that allow you to
pretend to be a network coordinator on AT&T's network.

One phone is one of those fancy AT&T do-dads with the credit card
slot, a green LCD-type screen, and the "Next call" button, which
allows you to make another call on the same credit card without having
to re-enter it.

The other is in a booth, on the opposite side of the exit door from
the "fancy" phone.  It's in a large, fairly soundproof booth, and has
a speakerphone that allows families to call relatives at home.

I have no idea about the local calling capacity of these two beasties.
I just thought it was interesting that these two phones exist in the
middle of Mickey Mouse's COCOT territory.

By the way, the Spaceship Earth ride sponsored by AT&T has a bunch of
mistakes in it.  One gave credit to Europeans for first inventing the
printing press, which isn't correct.  The second was spotted by an art
historian friend of mine who pointed out that they show Michaelangelo
painting some figures on the Sistene Chapel -- including clothes.  The
clothes were added by a later artist.

Much more sinister was the VERY subtle propaganda thrown in by AT&T
and the other corporate sponsors (GM was the worst), under the guise
of education.  Walt must be spinning in his grave.


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

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

Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 14:34:51 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Online Service?
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  The latest issue of BYTE (March 1991) has a stiff card with an ad
offering free time on a new online service in return for some feedback
on the service. Does not mention how long the free time will last or
how much use will be allowed. Also no mention of access means or
costs.  The card has questions on hardware configuration so they can
send the proper software. Also inquires about other online services
that you use.

  The front of the card is addressed to Telecommunications
Clearinghouse in Vienna VA.  Is this a front address for the actual
company and does anyone know anything more about it?


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1991 13:04:22 GMT


TELECOM Moderator Notes:

> [Moderator's Note: I think AT&T's strategy may well be to keep
> promoting 10288, getting everyone primed up for it, then start suing
> on a case by case basis those COCOT operators who refuse to allow it.
> AT&T will of course have the full authority of the FCC behind them in
> any such suits they choose to bring.   PAT]

In the meantime they're continuing to lose money from the many
consumers, like me, who carry around a FONcard (or MCI card or
whatever) because AT&T refuses to sell us a service we need.

Classic AT&T marketing. If it wasn't the fact that they *owned* the
phone service to begin with, it would have gone the way of their
computer systems division by now.


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #214
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17517;
          18 Mar 91 23:34 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06694;
          18 Mar 91 21:55 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11945;
          18 Mar 91 20:51 CST
Date:     Mon, 18 Mar 91 20:43:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #215
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 Mar 91 20:43:18 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 215

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: New Online Service? [Jack Dominey]
    Re: GTE / California Helps Prevent Slamming [Randal L. Schwartz]
    Re: Telecommunications Emergency in El Salvador [Dennis G. Rears]
    Re: Alphanumeric Paging [Daryl Jones]
    Re: Voice Mail, Fax Card [Peter da Silva]
    Re: UK Deregulation - Big News [Steve Hamley]
    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Chuck Forsberg]
    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Martin McCormick]
    Re: FCC Proposed Regs on Public Access Phones [Andy Behrens]
    Re: Disabling Call Waiting [Steve Kass]
    Re: Calling an Out-of-Area 800 Number [David Lesher]
    Re: Dial "0" for Mickey Mouse [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Dial "0" for Mickey Mouse [R. Kevin Oberman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Mar 18 11:36:42 EST 1991
Subject: Re: New Online Service?


In  V11#214, Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]> writes:

>   The latest issue of BYTE (March 1991) has a stiff card with an ad
> offering free time on a new online service in return for some feedback
> on the service. Does not mention how long the free time will last or
> how much use will be allowed. Also no mention of access means or
> costs.  The card has questions on hardware configuration so they can
> send the proper software. Also inquires about other online services
> that you use.

Sounds like the ad in {PC Magazine} that I answered a couple of months
ago.  It turns out to be Online America.  The actual offer is, IMHO,
pretty cheesy, and I don't intend to use it.  To log in, you must
provide a Visa/Mastercard number.  You then get three "free" hours of
online time to evaluate the service.  If you stay online any longer,
normal rates ($8 peak / $4 offpeak) apply.  A monthly charge of $9.95
will also be levied, but this covers your first three hours per month.
The only way to avoid charges altogether is to drop the service after
those first three hours.

In other words, this "free time for feedback" is just a deceptive way
to lure us 'techies' into what is really just a waiver of the first
month's service charge.  Whoopee.


Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA
v: [phone]  AT&TMail: !dominey

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

From: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE / California Helps Prevent Slamming
Reply-To: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 17:04:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, wybbs!ken@sharkey (Ken
Jongsma) writes:

| According to an bill insert, GTE California is now offering an
| authorization form to prevent "slamming" by other long distance
| carriers. There is no charge for this form. Returning it to GTE will
| allow your account to be coded such that your written permission is
| required for a carrier change.

I just got this in my GTE Northwest bill.  Maybe its a national
policy.  (And a good one at that...)


Randal L. Schwartz,           Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
on contract to Intel's Warp project,       Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III
[e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 13:04:03 EST
From: Dennis G. Rears" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecommunications Emergency in El Salvador


Jim Dywer writes:

> EMERGENCY SITUATION IN EL SALVADOR!!!

> On Monday March 11 Salvadorean Telecommunications and Treasury
> Ministry workers went on strike.  They are represented by the two
> following unions (respectively) ASTEL and AGHEMA.

> As of today, Tuesday March 12, all the work places have been occupied
> by Treasury Police, well known as the the brutal political police of

Well known by whom?

> El Salvador.

> WHAT YOU CAN DO:

> Call or telex the following numbers demanding:

>     (1)  The demilitarization of the workplace
>     (2)  Respect for the right of workers to strike
>
> followed by a list of numbers

   Why should we?  What business is it of ours (U.S.A)?  I presume the
Salvadorean Telecommunications and Treasury Ministry workers are
government employees.  Does the Salvadorean law give government
workers the right to strike?  American government workers areen't
allowed to strike. If not they are breaking the law and should be
treated as such.  Telephone service is a necessity and if the workers
are striking they potentialy could cause harm to the national
security.

   I am not advocating physical or illegal harm to the strikers, but
give us some more information.  Have the police actually done
anything? Is the strike legal?  What are the issues? Blindly calling
for actions without full knowledge of the situation is unconscionable.

   It is so typical of Americans to rush in and "save" people while
only superficially knowing why there are doing it in the first place.


Dennis


[Moderator's Note: When I ran the original message Monday morning, I
considered adding a disclaimer saying I was presenting it for the
telecom news involved; i.e. possible disruption of service, etc; but
decided to let it pass as submitted. This forum is of course not a
good one for discussion of US intervention in the affairs of other
nations, so maybe we should let the matter die gracefully. Thanks.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Alphanumeric Paging
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 91 20:51:07 PST
From: Daryl Jones <[e-mail]>


Most modern common carriers which provide alphanumeric paging service
offer at least three modes of access:

    1. IXO Protocol.  This is a simple protocol frequently used for
       low-volume dial-up access to the paging terminal. 1200,7,e,1
       is usually used. A simple checksum must be sent at the
       end of the message.

    2. TAS Protocol.  TAS stands for Telephone Answering Service. This
       is a real simple technique intended for users who access the
       paging terminal with a dumb terminal. The user is prompted for
       pager phone number and the alphanumberic message.

    3. TNPP Protocol. This is the protocol that is most suited for
       interfacing a paging terminal with a customer's computer. A
       checksum calculation is required. The protocol provides for
       destination addressing, so that the paging terminal which
       receives a TNPP transaction from a customer may pass the
       transaction off to another paging terminal, possible at a
       faw-away location. TNPP stands for Telocator Network Protocol.
       Telocator is the name of a trade association for radio common
       carriers.

At least a few Internet and uucp sites have mail addresses that will
forward to alphanumeric paging systems.  This is a good technique for
automatically notifying a system administrator of critical problems
etc. It also provides a convenient method for easily generating an
alphanumeric page.


                       Telecommunications Engineering Associates
Daryl Jones, KA6VEP        409 Wildwood Drive
                            So. San Francisco, CA 94080
{decwrl,pacbell}!tcomeng!daryl  Phone: [phone]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Mail, Fax Card
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1991 13:07:44 GMT


[e-mail] (David Ptasnik) writes:

> About a week ago someone requested info on a combined voice mail, fax,
> answering machine PC board.  It is available in the DAK catalog for
> under $500.00.

If it's available in the DAK catalog, there *is* something wrong with
it.  I've wasted enough money over the years learning that ... no point
in anyone else getting burned.


[e-mail]

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

From: Steve Hamley <tharr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: UK Deregulation - Big News
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 14:20:44 GMT


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

>> On a different note: what exactly are "lifetime telephone numbers"?

> The idea is that you are given (or, for more money, you choose) a
> phone number which you carry with you for the rest of your life,
> wherever you go in the country. Nice idea, but a nightmare to
> administer, I fear. And the days of looking at the STD code to
> determine where a number is located are numbered.  It's going to be
> hard to work out what the charge will be for a given number.

The announcement about 'lifetime telephone numbers' also mentioned the
fact that Oftel (the regulatory body for UK telecoms) wanted to
include an extra digit at the front of numbers. As I understand it
from a colleague who works at BT, this is the key to how customers
know how much they will be paying. The proposal is that the country is
split into zones, with this prefix digit specifying the zone in which
the rest of the number is currently resident.

Personally, ten zones would seem to imply that the areas are going to
have to be fairly large, especially if there are zones for mobile
phones, toll free, premium services and international. If there are to
be a number of competing telcos then it would surely also limit their
charging flexibility?

As for the technical feasibility, both the BT and Mercury digital
networks are already capable of assigning a logical telephone number
or block of numbers to any physical location. The lumbering giants
will no doubt take years to decide on the marketing and how much to
charge though.

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

From: [e-mail] (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws
Date: 18 Mar 91 07:28:36 GMT
Organization: Omen Technology INC


In article <[e-mail]> John Kennedy <johnk@opel.
com> writes:

> subscriber for each piece of equipment connected to the cable.  It
> seems that cable legislation is a few years behind that for the
> telephone industry.

> Is there legislation afoot anywhere that is attempting to modernize
> this?

Yes, Senate Bill 12 for 1991.  Ask your senator to mail you a copy,
then bug him to support it if you agree with it.  Hearings were held
on S.12 last week, but the issues were not covered by CNN.

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 11:21:45 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws


     I would really cheer the day when cable TV systems adopt the same
philosophy regarding a D-mark and inturnal wiring.  Every time we have
had trouble outside, and they want to come check it out, I have to
scuttle like a rat under the house and put their drop back on their
single outlet so that the splitter won't show up.  When they leave, I
duck back under and fix things like they were.


Martin McCormick   WB5AGZ

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 18:30:24 EST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Proposed Regs on Public Access Phones


What is missing here?

>  Moderator's Note:  Your lengthy file has been placed in the Telecom
>  Archives with the other AOS related files, and I thank you. Interested
>  readers can access the Telecom Archives using standard ftp commands
>  from an Internet site: ftp lcs.mit.edu ... then login anonymous and
>  give your [e-mail] for the password. Once on line at MIT, then
>  'cd telecom-archives'.

The *name* of the file!  I forgot to mention it. When you go to the
Telecom Archives, look for 'aos-new.fcc.proposals'.  There are various
files beginning with 'aos' ... you might want to review them all.


PAT

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 15:44 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Disabling Call Waiting


In issue #206, Dave Levenson <[e-mail]> writes:

> In New Jersey, the subscriber must subscribe to the feature that
> allows disabling of call-waiting for this to work.  This is a feature
> that may be ordered and priced separately from call waiting.

> If disable call waiting is purchased, then the subscriber may disable
> call waiting on an established call by flashing the switchhook, and
> dialing *70, and may then expect to be reconnected with the call that
> was in progress.

> [Moderator's Note:  Illinois Bell gives *70 for free.  PAT]

NJ Bell gives *70 for free, too, at least if you DON'T have call
waiting to begin with.  I've been annoyed for several months now by
not being able to hang up my phone with a quick flash.  Instead, I get
a new dial tone, and the call goes on hold.  The only thing that I can
dial through the new dial tone without getting a reorder is *70, after
dialing which I am returned to the call in progress.  Calls to the
business office and 611 get me nowhere.  I really don't have call
waiting, but I have every symptom of having cancel call waiting [and
don't want it].  Weird.


Steve Kass/ Math&CS/ Drew U/ Madison NJ 07940
2015141187/ [e-mail]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling an Out-of-Area 800 Number
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 17:36:01 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


Knowledgable sources in El Salvador last week told me that using
USA Direct; they can pay a $6.00 fee and get calls completed to
various 800 numbers.


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

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dial "0" for Mickey Mouse
Date: 18 Mar 91 19:50:35 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul
Coen) writes:

> They are clearly marked as belonging to "Vista Telephone" or something
> to that effect; based on the "Vista" in the name, as well as the
> picture of Mickey Mouse (which did NOT inspire confidence -- I was
> expecting to get an operator with a Mickey voice) on the information
> card.

> The 1+ and 0+ service defaults to AT&T. ...
> I just thought it was interesting that these two phones exist in the
> middle of Mickey Mouse's COCOT territory.

So where's the COCOT?

The local telephone operating company in Lake Buena Vista, Florida is
Vista-United Telephone, a joint venture of Walt Disney Co. and United
Telecom, the same folks who own Sprint and a bunch of local telcos in
various outbacks.  The Mickey Mouse payphones are plain old local
telco units, NOT COCOTS!

Y'see, back when WDW was being created, the swamps west of Kissimee
were unpopulated and no telco served them.  So Disney created a
telephone company subsidiary and got certificated to serve the area,
which they named after, I think, a place in Anaheim (LBV).  They sold
half to United, which no doubt added some expertise.  It's a fully
modern operation with two COs, optical fiber, etc.  And given the
growth in the area, it has quite a few phones in its territory.
(Smart move!)


Fred R. Goldstein      Digital Equipment Corp.   Littleton MA
[e-mail]           voice: [phone]

Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let
alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Dial "0" for Mickey Mouse
Date: 18 Mar 91 22:34:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Paul
Coen) writes:

> Much more sinister was the VERY subtle propaganda thrown in by AT&T
> and the other corporate sponsors (GM was the worst), under the guise
> of education.  Walt must be spinning in his grave.

First, Vista Telephone is the LEC for Disney world, so the phones are
NOT COCOTs. Disney World is a politically independent entity in
Florida and not responsible to the county or any other political
sub-division of the state.  Like many communities, they have a private
phone company.

Second, I doubt Walt would ber too concerned. He had no problem with
the idea of turning a profit and Disneyland had similar corporate
sponsorship setups long before he died. I remeber the Monsanto
Chemical and AT&T setups in Tomorrowland back in 1962 quite well.


R. Kevin Oberman    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: [e-mail]             [phone]

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my
typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #215
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19339;
          19 Mar 91 1:30 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23794;
          19 Mar 91 0:01 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07508;
          18 Mar 91 22:56 CST
Date:     Mon, 18 Mar 91 21:53:40 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #216
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 Mar 91 21:53:26 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 216

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Order of Repair [Mike Lukacs]
    Re: The Order of Repair [[e-mail]]
    Re: Some Realities About Repair of Damaged Aerial Phone Cables [D. Lesher]
    Re: I Want to Buy a COCOT [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: I Want to Buy a COCOT [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Did MCI Give me $20? [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Help Needed With NiCads on my Panasonic Cellular [John G. DeArmond]
    Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu / Motorola [C Ibbotson]
    Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign [R. Kevin Oberman]
    Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign [Tom Coradeschi]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mike Lukacs 21341 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Order of Repair
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Bellcore - Digital Video Research
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 22:17:10 GMT


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

|> This talk about the problems in Rochester reminds me of a telling
|> situation that happened right here in my neighborhood a couple of
|> years ago.

|> So it breaks down like this:

|> The cable company had its act together. Its service restoral (while
|> hardly essential) was first rate. PG&E took three hours to restore
|> Pac*Bell, who was too wimpy to even begin work on its cable until the
|> next day.

I had a similar situation in my neighborhood ten years ago; a
hurricane took down some trees and all the phone and power lines in
several places.  Power was restored in 24 Hrs., Phones took three
days.  However! Consider the magnitude of the various restoration
processes!

Cable television is a low voltage tree structured service.  The cable
company needed to get one man with a lift truck or a ladder to splice
ONE coaxial cable in two places to bypass the damaged section.

The power company had to first make the area safe by removing all wire
remnants and cutting back tree limbs that came too close etc.  They
then had to rehang in a well insulated manner, and reconnect TWO to
SIX high voltage wires.

The telephone company had to sort out, "buzz out", unscramble, install
and connect several hundred or several thousand (!!) subscriber lines.
Naturally this takes considerably longer to do.

In the case of my neighborhood, the power company responded and had
men on the scene in four hours. (Ours was not the only problem they
had that day.) The local phone company had people investigating the
damage at about the same time, but could not begin repairs until the
power electricians were finished.  Power is considered to be a more
essential service, and since all are on the same poles, the phone
repairers are REQUIRED to stand back and not interfere with the power
work, both for the safety of all involved, and to promote a speedier
repair of the power lines.  I suspect that in your case, the cable
company was able to bypass the affected section via a noninterfering
route, else they too would have had to wait.


DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed    | M. E. Lukacs NVC-3X-330
in the above are my own, and not      | Bell Communications Research (BELLCORE)
those of Bell Communications Research.| 331 Newman Springs Road By Law,
                                  | Red Bank, New Jersey, USA 07701-7040
                                      | (201) or [phone] FAX: [phone]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1991 07:03:41 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The Order of Repair


For what it's worth, the repair pattern here in Rochester seems to be:

1. A Rochester Gas & Electric crew (or a crew on loan from another
electric company) restores power (by restringing lines, removing
fallen branches from the lines, etc.).

2. A Rochester Telephone crew (or a crew on loan from another
telephone company) follows the electric company crews, and restores
telephone service.

3. Greater Rochester Cablevision restores cable TV.

This order kinda makes sense to me.  The electric company people are
the experts in working with high voltage lines, so let them do their
thing before everybody else shows up.  It also makes sense to make
restoration of electric service the highest priority, so the other
crews stay out the way until that's been accomplished.

Personally, I've been pleased with the repair service.  I was one of
the lucky people who never lost electric or telephone service, but the
lines for both were knocked down.  The electric line was replaced
without disconnecting my existing service (so I didn't have to reset
any of my digital clocks).  The telephone crew showed up a day later.
The electric crew also cut the fallen tree limbs into fireplace size
logs, which they didn't have to do (it certainly made my clean up task
a bit easier).  Now, if only my cable TV service were restored.  (It's
been out for over two weeks).


Don

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Realities About Repair of Damaged Aerial Telephone Cables
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 18:34:59 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


{John and Larry discuss a fire damaged cable repair}

I have to side with Larry on this one. Pre-breakup, I was in charge of
35+ leased pairs of various types into a facility.  While outages on
one or two was a regular daily occurance, one night at midnight I got a
frantic call from the shift operator.

He was on the last of four POTS lines, and the ground on one side of the
pair was VERY obvious ... he reported that he had a board full of
failures, and both (60 ma. loop) ASR-28's were "running open," too.

I quickly (before the last pair died - a few minutes later) reminded
him to use the 156 mhz radio as needed, and had him drive down the
cable route to find the problem. He called me on the air to report a
tool shed on fire under the trunk.

Through some miracle, I got the 611-droid to wake up the Cable foreman
for the area. After several attempts, I got the one for the correct
district ;-}. (The others went back to sleep.) [If you REALLY want to
know - it was the 28 cable in the Shadyside CO]

I went out too, and Ma *did* start on the repairs after the power
utility got the 13.2 kv and 230 v stuff fixed. It was a real mess. The
fire had been at a corner pole, and had wiped out a splice cap, too. A
four man crew, or maybe more, worked until late that afternoon. It was
a little easier, I recall, because my repeated harpings on failures
had at least forced Cable to keep the records up to date;-}

What you REALLY want to do, John, is just get a SLC-96 installed in
your basement ;^]. Then, next fire, all they would have to do is run
some new fibers.


[e-mail]   (305) 255-RTFM

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 08:48:57 CST
From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Buy a COCOT


Miscellaneous text about buying COCOT for school deleted.

> I know that COCOTs are not popular in this group, but this seems like
> a reasonable use for one.  We'd label it to make sure that folks
> weren't fooled into thinking it's a normal pay phone, including a note
> like "Go to the Lyme Store or Nichol's Hardware for cheaper calls."

Well, I see one potential proplem here (remebering my high-school
days).  You have a captive audience during lunch&breaks which will
probably be forced to use this phone. "No, you can't use the office
phone, there is a pay phone in the hall".

Those students will be the ones having to subsidize the COCOT.  I
would try to dig a little deeper at your local Bell to try and get
them to install the phone, put the superintendants position behind the
request and see if it doesn't produce some responses.

(This assumes you are on a closed-campus style school, if they can go
anywhere they want for lunch it is a different question.)


Scott Hinckley  Internet:[e-mail]  [phone]
UUCP:...!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott         BTN:461-2073
DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not
represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 09:49 PST
Subject: Re: I Want to Buy a COCOT


Steve Ligett <[e-mail]> writes about needing a pay
phone where there isn't enough traffic for the telco (or the local
COCOT people) to put on in.

He wants to buy a COCOT.

Most telco's offer something called a "Semi-public phone."  This is
the pay phone in the office of the gas station.  Sometimes it even has
incoming-only extensions.  (There have been stories here in Telecom
Digest about enterprising youngsters who devised a method to create
outgoing extensions :-) It's also entitled to a directory entry.

You pay something to have the phone there, and perhaps get a kickback
on the usage.

Check the tariffs in your state regarding coin service and semi-public
coin service.


edg


[Moderator's Note: Who? Me??  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 10:27:12 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did MCI Give me $20?
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


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

> I've gotten similar checks (for $5) for "insuring" my credit cards (!).
> I've always just deposited them and left the credit card part blank.
> I can certainly use the money. About three weeks later I get a letter
> reminding me that I haven't given them a credit card number, which I
> ignored. If someone send you something unsolicited in the mail, it's
> yours.

    I'm aware of that law (postal regulation?) but I'm not sure
whether it would also apply literally to negotiable instruments (i.e.
forms of money).  However, what MCI is sending could also be classed
as a contractual offer which you are free to accept (by affixing your
signature) or reject (by ignoring) just like like magazine
subscription offers or many other types of solicitations that are sent
by mail.

    Since the banks have better things to do than administer and
enforce someone elses contracts and these days may accept checks for
deposit without endorsement (ATM's) they consider the contractual
aspects the problem of the issuer; they are only interested in the
negotiability.  In contractual law you can be deemed to have agreed to
a contract if you accept the benefits afforded by the contract whether
or not you formally sign anything. Often, this may be the measure of a
verbal contract's enforceability.

    It seems to me that by depositing these checks you are
*implicitly* agreeing to the terms of the associated contract since
the act of deposit affords you the benefits of it. I expect that the
companies doing this have obtained legal guidance on this that exceeds
the legal expertise commenting on this (present company included) and
know the thing to be enforcable. It's just not worthwhile for a few
breakers.

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

From: "John G. DeArmond" <emory!Dixie.Com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed With NiCads on my Panasonic Cellular
Date: 18 Mar 91 22:18:09 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Services


> handset just cutting off.  I figured something like a light bulb and
> some leads to connect to the battery terminals but that seems crude
> and slow.  Any suggestions.  Thanks in advance...

I missed the first part of this thread but since it is apparent by the
title that we're discussing Panasonic portable batteries, a slight
misconception needs to be corrected.

The battery in the the old style Panasonic portable (and I believe in
the new style also) is NOT a NiCad battery.  It is a Gell-cell-type
lead-acid battery, as is the same battery used in the Panasonic
Cam-corders.  Using a Ni-cad-style charge cycle and/or deep
discharging these batteries will RUIN them, as I found out by
experience.  I smoked my first battery in a few weeks; the second has
lasted several years.

The way to make these batteries last is exactly the same technique you
use to preserve ordinary car batteries.  Store them charged, maintain
a trickle charge whenever possible and never deep discharge. There IS
a reason why the Panasonic phone dumps you so fast when the battery is
going down.


John De Armond, WD4OQC       Rapid Deployment System, Inc.
Marietta, Ga                 {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd

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

From: Craig Ibbotson <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu vs Motorola
Date: 18 Mar 91 19:42:11 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


Call me a blind patriot (and possibly a blind Motorola employee) but
if the two of these portables come up even (as was suggested), I would
have to think people in the U.S. would opt for the phone that is made
in America by American workers for an American company.

The factory where they make the MicroTac is next door to my building,
and I think it is fantastic to see such high-quality products coming
out of a U.S. factory with American factory workers.  These people are
average Joe's like you and me, but they are competing tooth and nail
with the Japanese.  Finally, a U.S. manufacturer who can do it right.


Go for the Motorola phone.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign
Date: 18 Mar 91 22:21:31 GMT


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

> AT&T's current TV ad compaign is probably the biggest waste of money
> Madison Avenue has ever experienced. It is the one that says, "To be
> sure you get AT&T, dial 10-ATT-0 and then your number."

I have seen several COCOTs that do accept 10xxx dialling, but I think
that AT&T is mostly still unaware that COCOTs exist and that they
blithly ignore the FCC regulations on this in many (most) cases.

The real point is for REAL COTs that have MCI or Sprint or some such
as default carrier. And, for those, it works!


R. Kevin Oberman  Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: [e-mail]    [phone]

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my
typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.


[Moderator's Note: Quite honestly, I think AT&T knows *quite well*
about the large number of COCOTS infesting the cities of America. And
I think they are going to begin pushing the matter very soon, suing
the owners of these devices for lost revenue, etc.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 10:49:56 EST
From: Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign
Organization: Electric Armaments Div, US Army Armament RDE Center


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> AT&T's current TV ad compaign is probably the biggest waste of money
> Madison Avenue has ever experienced. It is the one that says, "To be

[...]

> If AT&T will not accept the real world of COCOTs and provide something
> other than 10288 access, then it should at least save its advertising
> money for a better campaign, no?

Well, John, you certainly have a valid point there, but I think you're
missing what I (and I suspect AT&T) see as the more likely scenario.

Joe LD Caller walks up to COCOT. Dials 10288+0+xxx and bombs out.
Tries again. Bombs again. Gets really pissed off. At who? NOT AT&T. At
the COCOT.  After all, 10288+ worked just fine at the (name your
favorite telco) payphone at work, just yesterday. Rips COCOT off the
wall (well, probably not).  At least calls the COCOT's information
number and gives them hell. Lots of folks do that, and (this is the
improbable part) COCOT allows equal access, just to keep from hearing
all them nasty cuss words.

Just my opinion...

tom coradeschi <+> [e-mail] <+> [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I really think you are correct. I think AT&T's
strategy will include keeping the public inflamed at the COCOT people;
while employing legal tactics of their own to keep pressure on the
COCOT owners; and hope that before long the situation will change as
the private owners eventually cave in from the pressure.  I really
doubt they will let them off by getting an 800/950 number. That would
be too easy on the private owners, who everyone loves to hate anyway.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #216
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20401;
          19 Mar 91 2:32 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07616;
          19 Mar 91 1:07 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23794;
          19 Mar 91 0:01 CST
Date:     Mon, 18 Mar 91 23:24:51 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #217
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 18 Mar 91 23:24:42 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 217

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Press and Numbers (was: Houston Chronicle Cellular Fraud) [Doug Davis]
    Re: Houston Chronicle Fraud Story [Joe Abernathy]
    Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly [Louis Linneweh]
    Re: Voice Recognition Experiment [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Call Manager [Mark Van Buskirk]
    Re: Call Manager [Randy Borow]
    Calling Card Numbers and PINs (was: Call Manager) [A. Alan Toscano]
    Harrassing Calls (was: How do I Set-up Caller*ID?) [Darrell Broughton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Doug Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Press and Numbers (was: Houston Chronicle Cellular Fraud)
Organization: Logic Process Unix Engineering, Dallas Office
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1991 21:34:22 GMT


Okay, I guess to be a reporter takes flunking basic math. Note,
enclosed is a handy dandy reality check cheat sheet that you can cut
out and take with you.  :-)

Let's see, the most expensive long distance calling area I can find is
$ 3.00 per minute.  So, two international calls to the place via three
way calling would be $ 6.00 (2 * 3 = 6 for you reporters out there.)
Now, there are 1440 minutes in a day ... call it $7 to included air
time.

One phone left up constantly 24 hours a day costs $10,080.  Three
phones would obviously meet and exceed Joe's numbers. However by that
time I would hope someone would notice. Anyway, in a more realistic
perspective:


  ------------ Cut here for your very own reality check sheet -------

Goal == $ 30,000.00 per day @ $ 7.00 per minute.

Number of phones:
3000   =           10  minutes each, average per day of fraudlent usage.
1000   =           30  minutes each, average per day of fraudlent usage.
500    =           1   hour each, average per day of fraudlent usage.
100    =           5   hours each, average per day of fraudlent usage.
50     =           10  hours each, average per day of fraudlent usage.
25     =           20  hours each, average per day of fraudlent usage.

Now then, even as a city as big as Houston, don't you have real trouble
with the idea of more than 100 fraudlent phones (or is that phraudlent
fones?)  running around?  Even then, that would be the kind of "Big
significant number" that would cause the industry to DO something. Not
just complain about it to the press.  One more reality check:

30000 * (52 * 5) =  7,800,000.00
30000 * (52 * 7) = 10,920,000.00

7.8 MILLION per year of loss in Houston alone, just on the weekdays
mind you. Including the weekends it is almost 11 MILLION dollars.

  -------- Cut here for your very own reality check sheet -------

I'm going to refrain from making snide comments about Joe's past
articles, but this one can be debunked by any second grade math
student.  It's pretty obvious, either Joe and or his sources are
making things up as they go along.

Take home question: Who else makes up numbers as they go along?
                    (Hint: 911 documentation)


Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226
{texsun|lawnet|smu}!letni!doug     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: har har har har har!  And have you heard the quote
from Saddam Hussein? Saddam said, "Compared to tanks, journalists are
cheap -- and you get more for your money." :)  My thanks to someone
who sent that in their .signature earlier today. Sorry, I forget who.

Mr. Abernathy will now respond. Although he specifically addressed my
comments, which were similar to yours, his reply will serve you
equally well.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 13:45:42 CST
From: Joe Abernathy <chron!magic380![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Houston Chronicle Cellular Fraud Story


Patrick writes:

> So we have $6 per minute plus the cellular phone charges.  Are these
> thirty or forty cents per minute each?  If you can squeak $7 per minute
> out on this, that would be a very generous estimate.  Charging for
> everything you can think of, how do you begin to approach $10.42 per
> call/minute, or $20.83 per minute overall?  And that $20.83 per minute
> -- using your $30,000 per day estimate -- means the connection is left
> up continuously, otherwise the rate per minute of use must of necessity
> be even higher.

Well, let me stress that it wasn't my estimate, it was that of a
company's chief financial officer, who requested anonymity for obvious
reasons.  I'm not checked out on the tariff structures for
international cellular calls, which weren't the focus of my story, but
on rechecking my notes I see that he did say clearly that he had to
pay double charges on each line.

Assuming he was misguided on this point, the only other thing I might
offer is that the foreign carriers sometimes add reprehensible charges
to a call -- the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been tacking 75 cents a
minute onto soldiers' AT&T calls.  We have no way of knowing what sort
of special fees might be incurred in the actual war zone, whose
infrastructure was bombed into the past 100 years by some reports.
One wire report said just the rental of a cellular handheld was $5,000
a month right now. One might further assume that it would take some
serious combat pay to convince a crew to do maintenance on a cell site
 -- a not insignificant structure -- in the midst of the world's most
intense saturation bombing.

Having offered a defense of the man, let me now offer the untold
negative side of the story, and then perhaps we can be done. The way
that you get federal police agencies -- particularly the U.S.
Attorney's office and FBI -- interested in financial crimes is to
convince them that a serious financial loss was sustained. And it
sometimes turns out that the estimate of loss was higher than the
actual proveable loss. We saw this graphically depicted in the case of
one Craig Neidorf, and I suspect that it's at work in every case of
financial fraud.


Best regards to all,

Joe Abernathy


[Moderator's Note:  While you are correct that you must convince the
authorities that a crime of some substance has been committed, there
is such a thing as crying wolf once too often. Overstating your case
can backfire at times.  But even ten thousand dollars per day of
cellular fraud is pretty outrageous, and overall your story was good.
I thank you for sharing with us, and hope you will bring more articles
over from the {Chronicle} from time to time.   PAT]

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

From: Louis Linneweh <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly
Date: 18 Mar 91 17:56:46 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> Standards are as firm as ever since the breakup. Bellcore, the God of
> telephone standards and blessings is as healthy as ever. In fact, of
> necessity, the standards are now fully documented and available to all

I'm very familiar with Bellcore standards, and you are quite right.
The documantation of inter-system standards is a very healthy
developement (but one that was well underway before Judge Greene.)  I
was thinking more of the user interface, which you seem to feel was
never very good.  Perhaps I'm not as well traveled as you are.  But I
was very frustrated in the waiting room of a metropolitan airport
(Atlanta? Dallas?) which had payphones with special buttons for all
the ICs but AT&T.  AT&T had their own CRT credit card reading phones,
which I couldn't figure out how to use (after 15 minutes, including
calling the "assistance" number listed "What kind of phone?"), I
discovered that the phone was just broken, and the one next to it
worked fine!  (It was so unfamiliar and "complex" I didn't realize the
phone was not working!  I thought I was doing something wrong!)

> ... And being very short sighted at that.

Sorry, I do tend to be overly satisfied with things that I think are
working well, and don't see as much need to progress as other, more
agressive business people.

> You have focused
> on the one major aberration of divestiture, COCOTs. The problem here
> is that no one is enforcing regulations already in place. And I am
> very curious: what is so hard about placing a call on a COCOT?

I guess I addressed this.  Funny how it was AT&T itself that caused my
grief, but it was the result of the MFJ.  I've had other, similar
problems trying to use my AT&T card from the random phone (and my kids
from their college dorm room phones, where experimentation was the
only way to learn, and that has changed at least once this year.)

> All of the complaints that I have heard center around the cost and
> deception regarding the long distance carrier, not that it requires
> any special effort or knowledge to place the call.

Probably because most people who complain attribute to malice that
which I write off as discourtesy.  Complaining about inconvenievce is
not as important as exposing an attempt to defraud.  But I do feel, in
the larger sense, that the door was opened by the MFJ for providers,
out to make a buck, to abuse the public.  Telecom buyer beware is the
order of the day.  Maybe a small price for progress, but a price that
could continue to grow since the general population has no organized
voice to compete with the special intrests of businesses.

> It is a pretty weak one. Besides the seven RBOCs in this country there
> are hundreds of independent telcos providing LEC services. They were
> there before divestiture as well. Did you feel that your precious
> standards were being violated by all of these different companies
> then?  If hundreds of telephone companies around the country can
> maintain standards, then two or three LECs can maintain them in a
> particular community. Claiming that monopoly is necessary to preserve
> the ease and convenience of telephony is a wheezing old argument that
> even the telcos are beginning to put to rest.

It is an old argument, and a good one.  The hundreds of independent
phone companies HAD to follow the de facto standards when there was
only one carrier.  But now, each carrier is trying to inovate to
"capture" more of the market.  Progress.  The RBOCS must now join the
general rush to "retain and recapture" market.  More progress.  Not
the end of the world, just the end of an era ... that had some
advantages.

By the way, I have come to believe that, since we already have IC
competition, there would be little more to lose by letting the other
shoe drop.  I think it is time for LEC competition. Surprised?
Cellular has survived - some would say flourished - in a competitive
environment.  I would like to be able to say: "I don't like the
service I'm getting, connect my drop to the other LEC please."  And in
my simple view of things that would leave a wire-line monopoly from my
house to the mainframe, where I could be cross connected to one of
several LECs.  But the cable companies would like to even broaden
that, I'm sure.  OK.  Let it rip.

But my job involves thinking about phone calls.  I do it all day.  I'd
like to think one of the results of all that work is the ability to
actually MAKE a call WITHOUT having to think.  I'm just one of many
people designing telecom systems though, so how do we preserve
simplicity and still provide the progress everyone wants?

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Voice Recognition Experiment
Organization: SwitchView
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 23:49:20 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
writes:

> The Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology is building a
> huge database of voices as part of a project to develop voice
> recognition for US West directory assistance.

> Call 800-441-1037 (I assume this is nationwide ... it may not be) and

I just tried it and it works from here!  (Ontario, Canada)


Vance Shipley

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Mar 18 09:27:50 CST 1991
Subject: Re: Call Manager
Organization:AT&T


Pat, FYI AT&T does not issue calling card PIN's that begin with "1".


Mark Van Buskirk   Rolling Meadows Il

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Mar 18 14:33:35 CST 1991
Subject: Re: Call Manager


Pat,

To answer two of your questions:

Although you DO have to have Call Manager as a feature, dialing the
15nn after the 0+ # will still get you through as if you had dialed it
via normal DDD.  You don't think we here at AT&T would let you use one
of our special services for nothin', now, do you? :-)

The 10732 is the access code for AT&T's Software Defined Network
(SDN), as you probably know. If you do not have SDN service, using the
10732 will make no difference in placing OR rating/billing the call.
Furthermore, because this access code is more or less restricted, you
will find -- as I have found -- that eventually, you will be unable to
use the code. Try it, Pat. After a couple months, your attempts to
use 10732 will not go through. :-) :-)


Randy Borow    Rolling Meadows, IL.

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 18:09 GMT
From: "A. Alan Toscano" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Card Numbers and PINs


Recently, our Moderator wondered...

> [Moderator's Note: I wonder if Calling Cards automatically do
> NOT use PINS in the 15xx series to avoid billing conflicts.  PAT]

Well, I've been meaning to mention this, so ... thanks Pat, for
jarring my memory!

Bellcore compliant Calling Card PINs are of the NXXX format.  An
initial zero isn't used because an initial dialed digit of zero
following the prompt tone, directs your call to an operator without
timeout.  Thus, abbreviated dialing (where you just dial the PIN when
calling home), wouldn't work for PINs beginning with zero.  An initial
digit of one, indicates some time of billing other that Calling Card.
Here in Southwestern Bell land, 11- indicates automated collect
calling (intra-LATA calls only, of course).  Current MCI- and US
Sprint-issued fourteen digit calling cards are *not* Bellcore
compliant and may have PINs which begin with zero or one.

Many US carriers plan to issue this summer, to all of their customers,
new cards which will have new-style international card numbers.  Under
the new CCITT plan, international numbers will have the digits "89"
followed by a country code, a carrier code (in countries where
applicable, such as the US), and finally a distinguishing customer
number.  Some carriers may choose to use the 891 format for domestic
calling on their own networks as well.  "89" is supposed to
distinguish telco cards from other major credit/debit cards.

On yet another related subject, there have been mentions here of AT&T
issuing "random numbered" card numbers on its Universal, Corporate and
Non-subscriber cards.  Actually, they're not entirely random.  The
cards' six digit prefixes have been assigned to them by Bellcore.  IXC
prefixes have an initial digit in the two to five range (to
distinguish them from LEC-RAO prefixes) and a fourth digit of zero or
one.  A carrier may be assigned several such prefixes.  To my
knowledge only AT&T issues such cards at present (and only for
accounts which it bills directly, rather than through LECs), but I
wouldn't be surprized to see other carriers use these numbers as well
(for domestic calling) on the new cards they issue this summer.


A. Alan Toscano              Voice:  [phone]     MCI Mail:  ATOSCANO
<[e-mail]>     Telex:  6975956AAT UW       CIS:       73300,217


[Moderator's Note: We use 11 for collect calling, and 12 for billing
to a credit card or third number here in IBT-land.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Harrassing Calls (was: How do I Set-up Caller*ID?)
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: 18 Mar 91 13:03:34 CST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Eric Skinner) writes:

> Interestingly, I had a friend in Montreal who was receiving a large
> number of *harassment* calls, and Montreal police refused to do
> anything about it.  Bell Canada refused to do anything, saying it was
> completely the police's responsibility.

> The solution was to switch phone numbers ($27.00) and get an unlisted
> number ($4.00/month or so).  We were not impressed.

Our local telco (SaskTel) will at least change your phone number for
FREE if you are getting harrassing calls. I assume that the unlisted
number will still cost a per month fee.


Darrell Broughton


[Moderator's Note: IBT also gives one free change of number if you
blame it on receiving obscene calls.  Not two, just one.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #217
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23006;
          19 Mar 91 4:40 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25924;
          19 Mar 91 3:13 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id af17780;
          19 Mar 91 2:08 CST
Date:     Tue, 19 Mar 91 1:02:22 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #218
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 19 Mar 91 01:02:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 218

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom News From Delaware [Ken Weaverling]
    United Telephone of Pennsylvania [Steve Gaarder]
    Punch Down (or Something Similar) Needed at Home [Jim Ray]
    Residential Wiring Suggestions Wanted [Stephen Fleming]
    Caller*ID Hits Toronto [Eric Skinner]
    Phone Hookup for American PC in Scotland [[e-mail]]
    Phone Line Simulator Needed to Test Modems [Joseph Chan]
    Remote Call Forwarding / Transfer Device Needed [Joseph Chan]
    IBT Requires TouchTone Charge [Jim E. Dunne]
    Please Define COCOT [[e-mail]]
    Telecom Fights Crime [Tom Coradeschi]
    The Joys of Being a Deadbeat [Matt Simpson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ken Weaverling <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1991 10:21:47 EST
Subject: Telecom News From Delaware


 *** Caller ID Arrives April 1st ***

Diamond State (of Bell Atlantic) will introduce Caller*ID to most of
its customers on April 1st for a charge of $6.50/month.  Per-use call
blocking is also available for all customers at no charge, as mandated
by the Public Utilities Commission.

 *** Exchange (302) 653 May Get Unlimited State Wide Calling ***

At the beginning of this year, Diamond State expanded unlimited local
calling areas to be county-wide. (Delaware has three counties.)
Unfortunately, the telephone companies idea of a county line differs
from the physical county lines.

Exchange 653 is Smyrna, part of Kent County. A few thousand residents
of far southern New Castle County have 653 phone numbers. Many of
these residents commute to Wilmington (Delaware's largest city) and
were led to believe that they could now call toll free to this area.

Residents of this area have complained to the PUC. A hearing has been
scheduled. Some of the possible compromises suggested include allowing
653 to call toll free to New Castle County but calls FROM New Castle
to 653 would be toll calls. Another solution is to allow 653 customers
to obtain state-wide unlimited calling for $3.00/month.

The latter plan would be viewed as an experiment. The PUC has been
pushing Diamond State to offer toll-free calling state-wide anyway.

 *** Wilmington Pay Phones Cause Controversy ***

Up until last year, the city of Wilmington had emergency call boxes on
almost every corner.  The city, citing high costs, decided to have all
of the call boxes replaced with Public Telephones, each with prominent
signs indicating that 911 calls are free. This seemed like a sound
idea at the time since the public would have additional pay phones,
the public could still reach the police for free, and the city would
eliminate a large expense.

The plan was implemented and now Wilmington has pay phones on almost
every city street corner. Some residents, however, are not pleased at
all. They claim that the phones attract drug dealers who conduct their
deals over the phones.  They are petitioning the city to remove the
phones, citing that most residents have their own private phones and
therefore, pay phones are not required in residential areas.

The good news is that all of the phones are genuine Bell Atlantic
phones, and all seem to have LD service designated to AT&T.  Also, the
incidence of vandalism on these phones is very low. (Perhaps since the
dealers don't want to damage the tools of their business :-)

 *** Local Paper Supports Proposed 900 Legislation -- Almost ***

Delaware's largest newspaper, the {News-Journal}, spoke out in favor
of proposed 900 legislation in their editorial of 18 March 1991, with
one exception.

The paper noted that there are legitimate services and reasons for
900, including the few 900 numbers that the paper themselves offer,
but they also mentioned the phone-sex industry where "callers must go
through 900 number 'teaser' calls followed by a pitch for a live
conversation with the tart of your dreams charged to your credit
card."

The paper supports an announcement of charges, warnings to minors, a
chance to hang up after the announcement with no charge, and free 900
blocking to private phones.

They do NOT support the provision that would prohibit phone companies
for disconnecting service for non-payment of 900 charges. They cite
that there are "too many avenues for abuse" if this occurs.

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 21:17:22 EST
From: Steve Gaarder <[e-mail]>
Subject: United Telephone of Pennsylvania


Sean Williams writes:

> ...my local telco, United Telephone System, volunteered to answer
> phones at the Dec., 1990 [PBS pledge] drive.  They were matching
> viewers' pledges, and offered Northern Telecom phones to new members
> who pledged $60 or more.

I remember UTS.  I went to college in Carlisle, Pa., not far from
where Sean lives.  Unlike any other phone company I've known, they
actually acted like they gave a darn about the community.  They
actually gave public tours of their central office and their
maintenance facility.

They also had some bizarre equipment.  When I moved there, Carlisle
(717-243, -245, -249) was served by a Kellog K-60 crossbar switch.
That was an unusual beast.  Even though it was a crossbar, you had to
dial 112 plus a party ID digit ( 1 for single-party lines) to call
long distance.  113 got you directory assistance, 114 repair, and 116
 ... well, that was weird.  At first, it was some sort of dial speed
test, responding with a dial tone and accepting one digit.  One day,
though, the dial tone stopped happening.  The switch would accept
quite a number of digits, then I'd get recordings from other places.

It finally dawned on me that it was acting just like 112 - making a
long distance call! So I went and tried it from a pay phone - bingo! I
even got my dime back.  Only catch was that only one person in town
could use it at a time.  So, when word got around about this, the
circuit was constantly busy.  Finally, it stopped working, and I heard
through the grapevine that someone had been ordered off the circuit by
a rather gruff craftsman.  To this day, I have no idea why that
circuit was ever set up.  Perhaps it was a mistake.

If you think that switch was strange, wait 'till I tell you about its
replacement!


Steve Gaarder    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Please do tell us about it!   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Ray)
Subject: Punch Down (or Something Similar) for Home
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1991 04:42:17 GMT


This has probably been addressed before (but I looked through most of
the Telecom Archives and didn't find exactly what I was looking for).

I must add four or five new phone connections in my house and was
thinking that it would be much easier to use home-run wiring, ie. run
from where the phone line comes in to each phone location, rather than
a closed loop setup.

I was wondering if there is any sort of mini-block punch down or
equivalent, that would allow me more flexability since I will be
running some six pair wire I picked up really cheap.  I am already
using two pair on two separate phone lines and if I used a punch-down
setup I could later on add an intercom etc.

Is this a reasonable thought?  Does such equipement exist (relatively
cheaply) ?


Jim Ray                                Harris Semiconductor
Internet:  [e-mail]         PO Box 883   MS 62B-022
Phone:     [phone]              Melbourne, FL  32901

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Residential Wiring Suggestions Wanted
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 05:58:09 PST


I'm buying a new house.  The interior walls aren't up yet, so now's
the time to do any custom wiring I might want in the next ten years
(assuming I don't get transferred or something...)  I've already asked
the builder to run 6-pair cable to every room (one voice line, one
data/FAX line, an AppleTalk LAN, an intercom, and two pair for things
I haven't thought of yet).

Are there any special instructions I should give him?  Serial as
opposed to parallel?  Is it worth asking for a punchdown block in the
basement?  (Given my job and my affiliation, I expect to buy
residential ISDN as soon as it's made available.)

I'd appreciate any suggestions.  Thanks!


Stephen Fleming             Internet: [e-mail]
Director, Technology Mktg.  CI$: 76354,3176    AOL: SFleming
Northern Telecom            BIX: srfleming     X.500:  ???
7900 Westpark Drive, A220
McLean, Virginia  22102       Opinions expressed do not
[phone]                represent Northern Telecom.

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 13:36:47 EST
From: Eric Skinner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID Hits Toronto


According to an otherwise-clueless Bell Canada representative,
Caller*ID, or "Call Management Services" as it is known here, will be
available in Toronto effective April 22nd.


Eric Skinner              [e-mail]
University of Ottawa                [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Be careful you don't violate anyone's 'rights'!
Tomorrow in the Digest, an intriguing story of a woman whose Caller*ID
service got *her* in trouble.  Fact or fiction?  Read it, then you
decide.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 15:09:18 est
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Phone Hookup for American PC in Scotland


A friend of mine will be heading for Scotland next month and wants to
take a laptop pc w/modem.  I'm sure he can use a voltage adapter to
charge the battery (I'm not real sure he would want to use the pc
directly off the adapter), but what type of hookup will he need to
connect his modem to the phone system there?

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

From: Joseph Chan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Line Simulator Needed to Test Modems
Date: 19 Mar 91 00:54:29 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


We got several V32 9600baud modems.  I have not got them to talk at
9600 baud rate.  They work at 2400 baud.  I suspect that the phone
line (we had) may have trouble to connect at 9600 baud.  To determine
this, I would need a simple phone line simulator, such that I can
connect two modems together with go through the local phone line.
Could anyone show me how to make a simple phone line simulator?  Thank
you.

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

From: Joseph Chan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Remote Call Forwarding / Transfer Device Needed
Date: 19 Mar 91 00:54:29 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


I can make a local phone call from my office to point A, B, or C.  It
would be a toll call from my home to A, B or C.  But it is toll free
from my home to my office.  The phone in my office can transfer an
incoming call to A, B or C, but it would require a human interaction
(I can transfer any incoming call by push a special button on the
phone and dial A, B or C.  After connection, I would hang up the
phone).  Is there a simple device would make such transfer
automatically?


Joseph Chan    [e-mail]
University of Washington    Seattle, WA 98195


[Moderator's Note: If you have two lines in your office, you could use
an inexpensive call-extender to do what you want.    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 18:56:50 CST
From: "Jim E. Dunne" <motcid!void![e-mail]>
Subject: IBT Requires TouchTone Charge


[Moderator's Note:  Illinois Bell gives *70 for free.  PAT]

(regarding Call Waiting disabling)

Well, as of this month, Illinois Bell is asking me to pay for the
TouchTone service I had been getting for free.  I got one of those
carbon-paper envelopes saying 'we'll disconnect the following services
unless you agree to the charges listed', and the only applicable one
for me was tone.  Oh well, $0.73/month (plus taxes of course!) isn't
too bad for the ability to dial with my computer and the like.  At
least they included a "Business Reply Mail" envelope...


Jim Dunne                 Motorola Cellular        ...uunet!motcid!dunne


[Moderator's Note: So the auditor's office out in Harvey, IL finally
caught up with you, eh?  With the ESS echanges, they are smart that
way, and very little gets past them now.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 11:20:35 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Please Define COCOT


     While I've been reading this news group, I've seen lots of
references to "cocots" They are obviously independently owned
payphones, but what does the acronym "cocot" actually stand for?

     Enquiring minds want to know.  I read this news group through a
speech synthesizer and the acronym comes through sounding much like a
popular Spanish obscenity.  From the horror stories about these
monuments to human avarice, the similarity is quite amusing.


[Moderator's Note: Its that old standby question again, folks! I
answer this in mail a couple times a week at least, but now and then
put one in the Digest for folks who would like to know but don't write:
<C>ustomer <O>wned <C>oin <O>perated <T>elephone. The first two words
are frequently interchanged with the third and fourth word, as in Coin
Operated Customer Owned Telephone. Is there an 'official' way to say
it?  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 10:39:53 EST
From: Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Fights Crime
Organization: Electric Armaments Div, US Army Armament RDE Center


   Reported on radio station WZZ0, 95.1 FM, Bethlehem-Allentown, PA,
this morning.

   A woman reported her car stolen, advised the police that it was
equipped with a cell phone, and gave them the phone number for it.

   Police officer called the car, and lo and behold the thief
answered. Cop says "I hear you've got a car you want to get rid of..."
Thief and cop haggle on price, etc. for a while. Finally cop tells
thief he'd really like to see the car. A meeting place is established,
and when the cops show up, there's the thief, leaning against the
fender, arms crossed, waiting for his "buyer".

   Good Guys 1, Bad Guys 0.


tom coradeschi    <+>    [e-mail]    <+>    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 18 Mar 91 13:55:24 EST
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Joys of Being a Deadbeat


In the discussion of the legality/ethics of cashing MCI's $20 checks
without using their service, the Moderator points out that such antics
are likely to result in the perpetrator being listed as a "mail-order
deadbeat." Another reader suggests (presumably with tongue planted
firmly in cheek) that this might be an effective way to reduce the
volume of junk mail in one's mailbox.

Actually, this will probably not reduce your mail volume. I doubt that
many junk mailers do credit checks before sending out advertising. In
fact, it could have the opposite effect. For several years, I have
been receiving advertisements from credit organizations offering me
"instant credit" on "ez terms." While none of the ads actually called
me a deadbeat, the tone of the ads, along with the rates of interest,
seemed to imply that I might be a person who would have problems
receiving credit from more reputable organizations.

I put two and two together when my application for an AT&T Universal
Card was originally rejected because my "credit history did not meet
program requirements." An investigation of my credit bureau file
revealed that I was a deadbeat because a garbage collection agency
claimed I owed them $40 for picking up garbage at a hose where I no
longer lived. Apparently this was enough to get me on a "deadbeat
list" which was sold to loan sharks as easy bait. So being a deadbeat
may actually increase your volume of junk mail.

As an aside, I finally did get my AT&T card. Apparently, the initial
screening is done by software which kicks out anything which might be
negative.  When I called AT&T and asked about it, I could hear the rep
paging through my record on her terminal. Finally, she said "This all
looks good to me," and approved the application. Apparently she had as
much difficulty wading through that stuff as I did. I also went
through the process of protesting to the credit bureau. Apparently,
the collection agency which bought the "unpaid" bill from the garbage
company didn't accept my explanation. When I received my updated
record from the bureau, it still listed the deadbeat entry, along with
a verbatim copy of my explanation.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #218
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29746;
          20 Mar 91 11:05 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25852;
          20 Mar 91 9:25 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02326;
          20 Mar 91 8:21 CST
Date:     Wed, 20 Mar 91 7:52:12 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #219
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 20 Mar 91 07:52:06 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 219

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Threatening Phone Calls in Canada [Nigel Allen]
    My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta [bill]
    Urban Legend?  -- Caller IDentified Sues, and Wins! [Nancy J. Airey]
    Armstrong Biographical References [Bert Cowlan]
    The Baby Bells Misbehave [Business Week, via Peter Marshall]
    Public Telephone Users Be Aware [NY Telco, via Jerry B. Altzman]
    Mobile Phones Taxed in UK Budget [Adam Gorman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 01:25 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Threatening Phone Calls in Canada
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue


Eight years ago, I received a series of harassing phone calls: one
more or less explicit threat, "You're dead, Nigel!", and subsequently,
over the next several weeks, a series of calls where the caller would
simply not say anything. (I had worked with the person who decided to
make my life unpleasant; if anyone wishes further details of his
motives, they can e-mail me.)

The one good thing about the whole episode is that it taught me how
the Canadian criminal justice system deals with harassing phone calls.

In TELECOM Digest V11 #205, Eric Skinner ([e-mail])
writes:

> Interestingly, I had a friend in Montreal who was receiving a large
> number of *harassment* calls, and Montreal police refused to do
> anything about it.  Bell Canada refused to do anything, saying it was
> completely the police's responsibility.  The police's line was that
> since they were "too busy," they did nothing about harassment calls
> unless "physical harm" was "explicitly threatened."

Hardly a surprise. There are some serious problems with the criminal
justice system in Canada, and particularly in Quebec. The Montreal
police and the Quebec provincial police can be extremely unpleasant.

However, the Canadian criminal justice system does allow someone who
has received threats to ask a judge to order the alleged harasser to
post a "peace bond" (in effect, to promise to keep the peace).  This
procedure, something like an injunction, means that a judge can order
the alleged harasser to stay away from the complainant.  Being ordered
to post a peace bond does not count as a criminal conviction, but
breaking a peace bond is considered a criminal offence. This is most
often used to protect a woman from an abusive ex-husband or boyfriend.

As well, Eric Skinner's friend might have considered swearing out a
charge privately. At that point, the police might have been somewhat
more interested in dealing with the matter.

U.S. readers may encounter similar obstructionism from the police if
they receive harassing calls. In that case, they may want to consult
their state justice department or local legal clinic about what their
options are, including swearing out a complaint or filing charges
themselves.

However, in some areas (such as Peel Region, just west of Toronto),
the criminal court system is severly congested, and it can be several
months before a case goes to trial. The emotional investment in being
a complainant in a trial is significant, particularly if the alleged
harasser has a competent lawyer. Of course courtrooms across North
America are filled with trials for things a lot worse than harassing
phone calls, but knowing that doesn't make things much easier.

> The solution was to switch phone numbers ($27.00) and get an
> unlisted number ($4.00/month or so).  We were not impressed.

When I was receiving harassing phone calls, Bell Canada waived the
service charge for a new number.  I suspect that if you ask for a
number change, Bell wants its service charge; if you wait for Bell to
suggest a number change, you get it free.


Nigel Allen    [e-mail]

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 91 14:00:32 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Well, the first month of my Caller ID service has passed and I felt
that I should pass on my observations on the matter.  It has pretty
much been as I expected.  I'll explain what has taken place.

I've noticed a fair share of what is apparently telemarketing droids
who usually call close to dinner time.  If I get an "Out-of-area" call
at dinner time, I usually let the machine pick it up.  It has usually
been the telemarketers who will call at this most inopportune time -
they generally show up as out-of-area because I'd guess they use
out-WATS to call their suckers (I mean prospects).  Some telemarketers
call locally - Sears Vinyl Siding called the other night, for example.
I told them the usual "not interested."  A fax machine tried to call
me the other night, starting at 11:00 P.M.  I let it call twice before
I blocked the number.  I don't have a fax machine - apparently someone
misdialed my number into their fax machine.

Calls from either the "A" or "B" cellular systems in Atlanta show up
as "Out-of-area."  I have found that this is because neither is hooked
up to SS-7 as yet.  Calls from the centrex here at Georgia Tech show
up as their respective numbers, 894- or 853-XXXX.  Calls that are Call
Forwarded to me show the originating, not the intermediary, phone
number (unless they are forwarded via cellular).  Calls via Southern
Bell calling card show up as "Out-of-area."  Calls placed via SB
operator show up as "Out-of-area."  Calls from PBXs show up as what
I'd guess is a trunk on the PBX or as the main number - there seems to
be no consistency on PBX numbers displayed.

An interesting note: Caller ID went out on me for a day.  I called
repair (of course) to resolve the matter.  After they got me going
again, the QA person called to ask if I was okay again.  I asked her
what caused the problem and she said that "a translator had gone out"
or some such.  Apparently, translations are kept in a database and
they are the telco's record of the services which correspond to a
particular POTS line.  Now I know something new.  My translation
should have had "Caller ID" in it, among other things.

During this first month, I have called numerous businesses for various
reasons.  I've called to order pizza, to ask the local Radio Shack for
a price or two, to ask the local Circuit City and Hi Fi Buys for
prices, you name it.  As yet, I have not been sujected to any of the
alleged horrors which some naysayers had predicted with the advent of
caller ID.  I have not been awakened at 2 A.M. to ask "Now that you
know how much the XVY color TV is, why don't you come in to get one?"
No one from Radio Shack has called me to ask why I never came by to
buy that TV antenna on sale, you know, the one you called in to ask
the price on?  The pizza place still asks me for my phone number.  And
even if a telemarketer does call, I just tell them "not interested,"
then hang up (unless the answering machine gets it first).  No
invasion of privacy here.  But then I have never been one to say that
what, at worst, is a minor inconvenience is actually AN INVASION OF MY
PRIVACY, because that's not the case by any stretch of the
imagination.

So, in it's first month on my line, it seems to me that Caller ID is
not "technology for its own sake," but is actually a handy tool.  My
privacy has not been invaded.  I've managed to surprise most of my
friends and such who call me by answering "Hello there, Joe Blow!," to
the point that they don't wonder how I know who's calling any more.
It's nice to know a little more about who's calling me.  Obviously,
"they" know my number when they call me.  Now I know theirs.  I like
that option.

If anyone has any questions for me, please reply via e-mail and I'll
do my best to answer.  I'm no Caller ID expert, just a consumer who
has come to like the service.


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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 00:01:18 EST
From: Nancy J Airey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Urban Legend?  -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins!
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In a recent class I had two students relate a story to me which I
suspect may be an "Urban Legend."

The story goes that a woman in Florida with "caller ID" on her phone
was receiving obscene phone calls.  She reported the phone number to
the police and the caller was charged.

The caller sued her for invasion of privacy and won.

Is this "Urban legend" or fact?

Can anyone *document* date/time/place/*court record*?

(I put the "UL" flag on it because I felt that a definite court case
would have been frequently cited by those arguing on both sides of the
ICLID issue.)


att!hrcca!jean


[Moderator's Note: This wouldn't surprise me at all, given the climate
in the criminal justice system in America today. But maybe some
researchers among us have more details.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 08:47:08 PST
From: cdp![e-mail]
Subject: Armstrong Biographical References


Since I still seem to have troubles reaching addresses other than
directly on IGC or EcoNet, and several people asked for information
which I have attempted to send directly, I thought I'd try to post
this reply to the Digest.  I'd rather be redundant than non-responsive
and am seeking additional information, as well.

The book on which I promised further information was a biography (I am
reasonably certain there has never been an autobiography) of Major
Armstrong.  The title: "Man of High Fidelity." Author: Lawrence
Lessing.  Publisher, J.B.  Lippincott & Co., 1956.  Library of
Congress Number: 56-11677.

Anyone interested in this subject might also want to take a look at
"The Golden Web," by Erik Barnouw, the middle volume of a three-volume
set on this history of broadcasting in the U.S.  Publisher: Oxford
University Press, 1968.  Library of Congress Number: 66-22258.

It covers some of the same ground, but not as detailed as in the
Lessing book.  Any good University department of communications would
have it in the library; the Lessing book may prove harder to find.

Some questions had been raised in the Digest about who was where and
when.  According to both books, but I took most of this literally from
Barnouw, Armstrong went on the air with a regular schedule and the
experimental license W2XMR (I was wrong in my first posting), with a
full 50kw, from Alpine, New Jersey, in 1939.  Two Yankee Network
stations picked the programs up and re-transmitted them at 2kW.

In March, 1934 he went on the air (power not known to me) from the
Empire State Building, but the receiver population was confined to
one, a set operated by a friend of his in Long Island.  This
transmitter was removed (by request of RCA) in 1935.  While AT & T was
guilty of some shenanigans in regard to Armstrong, the main villain,
as I'd previously noted, was RCA and the "General."

If anyone looks into this further, I am curious about when WNYE-FM, a
station owned and operated by the Board of Education of the City of
New York and at which I worked as a high school kid in the early 40s,
went on the air.  I had thought it was 1939 and that Chicago had gone
on the air with a similar one even two years earlier, but can find no
trace of this in either of the two books.  It may have been, but the
educator who founded it has been deceased for about ten years now,
that the educational broadcasts originally were aired on WNYC-AM, the
City's Municipal Station and later shifted to FM.

I know they were FM in 1941 because I was then a freshman in high
school and did station breaks along with other chores.  The station
was located at Brooklyn Technical High School but swept in students
from high schools all over the city.  We did programs under the
rubric: "The All City High School Radio Workshop."  Some of us acted,
some directed, some produced, some did sound effects or ran the
console, some used a broom to good effect.  Great training and many of
us went on to careers in radio broadcasting; some have even become
famous.

By that time, or shortly thereafter, all New York City schools were
equipped with the necessary "special receivers."

This may be more than any respondent wants to know, but I'd be
appreciative of anything other than the above you learn.

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 15:52:11 -0800
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Baby Bells Misbehave


 From {BUSINESS WEEK}, 3/4/91, p.23:

A skilled spin doctor can put almost anything in a good light--even a
$10 million fine. When US West, Inc. was penalized that amount on
Feb.15 for violating the Bell System breakup consent decree, lobbyists
for the Baby Bells argued that the rules were fuzzy, the infractions
were minor, and that, in any case, the antitrust decree that US West
violated ought to be drastically curtailed. Indeed, John J. Connarn,
vice-president for regulatory affairs at rival Baby Bell Ameritech,
even argued that the fine could belp US West -- by calling attention
to what he sees as the pettiness of the restrictions....

But the past year has brought a rash of fines, settlements, and
allegations against the Baby Bells, many of them for violations that
are all too easy for the general public to understand....

increasing aggressiveness on the part of the Bells, which believe
they're being treated by regulators a staid utilities even as they lay
out strategies to be 21st century, information technology giants. Yet
be pressing too hard, they risk a regulatory backlash and even more
restrictions....

As long as [their status as local monopolies] remains the case, the
Baby Bells will be subject to extra-heavy scrutiny -- no matter what
the spin doctors say.

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

From: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Public Telephone Users Be Aware
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: mailer daemons association
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 91 21:07:56 GMT


This appeared in this month's "Hello", the little flyer that comes
with my NYTEL bill. It appears verbatim.


    Public Telephone Users Be Aware...
        ... not all public phones are alike.

    Every public telphone you use may not be a New York Telephone
Public Phone.  New York Telephone wants you to know what to look for
when you are using a public phone.

    You can easily spot a New York Telephone Public Phone. Here's
what to look for:

    o Blue New York Telephone logo at the top left hand corner of the
phone.

    o Upper dial instruction card with a picture of the New York
Telephone Calling Card and "We're all connected." [NYTEL's wonderful new
slogan JBA]

    o A lower dial instruction card with easy to read directions on how
to make local, long distance, collect, and calling card calls.

    There are many reasons for using a New York Telephone Public Phone.
New York Telephone offers you:

    o reasonable usage rates for local calls that are regulated and
have no hidden charges

    o no charge to call our operator or for directory assistance within
New York State

    o no charge for 911 emergency calls (where available)

    o no charge to call 611 repair service

    o make collect calls, calling card, and emergency calls without
inserting a coin

    o reliable service

    Don't forget, when you need a public phone, look for a *real*
New York Telephone Public Phone. We're all connected.


DISCLAIMER: This isn't Columbia. This is me. Columbia is them.


jerry b. altzman        [phone]
[e-mail]     jauus@cuvmb (bitnet)
NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET)  ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!)

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 02:01:42 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Mobile Phones Taxed in UK Budget


The British Chancellor Norman Lamont announced yesterday that he was
taxing what he called the "Scurge of modern society, the mobile
telephone."

 From 6th April company mobile telephones will be considered to be a
fringe benefit and will be assessed at a rate of 200 pounds sterling,
resulting in a personal tax charge of 50 pounds sterling per year for
the user.

The chancellor concluded that this will make restaurants quite again
and the roads safer.

The initial reactions from users consider this to be a joke tax from a
Government in disarray.

Non-business users, or more specifically non-VAT registered, users
will be hit by the increase in VAT from 15% to 17.5%.


Adam Gorman                        Mobile    [phone]
Solstice Systems Ltd, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, BA14 9AZ        0225 755740

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #219
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23271;
          21 Mar 91 9:44 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30139;
          21 Mar 91 1:34 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17898;
          21 Mar 91 0:30 CST
Date:     Thu, 21 Mar 91 0:29:04 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #220
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Mar 91 00:28:58 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 220

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu / Motorola [C Olling]
    Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu / Motorola [J DeArmond]
    Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu / Motorola [J Higdon]
    Re: Front Door to Apartment Phone Service [Steven King]
    Re: Can You Disable Call-Waiting AFTER the Call Starts? [Ralph Sims]
    Re: Can You Disable Call-Waiting AFTER the Call Starts? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number [Mark Brader]
    Re: Some Realities About Repair of Damaged Aerial Phone Cables [J Higdon]
    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: Voice Recognition Experiment [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Cliff Olling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu vs Motorola
Date: 20 Mar 91 06:49:40 GMT
Reply-To: Cliff Olling <[e-mail]>
Organization: Japan National Oil Corporation, Chiba City, Japan


In article <[e-mail]> (Craig Ibbotson) writes:

> The factory where they make the MicroTac is next door to my building,
> and I think it is fantastic to see such high-quality products coming
> out of a U.S. factory with American factory workers.  These people are
> average Joe's like you and me, but they are competing tooth and nail
> with the Japanese.  Finally, a U.S. manufacturer who can do it right.

When I was coming back to Tokyo after skiing on Monday, I noticed the
(Japanese) guy next to me on the the Shinkansen had a MicroTac.  In
fact he dropped it on the floor a time or two :-).  I asked him why he
didn't buy a Japanese-made phone.  He said that the NTT competition
was too expensive, and that most people don't care that the MicroTac's
not made by a Japanese company.  Sorry this is so brief, but my
Japanese isn't yet up to an in-depth market analysis survey :-).


Clifford Olling  Japan National Oil Corporation    $@@PL}8xCD(J
Technology Research Center  $@@PL}3+H/5;=Q(J  Chiba City, Japan
[e-mail]    $@KkD%K\6?1X(J   24hrs/day=>81+472-73-5831

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

From: "John G. DeArmond" <emory!Dixie.Com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu vs Motorola
Date: 20 Mar 91 09:06:21 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Services


motcid![e-mail] (Craig Ibbotson) writes:

> Call me a blind patriot (and possibly a blind Motorola employee) but
> if the two of these portables come up even (as was suggested), I would
> have to think people in the U.S. would opt for the phone that is made
> in America by American workers for an American company.

> Go for the Motorola phone.

As long as non-technical criteria are being used to judge the merit of
one vendor vs another, let me add another fact for consideration.
I'll ask Pat's and the group's indulgence for a moment.

Motorola sits at the top of the civil rights Tower of Shame by having
the most egregiously offensive arbitrary drug testing program in
America. For those not aware, I maintain a list, called the Piss List,
of companies that violate employees' rights in various ways such as
pee-in-the-bottle tests, psychological profiling, lie detectors (yes,
they are still around), and other offensive thing so that people can
vote against these practices with their feet and with their
pocketbooks.

This list is available from [e-mail]. Mail a message with the
word "send" in the SUBJECT line.  I can also provide a copy of
Motorola's policy, a document that will strike fear in the hearts of
even the most conservative spectator.  Write to [e-mail] and ask
for it.  I also maintain a list of good companies that maintain an
afirmative position regarding employees' rights to privacy and freedom
on their own time.

As of this writing, Fujitsu is not on the bad list.  That should be
enough of a tie-breaker.

Beyond that, my impression of the Motorola luggable (a mobile radio
with a nylon bag wrapped around it) after side by side comparison to
my three year old Panasonic Portable and after some bench testing is
that I'm not at all impressed. It is much more prone to intermod in
the RF-hostile downtown Atlanta area and the receiver is less
sensitive.  The radio itself appears to be a mobile unit to which some
stamped sheet metal brackets and some Molex plugs have been added.
Bare wires are apparent under this sheetmetal bracket.  Looks like
something I might have jerry-rigged up as a prototype but certainly
not as a production item.

On the plus side, the phone uses Panasonic batteries and charges them
when on mobile power.  I suppose at the discounted price of under $200
dollars, the phone is not a bad deal if you can bide your conscience
enough to buy from a company with people policies as bad as
Motorola's.


John De Armond, WD4OQC     Rapid Deployment System, Inc.
Marietta, Ga               {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 23:43 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu vs Motorola


Craig Ibbotson <motcid![e-mail]> writes:

> Call me a blind patriot (and possibly a blind Motorola employee) but
> if the two of these portables come up even (as was suggested), I would
> have to think people in the U.S. would opt for the phone that is made
> in America by American workers for an American company.

For openers, let me say that both of my cellular phones are Motorola:
a MicroTac and an old in-car unit (I forget what). They are most
satisfactory.

That said, I must disagree most strenuously with the apparent
statement in the quoted paragraph. Being made in America is NOT a
reason to buy anything. One should buy on the basis of need and
fulfillment. If one's needs are fulfilled by a product and the price
is right, it should be purchased. To buy product just because it is
"American" possibly rewards a company for building inferior wares.
(Definitely not the case with Motorola.)

> The factory where they make the MicroTac is next door to my building,
> and I think it is fantastic to see such high-quality products coming
> out of a U.S. factory with American factory workers.

Look at the above comment. Is it not a sad commentary that one
considers it "fantastic" that a US factory with American workers would
build high-quality products? Does this mean that the norm is
over-priced, shoddy, worthless junk?

Would that there come a time, once again, that we all could consider
American products to be routinely of high workmanship and value and
not be amazed by it when it occurs.

> Finally, a U.S. manufacturer who can do it right.

So let us reward those American businesses that do it right by
patronizing their goods and avoid the others until they, too, can "do
it right".

> Go for the Motorola phone.

I am certainly happy with mine. But buy it because it is good, not
because it is "American".


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

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Front Door to Apartment Phone Service
Date: 20 Mar 91 20:55:53 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


Pat, you forgot to mention the downside of the {E,I}nterphone.
(Warning: Anecdote Alert!)

A friend of mine had been sent overseas on business for a month or so.
After he got back I was going to stop over to say "hi" to him one
Saturday morning.  I got there, and buzzed his apartment.  Well,
unbeknownst to me at the time the intercom was an Interphone
arrangement, the type that doesn't interrupt calls in progress.  He
had a data call up you see, catching up on a month's worth of email
and news ... all I got was a busy tone!  Luckily his second-floor
apartment had a window that was literally a stone's throw from the
ground.

The call-interruption flavor wouldn't have helped much either.  Call
waiting would have kicked in and knocked him off the modem (assuming
that it can't be cancelled with *70 or something, in which case he
would have cancelled it).  The modem would have put the line back
on-hook.  Would the phone ring in such a situation?  If so, no
problem.  Otherwise my friend would have cursed the demon-spawn named
Line Noise and simply redialed before I could try again!

No, give me an honest-to-god dedicated intercom any day.  Better yet,
give me a dwelling place free of these !#$%^# modern "conveniences"!


Steven King, Motorola Cellular  (...uunet!motcid!king)


[Moderator's Note: By definition, I/Enterphone WILL interrupt a call
in progress. That is the way it is built. Any other unit which does
not actually seize the pair (relying on dialing in) is an imposter if
it is called I/Enterphone.  And no, *70 will not block call-waiting in
the case of a front door call, since again the unit does not look to
see what the CO is doing other than if the line (or rather, the pair)
is engaged then it submits its own call-waiting tone. Yes, a person on
a modem would get cut off. That is one reason I have two lines here;
one for mostly modem use, with no call-waiting on the line, period.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Can You Disable Call Waiting AFTER the Call Starts?
From: Ralph Sims <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 22:10:00 PST
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service


[e-mail] writes:

> waiting to begin with.  I've been annoyed for several months now by
> not being able to hang up my phone with a quick flash.  Instead, I get
> a new dial tone, and the call goes on hold.  The only thing that I can
> dial through the new dial tone without getting a reorder is *70, after
> dialing which I am returned to the call in progress.  Calls to the

That sounds suspiciously like three-party-conferencing, which seems to
be a requirement here to get the ability to cancel call-waiting (area
code 206/USWest).

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can You Disable Call-Waiting AFTER the Call Starts?
Date: 19 Mar 91 13:03:36 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

> [Moderator's Note:  On my US Robotics Courier 2400 modem, you use '!'
> to force the modem to flash the hook. But on outgoing calls, why
> wouldn't you just insert *70 on the front of the dialing string
> instead, as in ATDT *70-123-4567?  If you want to flash the hook after
> the modem is already on the line, I guess you would get the modem's
> attention, with three plusses or whatever, followed by ATDT !*70 O,
> where the final letter 'O' means for the modem to go back on line.  PAT]

The "!" dial modifier also works with Hayes modems.  You're right
about prepending "*70," to the phone number, rather than trying to do
it after the call is established.  In fact, you CAN'T do it after the
call is established, for two reasons: first, Hayes modems will give
you an ERROR result code if you try to do an "A" or "D" command when
you're already connected; second, if you DID hook-flash, you'd split
the connection, which the other modem would see as a carrier loss
which would cause it to hang up.

The question has come up previously as to how to disable call
waiting on INCOMING modem calls.  I may have mentioned this here
before, but it can be done fairly simply.  You can't use Auto Answer
(S0 > 0); your software must look for RING messages (or the RI
lead to go high).  Rather than issuing just an "ATA" command string
to answer, use the string "ATH1D,!,*70,!;A".  You might want to set
S8=1, so the commas only cause a one second delay instead of the
default of two seconds.


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, 20 Mar 1991 01:04:00 -0500
From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Correct Way to Write Your Phone Number
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


People have pointed out that in Sweden and the UK and other places...

> > ... 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.
> ... But then, national tastes vary, and what looks obvious and
> natural in one place may look exactly the opposite in another!

I make no comment about Swedish or other languages, but I certainly
agree that in English a hyphen should bind more tightly than a space,
and therefore it cannot be the proper separator in this context.  I
point out, however, that the precedence is correct if the "-"
character is taken to be an ASCII (or ISO 646, or typewriter)
transliteration of a *dash*.

In *typeset* matter in the UK, if the phone number is written in the
fashion of the Swedish example above (rather than in international +
format or with parentheses), is a dash sometimes seen rather than a
hyphen?


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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 23:52 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Some Realities About Repair of Damaged Aerial Telephone Cables


David Lesher <[e-mail]> writes:

> What you REALLY want to do, John, is just get a SLC-96 installed in
> your basement ;^]. Then, next fire, all they would have to do is run
> some new fibers.

Well, I tried to get T1, but even when it becomes available, Pac*Bell
wants to charge me extra to save them money. Right now, my ten lines
come in on individual drops, reminiscent of an alleyway in some slum.
My friends all have managed to get Pac*Bell to at least install cable
drops to THEIR houses. When a repair type comes to the house, he has
to pull the covers off of every type of protector block available over
the past thirty years to find the line in question. I would love to
get it cleaned up, but it is on Pac*Bell's side of the demarc and you
can bet there is no interest whatever in cleaning anything up.
Especially at MY house :-)


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

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

Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 8:50:12 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


The local United Artists Cable (owned by TCI) got very nervous last
year when Congress was threatening to reregulate cable rates. They
quickly raised "basic" service by $2 a month and used the excuse that
you were now allowed to have as many hookups as you wanted. They also
charge for use of the converter box if you need it.

Needless to say, my outdoor antenna works fine and I'm looking forward
to the introduction of Skypix direct broadcast this summer.


Ken Jongsma                [e-mail]
Smiths Industries          [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan     ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1991 06:13:22 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Voice Recognition Experiment


> The Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology is building a
> huge database of voices as part of a project to develop voice
> recognition for US West directory assistance.

Before I donate my voice to this project, I'm curious about one thing.
Is information that is obtained by having such a large database of
voices going to be kept private, or instead made available to the
public?

I think that good voice recognition systems would benefit the public,
and would be happy to donate my voice to a project that was working on
an "open" system.  However, if the Oregon project is strictly for the
use of US West, then I'm reluctant to participate.  While I'm more or
less a nice guy, I'm not so nice that I would donate my services to a
for profit company such as US West.  Of course, I would quickly
reconsider if US West were to offer to compensate me for my
participation.  :-)

What's the background behind this project?


Don

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #220
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23336;
          21 Mar 91 9:48 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28439;
          21 Mar 91 3:41 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29464;
          21 Mar 91 2:35 CST
Date:     Thu, 21 Mar 91 1:34:42 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #221
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Mar 91 01:34:30 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 221

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly [John Higdon]
    Re: The Order of Repair [Jerry K. Wagner]
    Re: The Order of Repair [David Barts]
    Re: The Press and Numbers [Sandy Kyrish]
    Re: Houston Chronicle Cellular Fraud Story [Norman Soley]
    Re: Answer Supervision Information Sought [Bill Cerny]
    Re: Information Needed to Use Call Manager [Steve Forrette]
    Re: I Want to Buy a COCOT [Robert L. Oliver]
    Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign [Peter da Silva]
    Re: New Online Service? [Nigel Allen]
    Re: New Online Service? [Richard Casto]
    I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones [Randy Borow]
    Re: Information Needed to Use Call Manager [Tim Irvin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 01:22 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


Louis Linneweh <motcid![e-mail]> writes:

> But I was very frustrated in the waiting room of a metropolitan airport
> (Atlanta? Dallas?) which had payphones with special buttons for all
> the ICs but AT&T.  AT&T had their own CRT credit card reading phones,
> which I couldn't figure out how to use (after 15 minutes, including
> calling the "assistance" number listed "What kind of phone?"), I
> discovered that the phone was just broken, and the one next to it
> worked fine!  (It was so unfamiliar and "complex" I didn't realize the
> phone was not working!  I thought I was doing something wrong!)

In the case of either AT&T or utility whoopie-whizzo phones that have
all those carrier buttons and card readers, ad nauseum, one simple
fact still remains: you can usually place an ordinary calling card
call by dialing 0+10D or if necessary, 10288+0+10D. You do not have to
actually use all of that 'stuff'. All of the phones similar to what
you describe seem to be able to be used in a most conventional manner.
So if you want tradition -- you got it!

On the other hand, you CAN use other carriers, other billing
arrangements -- things that were not possible a few years ago. Can you
imagine trying to use a "BankAmeriCard" in the '70s to make a phone
call from a payphone? Not bloody possible. And what better place than
airports to have phones that are capable of many billing arrangements,
considering all the moaning in this forum about how foreign visitors
have such a tough time making calls with out stored-value cards and
the like. A credit card is a credit card. They work just fine in any
country, no? (I have a Visa bill from my trip to Japan to prove it!)

So while you may seem to be inconvenienced, there are others who are
delighted with the panoply of choices.


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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 09:37:45
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: "Jerry K. Wagner    Internet: [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Order of Repair


> In TELECOM Digest V11 #210, John Higdon writes:

> What is interesting is the order in which the services were restored...
> As it turned out, telephone service was restored by late afternoon,
> about twenty-four hours after the outage began. Not very impressive.

If you lived in Rochester Tel land, you would most likely consider 24
hours to be impressive.  Since I moved to my current address, I have
had at least two unexplained service interruptions (not-storm or
disaster related) and it took at least two days for each one to be
fixed.

During the recent ice storm, I lost service on March 4.  I called
Rochester Tel that afternoon and was told my phone would be fixed by 9
PM on March 6.  I certainly didn't believe that!  On March 12, I
called again.  The phone company would not give me any idea when the
repair people would be in my neighborhood.  (Meanwhile, Rochester Gas
and Electric was being told by the county government to at least give
people an estimate.)  I called Rochester Tel again on March 16 and I
was told the repair people were going street by street and no estimate
was given.  Later that day, we found New York Telephone people down
the street who were going house-to-house to repair services.  These
repair people hadn't even been given a list of people who didn't have
service, so we gave them my address and asked them to be sure to stop
at our house.

> So it breaks down like this:

> The cable company had its act together.  Its service restoral (while
> hardly essential) was first rate. PG&E took three hours to restore
> service. PG&E is probably the worst electric utility on the planet so
> for them it was probably miraculous. Never mind that the fire was
> originally started by primary wires arcing in the trees because PG&E
> felt it unnecessary to do any trimming. But wiping up the rear was
> Pac*Bell, who was too wimpy to even begin work on its cable until the
> next day.

I disagree with the use of the term "wimpy."  PG&E personnel are
trained and equipped to work with high voltage equipment and the phone
company is not.  If the trees were arcing, there could have been other
damage to the equipment, such as broken insulators and broken
high-voltage wires.  I can't blame the phone company personnel for not
wanting to be exposed to foreign voltages on their equipment until
PG&E got their problems solved.

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 10:17:09 pst
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Order of Repair


John Higdon writes of a situation where he lost three utilities and
cable TV was the first to be restored.

I certainly envy his cable TV service.  My experience with cable TV in
three communities (Los Alamos, NM; Logan, UT; Prosser, WA) has been
that: a) if an event causes only one utility to fail, it's cable; b)
if multiple utilities fail, cable goes out first and gets restored
last.

The cable companies also seem to be much less eager for my business
than other utilities.  When I request electric, phone, water, and
cable TV service at a new residence, three calls end up with "Very
well, sir, your service will be automatically turned on by
<such-and-such time> on <such-and-such date>.", and one call ends up
"Please pick a day where you can be at home within a four hour window
next week and wait for our serviceman."  Guess which one is the cable
TV service rep.  (Yes, this is for a residence that is already wired
for cable.)

I know of only one utility where the lines from the power pole are
casually draped across the yard like a carelessly-tossed extension
cord and left that way for years waiting to be buried or properly
installed.  Guess which one.

Only one utility has answered the phone with a recording saying "Leave
your name, phone number, and address, and service will be restored the
next business day." when I had to report an outage over a weekend.
Guess which one.

And then the CATV companies talk about providing local dial tone.
From what I've seen in the quality of CATV service, the LEC's don't
have much to worry about from these prospective competitors.  (John
Higdon's case seems to be an exception.)

In case you're wondering: No, I haven't bothered to sign up for cable
at my current residence.  And I don't intend to.


[Moderator's Note: Likewise, at my house, we do not have cable. The
service in Chicago stinks, and anyway, with 12 over the air channels
why should I bother paying for more grief?   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 15:21 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Press and Numbers


If Doug Davis is going to be so snide about journalists' inability to
multiply numbers correctly, perhaps he should be a bit more careful
not to misspell "fraudulently" seven times in a single document.

After all, if he is better than a journalist, then he should be in
complete mastery of all journalistic skills.  What I'm really
complaining about is the number of Digest readers who seem to live for
the opportunity to find fault with other people's statements.

Every time we laugh at "outsiders" for making technological mistakes,
we are proving that we see technology as a special priesthood that
only the scrupulously worthy can join.  The fact is, technology exists
in society, and plain old people are periodically going to make
technical mistakes about it.  Personally, I don't find poking fun at
them an ego trip.


Sandy Kyrish  [e-mail]

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

From: Norman Soley <oracle!nsoley@.com>
Subject: Re: Houston Chronicle Cellular Fraud Story
Reply-To: Norman Soley <oracle![e-mail]>
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 16:11:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Floyd
Davidson) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 208, Message 1 of 14

>>   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.''

> Hmmmm.  1440 minutes in 24 hours, so the combined cost of calling Iraq
> and Kuwait is about, ahhh, $22 a minute, or $11 to either one alone
> per minute.

And if both of them are inmarsat phones then these are completely
reasonable estimates. The rate card in the front of my white pages
says C $12.00/min.


      Norman Soley - Systems Administrator - Oracle Corporation Canada
      155 University Ave. Suite 400 Toronto, Ontario (416)-362-7953 X646
      [e-mail]               uunet!torsqnt!cnseq1!nsoley
          "These opinions are mine, not the company's"

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

From: "Bill Cerny,Baja JarTel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision Information Sought
Date: 20 Mar 91 17:08:06 GMT
Reply-To: "Bill Cerny,Baja JarTel" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Jartel, San Diego, CA


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

> First, on ground start trunks, then can they do it on trunks on a T1
> (not ISDN, just 24 vanilla trunks)?

We've got Megacom WATS here (delivered over a T-1, E&M signalling).
Here's what the A&B bits do during a call:

                Terminal    Network
                --------    -------
Channel idle (on-hook)           00           00
Off-hook, no supervision yet       11           00
Answer supervision           11           11
Far end hangs up           11           00
Near end hangs up (on-hook)       00           00

I tried to get ground-start, dial tone trunks on the T-1 to the AT&T
4ESS, but I found out that the 4ESS only supports E&M signalling.

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 00:58:25 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed to Use AT&T Call Manager


> [Moderator's Note: Does one have to specifically sign-up to use the
> Call Manager feature? The reason I ask is I just now made a zero plus
> call and and after the gong, entered 15xx, followed by the # to
> terminate dialing and speed the process. It was accepted no questions
> asked. I wonder what it will look like when billed. Incidentally, I
> see that 10732 is still accepting cals from non-subscribers also.   PAT]

Just for grins, I just tried this for an AT&T call from a Pacific Bell
payphone.  The response was:

"We're sorry.  The service you have requested is not available.  <click>"

It didn't even give me a chance to try a second time, as it would have
if I had entered an invalid PIN (of the proper format).

They think of everything!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: "Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Buy a COCOT
Organization: Rabbit Software Corp.
Date: 20 Mar 91 01:03:40 GMT


[e-mail] (Steve Ligett) writes:

> I'm gathering information for our school board.  We would like to have
> a pay phone in our school.  It would be primarily for local calls made
> during times that the school building is open, but the office is not.
> For example during town meetings, school board meetings, sports
> events, etc.  It would not be used during the school day, and could be
> hooked up to use one of the existing lines.

> Neither the phone company nor the local COCOT company are interested
> since it won't bring them much revenue.

Actually, in my Junior High / High School in Philadelphia (J. R.
Masterman), we had a payphone right outside the school office.  This
was quite pre-COCOT, so I don't know if Bell would make the same
decision today.  But I would bet that money was to be made.  Students
during lunch hour, teacher personal calls, etc.  Note that the various
Department Offices had school phones with no dials, but not "outside"
phones, though I believe the operator could patch things through.


Robert Oliver                 Rabbit Software Corp.
215-993-1152                 7 Great Valley Parkway East
[e-mail]      Malvern,  PA 19355
         ...!uunet!cbmvax!hutch!robert

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1991 01:37:01 GMT


Even if AT&T gets rid of every COCOT in the country, I will need to
retain my FONcard for calls from private FONs. I really think they're
cutting off their nose to spite their face.

These are the people who killed the AT&T 7300, a computer so good it
still has a cult following years after being orphaned twice over. If
they had one competant marketer in any sort of controlling position,
they would *still* own long distance lock, stock, and AOS.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 16:45 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Online Service?
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue


In Volume 11, Issue 214, Message 3 of 4, Jeff Sicherman asks about an
unidentified "new online service".

I believe the company in question is America Online, originally aimed
at Macintosh and Apple II users, and now going after the MS-DOS
market.

I tried the Mac version of its service, and found the message areas
relatively empty, but this was a year ago.  I stopped using it because
the company imposes a fairly high communications surcharge for
Canadian users.


Nigel Allen   [e-mail]

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

From: Richard Casto <mruxb![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Online Service?
Date: 20 Mar 91 04:11:59 GMT
Reply-To: Richard Casto <mruxb![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, NJ


I sent in that card, ommitting my phone number and using my P.O. Box -
I will see what response I get, and then post!

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Mar 20 12:03:50 CST 1991
Subject: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones


Pat,

        Walk to Radio Shack and pick up a Touch-tone phone? I've never
been satisfied w/ anything less than a genuine Bell-made or AT&T-made
Touch-tone phone. I've had nothing but bad luck with those Radio
Shack, QT&T, etc.  phones. Give me a REAL Touch-tone phone, with those
familiar beeps and boops, anyday. Who'd you think invented
"Touch-tone" anyway? Of course, it has fallen into everyday use, like
other corporate trademarks: xerox, etc.

And I'll take the old mechanical bell ringers, too!


Randy Borow   Rolling Meadows, Il.

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

From: Tim Irvin <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Information Needed to Use Call Manager
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 17:36:20


In a message of Sat, 16 Mar 91 12:18 EST , Curtis E. Reid wrote:

> I just tried to call a zero plus number then pressed 15nn after the
> bong.  The system reported the card is invalid and asks me to reenter
> a valid number.  So, it does not work here.  (I use AT&T.)

I just tried it using 10288-0-NPA-7D (bong) 15nn.  I got an intercept
that said "We're sorry the service you have requested is not
available."


Tim Irvin

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #221
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23462;
          21 Mar 91 9:53 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02856;
          21 Mar 91 4:49 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28439;
          21 Mar 91 3:41 CST
Date:     Thu, 21 Mar 91 2:37:19 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #222
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Mar 91 02:36:53 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 222

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Home Telephone Tap Detector [Larry Lippman]
    Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly [Jim Budler]
    Re: Cellular Air Time Charges Around the World - Who Pays? [Adam Gorman]
    Re: Help Needed With NiCads on my Panasonic Cellular [Marty Brenneis]
    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [W. H. Sohl]
    Re: Can You Disable Call-Waiting AFTER Call Starts? [[e-mail]]
    Re: Please Define COCOT [John Higdon]
    Re: COCOTs Charging for 800 Calls [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Home Telephone Tap Detector
Date: 20 Mar 91 23:08:23 EST (Wed)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Kevin Boyd) writes:

> 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.

    Don't forget the old saying that if it sounds too good to be
true, it *is* too good to be true.

> HOME TELEPHONE TAP DETECTOR: Used by law enforcement agencies around
> the world, this home telephone tap detector detects and defeats
> virtually all tap systems.

    "Law enforcement agencies around the world", eh?  I wonder if
these are agencies which enforce Barnum's Law ("There's a sucker born
every minute.").

> It employs four individual detection systems to detect low and
> high impedance taps, wireless bugs, off-hook extensions and
> automatic tape recorders.

    What, no capability to detect "medium impedance" taps?

> 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

    "Mode one" is reminiscent of the screw-in handset transmitter
replacements sold under such tradenames as "Eavesdropper Stopper".  A
voltage comparator senses any off-hook voltage below an adjustable
threshhold and assumes that such a reduction is the result of parallel
DC resistance from an off-hook extension telephone.  Unlike the
handset device, it would appear that this gadget operates a relay to
mute the associated telephone set.

    "Mode two" sounds like a broadband RF detector using a simple
diode feeding a high-gain amplifier and comparator circuit.  Detection
of RF above such a threshhold probably operates the same muting relay
used for "mode one".  I'd bet money that this gadget doesn't have the
sensitivity to detect a one watt VHF transmitter just 100 feet away.
Does anyone think that a perpetrator actually planting an RF
transmitter is going to be dumb enough to place it right next to the
telephone set?

    "Mode three" sounds like the condition when "mode two"
operates the muting relay.  "Mode four" sounds like "mode three".
Well, I guess four "modes" sounds better than two "modes".

    "Nullifies any transmission bugs", indeed!  I wonder if the
humongous amount of energy available from the nine-volt battery is
used to generate high power RF pulses that will destroy the offending
transmitter?

    I'm also truly impressed with the advanced technology that has
permitted this sophisticated unit to be built in a case the size of a
3x5 card and less than one inch thick.  The nine volt battery and two
RJ-11 jacks will occupy 1/4 of that volume alone!

    Moi, sarcastic?  Why, perish the thought! :-)


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

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

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Telco Should be Permitted to Maintain Monopoly
Organization: Silvar-Lisco, Inc.
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1991 07:00:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail]
(Louis Linneweh) writes:

> [e-mail] (Steven S. Brack) writes:

>> 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?

> In a word: standards.  De facto, perhaps; obsolete, quite often;
> archaic occasionally; but usable standards none the less.  For the
> public and even for telephony equipment suppliers.  They just couldn't
> change the system fast enough toget a marketing advantage.  Hmmmm.

Hmmm. They just wouldn't change the system. They didn't need a
marketing advantage. They owned the market.

> I used to know how to place a long distance call from a pay phone
> virtually anywhere in the country.  I used to feel confident my kids
> could call me from those same phones.  That is simply no longer true
> today.  Sure, a lot of committees could set standards and a lot of
> laws could enforce them.  But they don't and they are not effective.

I happen to disagree with Pat concerning the need for the breakup of
the Monopoly. However, I happen to agree with him that the results
were terrible. The breakup was orchestrated with sledgehammer and a
dull chisel, instead of a microscope and micromanipulators. COCOTs are
one result. Public telephones are a Public Service, as well as a
Consumer Service. The Mother Forgot Judgement *ignored* the Public
Service aspect and treated public telephones completely as a consumer
convenience item.

> So far the basic telephones have remained compatible.  At least I
> haven't called anyone I wasn't able to talk to and hear in return.
> But I worry about ISDN, Open Network Architecture, and the burgeoning
> features available.  Will I always be able to talk to the person I
> called?  OK, I'm exagerating, I suppose.  None the less, I don't
> always know how to make a call from a pay phone anymore.  That's a
> terrible step backward!

I honestly hope and believe you'll never have to worry about any of
that except the pay phones. Uh, well maybe you'll pick the wrong long
distance carrier and hear a new intercept: "Sorry, that long distance
carrier is no longer in service, please call your business office."

> That's my reason for supporting the regulated monopoly of the phone
> company.

They're my reasons for wishing it hadn't happened THEN, with THAT JUDGE.

But ATT was too monopolistic, the only changes, even on low levels
were happening due to court action. Remember, without court
intervention you probably would still have 1200 baud modems only
supplied by ATT.


Jim Budler          [e-mail]
Silvar-Lisco, Inc.  +1.408.991.6115
703 E. Evelyn Ave.  Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 01:50:57 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Air Time Charges Around the World - Who Pays?


[e-mail] (Alan Laird) writes:

> Making a call from a British Telecom phone to a cell phone will cost
> 44p/min peak and 33p/min off-peak where off-peak starts at 6.00pm Also
> BT start charging almost immediately (presumably as soon as they
> connect to the cellular system) so you get full charges for failed
> calls (engaged, cell phone unreachable etc).

> Does anyone know what Mercury charges for calls to cell phones?

According to Mercury Carphone (the droid on the Mercury 2300 help
desk said "We don't deal with carphones", "but......" I said) anyway,
Merc Carphone, formerly the Carphone group, said it was ABOUT 33p per
minute and then slammed the phone down as I was saying "That's peak
rate ?". They are on 0800 373729 if you want to have a bash.

What is better is that Mercury charge by the second which is what
saves us the real money by using the 2300 service.

I've no credit limit on my Vodac account yet.


Adam Gorman                        Mobile    [phone]
Solstice Systems Ltd, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, BA14 9AZ        0225 755740

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

From: Marty Brenneis <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed With NiCads on my Panasonic Cellular
Date: 20 Mar 91 02:55:17 GMT


[e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce) writes:

> Somewhere I ran into a reference to a special charging circuit that
> obviates the need for full discharge to prevent shallow discharge
> memory.

> This charger also recharged VERY fast from whatever state the battery
> was in and there was something about high current short pulses and
> blowing away whiskers. A custom module was needed for each battery
> size to 'tune' the charger's action properly.

This sounds like a "Negative Delta V" charger from Alexander Battery
Company.  They make a line of rapid chargers that monitors the battery
voltage while charging it. It is not as harsh as a timed charge or a
simple voltage sensitive charger. For more details see below.

They can be aquired from Alexander Battery in San Diego, CA.  Tha
phone number is 800-327-0814 in CA and 800-421-1108 elsewhere.  I
always talk to Pat Huberty there, he is a cool guy. Tell him Marty
from ILM sent you.

Here is how it works for you technoids:

The charger pushes a high current into the battery at the start. It
does this for a minute or so. It then switches in a small load and
measures the voltage. It keeps pushing hard and stopping to measure
the progress until it gets to the proper terminal voltage for that
cell size. It then switches to a trickle mode to maintain that. The
trick here is the charger is measuring the battery condition rather
than charging until it heats up to 41 degrees C like most rapid
chargers. It won't overheat the cells and cook the chemicals. This
translates into more charge/discharge cycles.  The drawback is the
battery must be directly connected to the charger, you can't use the
regular charge contacts. They have holders that take the battery and
charge thru the output contacts.

The cost of these is around $125 for a single unit charger.

Have fun!

Marty the Droid   Industrial Magician

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

From: "24460-W. H. Sohl(L145" <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 14:48:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws
Reply-To: "24460-W. H. Sohl" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chuck
Forsberg WA7KGX) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> John Kennedy <johnk@opel.
> com> writes:

>> subscriber for each piece of equipment connected to the cable.  It
>> seems that cable legislation is a few years behind that for the
>> telephone industry.

>> Is there legislation afoot anywhere that is attempting to modernize
>> this?

> Yes, Senate Bill 12 for 1991.  Ask your senator to mail you a copy,
> then bug him to support it if you agree with it.  Hearings were held
> on S.12 last week, but the issues were not covered by CNN.

Is this federal legislation or is it legislation within one state?

I have always found it ironic that here in New Jersey, most (possibly
all) cable tariffs allow the addition of an "inline" VCR at no cost
while still requiring an indivisual extra charge for each additional
TV added.  The irony of that is, of course, that I can video tape
another channel while watching something else and then play it back on
a separate TV and VCR not connected at all to the cable.

I once spoke to a Board of Public Utilities (NJ) "expert" about why
should extra TVs be charged for.  His position (and presumably that of
the cable companies) is that multiple TV's mean you are getting
greater value from the cable at any point in time, since you can be
watching channel X on one TV while another family member is watching
channel Y in another room on another set.  I gave him the point about
no charge for a VCR and he claimed it really wasn't the same thing.

My view is that the cable "service" should be provided to a single
point within any home at a standard signal level and then any further
distribution within the home should be left to the homeowner.  Fears
of bad inside wiring being detrimental to other cable subscribers can
be alleviated by using some type of unidirectional broadband isolation
device as a standard cable interface (terminating module) for each
home.


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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1991 10:23:35 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Can You Disable Call-Waiting AFTER the Call Starts?


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Mc
>Mahan) writes:

>> 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

> In reference to this question, has anyone been sucessful in making
> this work for outgoing calls placed by a Hayes compatible modem?

> [Moderator's Note:  On my US Robotics Courier 2400 modem, you use '!'
> to force the modem to flash the hook.
 ..

> I guess you would get the modem's attention, with three plusses or
> whatever, followed by ATDT !*70 O, where the final letter 'O' means
> for the modem to go back on line.  PAT]

Unfortunately as soon as you switch the line over the modem on the
other end would drop the connection. Modems need to be in continuous
contact else they give up. That is why a call-waiting beep will
usually knock you off line.

Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP:...!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scot


[Moderator's Note: And also, even if you did keep your modem on line,
when the phone line clicked out for a minute to allow your *70 input,
the distant end would think carrier had been lost.  You really can't
win on this unless all modems everywhere were similarly adjusted.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 22:39 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Please Define COCOT


On Mar 19 at  1:02, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> Is there an 'official' way to say it?  PAT]

There are plenty of unofficial ways to say it but this is a family
program. You might be interested to know that in California, when
these things first sprouted, we called them COPTs (Customer Owned Pay
Telephones). This is how they are still referenced in PUC documents.


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


[Moderator's Note: To assist our visually handicapped reader who first
raised this question this time around, that is C O P T  (hopefully
your vox said the letters rather than trying to pronounce them as a
word). And yes, there are indeed many names for those foul, unnatural
devices. :)  A mild epithet might be 'payphones from hell'.  :)  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 01:04:29
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOTs Charging for 800 Calls


Someone writes:

> 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?

> [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]

Until last August, it was legal in California for COCOTs to charge at
most 10 cents for a call to an 800 number.  Interestingly, not many
COCOTs charged this, but there were some.  It was definately a cash
deposit made by the caller.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #222
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28795;
          21 Mar 91 13:44 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25516;
          21 Mar 91 11:56 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20403;
          21 Mar 91 10:50 CST
Date:     Thu, 21 Mar 91 10:44:41 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #223
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 21 Mar 91 10:44:28 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 223

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Dial "0" for Mickey Mouse [Louis Linneweh]
    Re: My First Month of Caller*ID in Atlanta [Robert Jacobson]
    Re: Urban Legend? -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins! [Mike Riddle]
    Re: Urban Legend? -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins! [Neil Rickert]
    Re: Still Another Telephone Scam [Carl Moore]
    Re: IBT Requires TouchTone Charge [Robert L. Oliver]
    Re: Microwave / Optical Links for Audio [Tim Pozar]
    Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign [Bob Yazz]
    Higdon an Expert on 2600 Hz? [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Louis Linneweh <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dial "0" for Mickey Mouse
Date: 20 Mar 91 19:31:17 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein) writes:

> Y'see, back when WDW was being created, the swamps west of Kissimee
> were unpopulated and no telco served them.  So Disney created a
> telephone company subsidiary and got certificated to serve the area,
> which they named after, I think, a place in Anaheim (LBV).  They sold
> half to United, which no doubt added some expertise.  It's a fully
> modern operation with two COs, optical fiber, etc.  And given the
> growth in the area, it has quite a few phones in its territory.
> (Smart move!)

It is my understanding, via some traveling telepony salesman stories
from a co-worker, that a small independent telco was licensed to serve
the area that was to become Walt Disney World.  WDW gave them a
staggering list of requirements which would have resulted in the
independent growing by several orders of magnitude, and the capital
required was not forthcoming.  WDW was more tham happy to buy them out
to insure first class telephone service, and formed the joint venture
with United.

I believe the former owner (a one family operation?) got a good
dollar, but not a goldmine business!  Does anyone out there know the
whole story?

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta
Date: 21 Mar 91 05:11:55 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle


The "alleged horrors" which Bill Berbenich has not yet experienced as
a result of one month of Caller ID have to do with duration and
penetration.  The telcos commonly pass off one month tests of small
service populations as scientific surveys and are always relieved for
their customers when alleged horrors do not occur.  The point is to
wait a couple years when a few tens of millions of more people are
forced into Caller ID and the files have started being built up.  Then
let's see if the horrors happen, Bill.


Bob Jacobson


[Moderator's Note: What about in places like New Jersey, where
Caller*ID has been a reality now for about a year? Maybe one or more
of the 'veterans' of Caller*ID will write on the topic of abuses -- if
there are any -- now that this new technology has had a chance to get
established.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 10:57:56 PDT
From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Urban Legend -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins!


Patrick:

A recent article asked about a potentially new urban legend.  The
story was that a person used Caller*ID to locate a harassing caller
and was successfully sued for invasion of privacy.

A quick search on a legal database revealed no appellate litigation
other than the Pennsylvania case which has been discussed at length
previously.  I did uncover the following story which suggests that, at
a minimum, the case did not arise in Florida, if anywhere.  You will
note that the Flordia PSC was not scheduled to reach a decision on
Caller*ID until February 19th.  That makes it unlikely that any case
has come to trial in Florida, and in my opinion that renders the
entire story suspect.

Not that it might not be a winner -- in Pennsylvania, at least, or in
another state with a strong state consititutional or statutory privacy
right.

I believe that one story from a three-month old paper is sufficiently
covered by fair use, particularly when posting to Usenet, so here is
the Florida Caller*ID saga as of December 31, 1990.


                  South Florida Business Journal;
       Copyright South Florida Business Journal, Inc. 1990;
      Business Dateline; Copyright (c) 1990 UMI/Data Courier

                        December 31, 1990

 SECTION: Vol 11; No 19; Sec 1; pg 10
 LENGTH: 865 words
 HEADLINE: Regulatory Issues on the Telecomm Front Burner
 BYLINE: David Sedore

 DATELINE: FL; US
 BODY:

   Telecommunications executives may remember 1991, fondly or
otherwise, as the year of the regulator.

   Among the issues that will be discussed, reviewed, legislated and
regulated before the Florida Public Service Commission, the Federal
Communications Commission, Congress and the courts during the upcoming
year:

   * Caller ID;
   * alternative access companies;
   * rates for ISDN services;
   * cable television transmission, manufacturing and research.

   Of all the issues that will receive action next year, introduc-
tion of Caller ID without question has received the most atten- tion.
Its approval or rejection by the PSC won't have that much impact on
the overall industry, but it certainly will be among the most watched
decisions.

   Southern Bell filed to introduce the service, which identifies the
originating telephone number of incoming calls, on Sept. 29, 1989. It
was little noticed at the time and seemed destined for quick approval.
The service exploded into a controversy last winter as some perceived
it as a threat to law enforcement and others a threat to privacy.
Southern Bell maintains the service will deter obscene and harassing
phone calls.

   The PSC is due Feb. 19 to resolve whether or not the service should
be introduced, whether or not Southern Bell should offer customers the
ability to block it, and how to handle police and social service
agencies.

   All sides are to issue briefs by Jan. 11; PSC staff is to write
recommendations by Feb. 12.

   "This is going to be it, keep your fingers crossed," said Mark
Long, communications specialist with the PSC.

   Of greater impact will be the issue of intraLATA access for long
distance companies. LATAs are lines that demark different regions for
telephone services.

   The court ruling that broke up the monopoly of American Telephone
and Telegraph established these lines and gave local telephone
companies such as Southern Bell virtual local and long distance
monopolies within them.

   Long said the PSC will be looking at the issue of granting long
distance companies such as U.S Sprint and MCI the same kind of access
to intraLATA long distance business as it does to interLATA business.

   "With present technology, they say we're unable to do that now,
but that won't last forever," Long said.

   "That will be a key issue, and just the fact that the PSC is
considering is a good indication," said Steven Raville, chief
executive officer of ATC-Microtel.

   The matter is especially important locally because the LATA that
covers the South Florida market is the largest in the country and the
LATAs within the state generally are larger than in other states. That
means lots of traffic and a big new market to tap.

   Bob Sells, a spokesman for Southern Bell, said a decision to open
up intraLATA traffic to the long distance companies would have an
impact on the local company. If it happens, then Southern Bell will
have to live with the decision and compete.

   Southern Bell already has reduced its long distance rates
substantially in hopes of getting more volume. Sells said a three-
minute call from West Palm Beach to Miami used to cost 97 cents.  Now
it costs 60 cents.

   Other issues to be before the commission includes the treatment of
alternative access companies, which operate their own telephone cable
networks and provide direct access to long distance carriers.  Long
said the PSC will review whether to certify them.

   The PSC will look at rate structures for private lines, looking at
whether the rates charged are based on cost. It will also look at the
resale of the lines.

   Information services, such as voice mail and 1-900 and 976
numbers could be before the PSC as well.

   One issue likely not to see action is the deregulation on the
federal level of AT&T. Because of its historically strong position in
the market, dating back to its days as a telephone monopoly, the FCC
has maintained jurisdiction over rates AT&T charges for certain
services. Its competitors are not regulated.

   One issue that might receive support is action either through the
courts or through Congress to allow the Bells to move into
manufacturing. Federal court Judge Harold Greene, when he broke up
AT&T's monopoly and created the seven regional Bells, including Bell
South, prohibited them from engaging in any kind of manufac- turing,
along with a host of other businesses.

   A panel of telecommunications law experts who met in Boca Raton
earlier this year said that the restriction on manufacturing was the
most likely to be lifted in the near term.

   Legislation could see the Bells getting into cable television.
Some see the companies, with their already established wire networks,
as natural competitors to local cable companies. Sells said any cable
operation would be set up as a separate business and would not be
cross-subsidized with revenue from monopoly operations.

   New products expected to be introduced and spread widely include
video conferencing and store and forward faxing, Raville said.

   "Telecommunications is going to be one of the few businesses in the
country that will not be as adversely affected by recession," Raville
said. "We're really countercyclical. We see telecommunications
taking place of travel."

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

From: Neil Rickert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Urban Legend? -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins!
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1991 15:08:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nancy J
Airey) writes:

> The story goes that a woman in Florida with "caller ID" on her phone
> was receiving obscene phone calls.  She reported the phone number to
> the police and the caller was charged.

> The caller sued her for invasion of privacy and won.

 Are there any jurisdictions where the time between filing a suit and
having it heard is shorter than the time caller ID has been in effect?


  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <[e-mail]>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 17:41:34 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Still Another Telephone Scam


The ads (obviously reaching NJ and not just NY) for 540-xxxx numbers
include a note listing areas 212, 718, 516, 914 and stating that the
service is not available in New Jersey.  (Yes, I already know of
201-540 in Morristown, and that some people might forget the special
meaning of 540-xxxx in those NY areas.)  Has anyone on 201-540 gotten
calls intended for 540 exchange in NY?

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

From: "Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IBT Requires TouchTone Charge
Organization: Rabbit Software Corp.
Date: 20 Mar 91 23:54:56 GMT


motcid!void![e-mail] (Jim E. Dunne) writes:

> [Moderator's Note:  Illinois Bell gives *70 for free.  PAT]

(regarding Call Waiting disabling)

> Well, as of this month, Illinois Bell is asking me to pay for the
> TouchTone service I had been getting for free.
> [text deleted]
> Oh well, $0.73/month (plus taxes of course!) isn't
> too bad for the ability to dial with my computer and the like.  At
> least they included a "Business Reply Mail" envelope...

I think most Hayes compatible modems will support pulse dialing.  And
can even switch to tone later for entering calling card numbers.  I do
this all the time.  I don't pay for TouchTone service, but my modem
pulse dials the number then tone dials the calling card number.

And my phones are either tone/pulse switchable or BOTH tone and pulse
(I have a 2500 deskset I modified with a rotary dial sitting next to
it and wires running into the case; looks like something out of the
movie Brazil!).


Robert Oliver              Rabbit
Software Corp.                  215 993-1152
7 Great Valley Parkway East   Malvern, PA 19355
[e-mail]       ...!uunet!cbmvax!hutch!robert

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

From: Tim Pozar <farcomp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Microwave / Optical Links for Audio
Date: 20 Mar 91 18:16:03 GMT
Organization: Late Night Software (San Francisco)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kauto
Huopio OH5LFM) writes:

>> 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.

    This will not work, unless you can get a all-pass filter to
correct for the phase distortion that the parametric EQ will introduce
into the path.  I also haven't found a parametric EQ that will pass
the 75KHz or so needed for composite stereo.

    Perhaps the orginal poster should consider an STL at 950MHz?


Tim

       [e-mail]  Fido: 1:125/555  PaBell: 415-788-3904
    USNail:  KKSF-FM / 77 Maiden Lane /  San Francisco CA 94108

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign
Date: 21 Mar 91 09:20:42 GMT


One other point about AT&T's 10288 campaign and potential lawsuits:

I've heard a lot more than one AT&T person say that the company
doesn't have a history of doing all that well when it goes to court.

Why?  Public opinion.  (The judiciary isn't even Supposed to be immune
to it.)

Well before the divesta-chewer, Everything that the public could
possibly hate about phones would weigh against "the phone company".
Maybe now the courts will see fit to insert the cyanoacrylate of
public outrage into the insatiable coin slots of COCOTery.
Permanently.

My latest COCOT experience was Very atypical: the COCOT claimed AT&T
as the carrier and lo and behold, AT&T WAS the carrier!  The phone
still wanted $1.05 for an 800 number tho.  BUT, the Pacific Bell
operator said that that was one of the few things she could actually
do something about -- she could place the 800 call for me.  Alas, when
I hit the first touchtone button to beep my answering machine the
entire phone hung up.

As a public service to those in California I'm adding Pac Bell's Own
COCOT Complaint 800 number to my .signature file.  I only wish their
Business Office Reps and Operators knew about it -- they always Love
it when I tell them there's somewhere in Pac Bell itself that they can
direct angry callers to.

Payphone ripoff problems in California?  Call 800/352-2201 M-F, 8-5


Bob Yazz -- [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 91 01:00:16
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hidgon an Expert on 2600 Hz?


John Higdon writes:

> For the record, there was another way calls could be rotary dialed
> without hard wire. Many LD tandems used to respond to pulses of 2600
> Hz and would complete calls based on numbers "dialed" in this manner.
> Hence, 2600 Hz would serve as both supervisory and signaling carrier.
> It was called "SF" (single frequency).

You seem to know an awful lot about what 2600Hz can be used for! :-)


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: And what about you Steve? Are you familiar with the
process also?  Do you use it a lot at your place?  :)  For those not
in on the joke, 2600 hz was long used as a fraud tool by phreaks to
override the billing equipment and make calls for free. If you want to
know *how*, write each other -- NOT me! I have enough problems this
century, and I won't answer nor will I print any letters on the
subject.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #223
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18195;
          22 Mar 91 3:36 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20147;
          22 Mar 91 2:05 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17851;
          22 Mar 91 1:00 CST
Date:     Fri, 22 Mar 91 0:52:57 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #224
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 22 Mar 91 00:52:45 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 224

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu / Motorola [C Sanford]
    Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu / Motorola [P Flaherty]
    Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones [Kevin Oberman]
    Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones [Chris Petrilli]
    Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones [John R. Levine]
    Re: The Press and Numbers [John Higdon]
    Re: The Press and Numbers [Sandy Kyrish]
    Re: The Press and Numbers [Doug Davis]
    Re: New Online Service? [Scott Coleman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Curtis Sanford <aria![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu vs Motorola
Date: 21 Mar 91 16:16:11 GMT
Organization: Ascend Communications -- San Francisco


I do believe you need to be aware of the origins of the products you
patronize.  Motorola introduced the Micro-TAC several years ago, at a
time when it was by far the most advanced technology in the world.  At
that time, the Japanese government prevented their selling that phone
in the Tokyo metropolitan area, which is the largest market in Japan.
Only with the assistance of the US Government, to the point of nearly
starting a trade war, did the Japanese government back down and allow
Motorola to bid for a contract to supply phones to the Tokyo area.  At
that time, NTT (the government owned telephone monopoly) issued a
public apology that they had failed to develop the smallest phone, and
that they would embark on a crash program to fund the Japanese
manufacturers to duplicate the Motorola technology.

That Fujitsu phone was developed with Japanese government money,
targeted to destroy the Micro-TAC and Motorola.  Please understand
that Japanese view competition as warfare, and that they (like George
Bush) do not settle for less than total victory.  Motorola must
develop new products out of revenues from sales of existing products,
like all American companies.

You may choose to ignore these facts when you make your choice of
products.  But you may wish to ponder the impact thousands of
decisions like yours will have on the future of America, and your job.

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 91 09:19:09 -0800
From: "Paul A. Flaherty" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu vs Motorola
Organization: The Three Packeteers


Cliff Olling writes:

> When I was coming back to Tokyo after skiing on Monday, I noticed the
> (Japanese) guy next to me on the the Shinkansen had a MicroTac.  In
> fact he dropped it on the floor a time or two :-).  I asked him why he
> didn't buy a Japanese-made phone.  He said that the NTT competition
> was too expensive, and that most people don't care that the MicroTac's
> not made by a Japanese company.  Sorry this is so brief, but my
> Japanese isn't yet up to an in-depth market analysis survey :-).

When I was in Japan this summer, the only American product I saw
anywhere (well, aside from a classic Caddy) was a proliferation of
Motorola UHF HTs on nearly every police officer I saw.

Despite some nasty things that I might have to say about Motorola's
industry practices, they still put out a radio you can pound nails
with.


Paul Flaherty, N9FZX      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones
Date: 21 Mar 91 20:22:30 GMT


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

>         Walk to Radio Shack and pick up a Touch-tone phone? I've never
> been satisfied w/ anything less than a genuine Bell-made or AT&T-made
> Touch-tone phone. I've had nothing but bad luck with those Radio
> Shack, QT&T, etc.  phones. Give me a REAL Touch-tone phone, with those
> familiar beeps and boops, anyday. Who'd you think invented
> "Touch-tone" anyway? Of course, it has fallen into everyday use, like
> other corporate trademarks: xerox, etc.

While Western Electric made very good equipment, some of the worst
JUNK now on the market has "Genuine Bell" stamped all over it! So what
is a REAL Touch-tone (sic) phone, anyway. The term Touch-Tone is now
in the public domain, or so I've seen posted here.

While I can't comment on Radio Shack phones, my favorites are GE
phones. They feel good in the hand with no irritating edges, have a
good keypad. Everything I want in a phone. I'd much rather have one of
these than one of those things with the Bell logo on them!


R. Kevin Oberman            Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: [e-mail]        [phone]

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 91 16:28:10 EST

 From: [e-mail]

>        Walk to Radio Shack and pick up a Touch-tone phone? I've never
>been satisfied w/ anything less than a genuine Bell-made or AT&T-made
>Touch-tone phone. . . Give me a REAL Touch-tone phone, . . .

I don't know if it's changed, but I've seen some cheap lightweight
junk under AT&T's label (not to mention under the label of some of the
BOCs -- Bell South or Southwestern Bell comes to mind.


nets: [e-mail]    |    BBN Communications
  or: ...!bbn!levin    |    M/S  20/7A
POTS: [phone]  |    150 Cambridge Park Drive
FAX:  [phone]  |    Cambridge, MA  02140

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

From: Chris Petrilli <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones
Date: 21 Mar 91 21:41:58 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation


Randy Borow writes about his preference for genuine Bell phones.

[Moderator's Note: Reference text eliminated. See above messages.  PAT]

I take it you know everything about phones?  It may be Pat's
perogative that he peronally prefers Radio-Shack telehone equipment to
AT&T or Bell equipment, and that is his choice.  Some of us are
unsatisfied with some of the AT&T made equipment, both price wise and
in teh area of features.

Do you also propose that nobody should purchase a UNIX machine or UNIX
implementation from anyone but AT&T simply because they invented it,
does not mean that they produce the best there is.  I am using an HP
machine at the moment, and am 10x as satisfied with is as I was with a
3b2 system from AT&T.

Please take personal attacks elsewhere, they do not belong in this
forum.


Chris Petrilli    Internet:  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Really, I think you are being a bit harsh. I didn't
regard his comment as a personal attack, and truth be told, I do like
AT&T phones also ... but Radio Shack is two blocks away, and the
nearest phone center store is on Devon and California Avenue, about
six blocks west. Since I don't own a car, and don't know how to drive,
I either walk, take a cab, or the Devon #155 bus. Given my 'druthers,
I walk to Radio Shack, and stop at Dunkin Donuts on the way home.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 21 Mar 91 17:47:03 EST (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


I guess you haven't looked at a genuine AT&T Touch-tone phone lately.
The model 100s, the current basic wall and desk sets, are now
lightweight electronic sets made in Asia that neither look nor feel
very much like the 500 sets we all know and love.  The Rat-Shack
phones these days are a lot closer to the feel of the old WECO
instruments.

"Genuine Bell" now encompasses any piece of junk resold by any of the
baby Bells, including such items as shoe-shaped phones and
piano-shaped phones where the piano keyboard is the dial.  Genuine, my
eye.

Regards,

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

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 91 10:18 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: The Press and Numbers


Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]> writes:

> Every time we laugh at "outsiders" for making technological mistakes,
> we are proving that we see technology as a special priesthood that
> only the scrupulously worthy can join.  The fact is, technology exists
> in society, and plain old people are periodically going to make
> technical mistakes about it.  Personally, I don't find poking fun at
> them an ego trip.

I did not hear any laughing. I did see gross errors and one of the
most serious problems in our society today is the rampant spread of
misinformation about matters technical. It is misinformation that is
fueling the "crackdown on hackers", and activity that is wasting our
resources and ruining lives. It is misinformation that is causing
confusion and waste in (among other things) the telecom marketplace.

It may seem harmless to you that dilatants such as Joe Abernathy use
their positions (and lack of knowledge) to arouse and enflame the
masses, but there are some of us who see first-hand the harm and
destruction that results. If "plain old people", particularly those
who have access to the media, make technical mistakes it is the sworn
duty of those who know better to correct them. And do it publicly if
possible.

I am sorry if accuracy offends you, but if "outsiders" are going to
pontificate to the world using false doctrine, you had better turn
aside while the priesthood of technology performs its exorcism.


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

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 91 23:39 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Press and Numbers


As soon as I posted my last message, I knew I'd catch it from
somebody, but I honestly didn't expect it to be Higdon -- whom I had
heretofore thought of as a "voice of reason" type.  Instead, I feel
real disappointed that he hastily and angrily misinterpreted what I
was saying.

Yes, John, technical/technological errors need to be corrected.  What
doesn't need to happen is for technologists to deride, snicker, and
snort at the non-technologists who make the errors.  We don't help our
cause one bit by appearing arrogant or snide.

Yes, John, misinterpretation and bad knowledge about
telecommunications wreaks havoc.  But *technologists* are the only
people who can correctly disseminate information about technology.  If
we cut ourselves off from "the great unwashed" and prefer instead to
hang out in our technically literate groups, we will not properly
transfer information about what's right and what's not.

And I do not shun accuracy.  I pursue it rigorously as a doctoral
student and professional researcher.  My area, John, is teaching
non-technical people about technology, and helping people choose
appropriate technologies.  So I like to think I'm doing my part to
spread the accurate news.

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

From: Doug Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Press and Numbers
Organization: Logic Process Unix Engineering, Dallas Office
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 1991 16:16:46 GMT


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

> If Doug Davis is going to be so snide about journalists' inability to
> multiply numbers correctly, perhaps he should be a bit more careful
> not to misspell "fraudulently" seven times in a single document.

> After all, if he is better than a journalist, then he should be in
> complete mastery of all journalistic skills.

Actually I never claimed to be "better than a journalist", at most, I
just claimed to be paying attention during the second grade.  I also
claimed *I* knew how to do a reality check when looking at something
easily checked, like minor multiplication. Oh yeah, I also provided
those of more, uh, journalistic skills, a handy quick reference for
performing reality checks of their own.

> Every time we laugh at "outsiders" for making technological mistakes,
> we are proving that we see technology as a special priesthood that
> only the scrupulously worthy can join.  The fact is, technology exists
> in society, and plain old people are periodically going to make
> technical mistakes about it.

YOU have clearly missed the entire point.  Did you even read the
entire message? I was not being flip about anything of a technical
nature of the cellular fraud article.  That article came with an
unnamed source quoting $30,000.00 loss *PER DAY* due to fraudulent LD
charges.  It seems a few of us were clever enough to divide this out,
and what did we find? The 30,000.00 NUMBER was totally absurd.  Making
fun of it is just my way of debunking it. Nothing technological about
it. Unless you consider the multiplication table technical?

Most of the "technical" mistakes that get flamed here are by people
calling themselves technical or whose job description implys an amount
of literacy concerning technology.  Tell me what do you expect will
happen when you, knowing a little rudementary knowledge of farming, go
to a convention of farmers, call yourself an expert, and start telling
them how they should be doing their farming?  Theres no magic
priesthood of farmers, but they will all just as quickly turn on you
for your blatent lack of experience in farming.

> Personally, I don't find poking fun at them an ego trip.

Obviously then, you find poking fun at people's spelling your prefered
ego trip.  Otherwise you would have refrained from even commenting on
it.

Oh, well, enough pointless flaming, if you don't like what I said and
want to get personal, take it up with me in email.


Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226
{texsun|lawnet|smu}!letni!doug     [e-mail]

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

From: Scott Coleman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Online Service?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: 17 Mar 91 22:34:51 GMT


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

>  The latest issue of BYTE (March 1991) has a stiff card with an ad
> offering free time on a new online service in return for some feedback
> on the service. Does not mention how long the free time will last or
> how much use will be allowed.

The service is called "America OnLine." I sent in one of those cards
and received their startup kit. I have not signed on as yet, however.
The following is all from memory, so my apologies if I muff some of
the details.

The service appears to be very Prodigy-like. It runs under GEOS, that
windowed operating environment we've all heard so much about. The
software itself comes in a small cardboard box, almost identical in
form to the box Prodigy comes in. Inside are the software diskettes
and instructions. If I recall correctly, they allow three free hours
of connect time (the normal charge is $4/hour for connect time) if you
fill out their online survey form. They're also offering a "charter
subscription discount" which promises that you will always pay a lower
rate than the standard connect charge, no matter how much rates may
rise in the future.  In order to sign on initially, you have to
provide them with billing information. If you decide to cancel before
your 3 free hours are used up, they promise not to charge your credit
card. Your first logon is to an 800-number which allows you to find
the local access number for your area, which you will use from then
on.

I don't remember too many other details, except for the hourly connect
charge (unlike Prodigy), and the fact that the system has files which
you can download (unlike Prodigy). I think it also allows unlimited
use of email without surcharges (unlike Prodigy). Although the offer
might sound like some sort of beta-test deal, it's really just a
gimmick to get lots of people to sign up for the new service right
away. The fact that you have to give them billing information right
away, BEFORE you've even seen the service or tell them whether or not
you like it, indicates that it is not a beta-test but simply a
marketing move. JMHO.

> Also no mention of access means

I think it's via either Tymnet or Telenet.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #224
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20438;
          22 Mar 91 5:47 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07642;
          22 Mar 91 4:11 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06915;
          22 Mar 91 3:06 CST
Date:     Fri, 22 Mar 91 2:49:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #225
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 22 Mar 91 02:49:20 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 225

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Maestro Phones From Northern Telecom [Tom Gray]
    Re: Can You Disable Call-Waiting AFTER the Call Starts? [Ralph Sims]
    Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Ziggy Cartoon Mocks 900 Number "Easy Credit" [Carl Moore]
    Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign [R. Kevin Oberman]
    Re: Information Needed to Use Call Manager [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Microwave / Optical Links for Audio [John Higdon]
    Re: Dial "0" for Mickey Mouse [Louis Linneweh]
    Re: PBS Pledge Drive for March, 1991 [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Did MCI Give me $20? [Tim Irvin]
    Re: Telecom News From Delaware [Steve Baumgarten]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 91 11:35:31 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> "24460-W. H. Sohl" <whs70@
taichi.bellcore.com> writes:

> My view is that the cable "service" should be provided to a single
> point within any home at a standard signal level and then any further
> distribution within the home should be left to the homeowner.  Fears
> of bad inside wiring being detrimental to other cable subscribers can
> be alleviated by using some type of unidirectional broadband isolation
> device as a standard cable interface (terminating module) for each
> home.

  Maybe you would also like to be charged for only the electrical or
water connections to your home without regard to the volumes consumed.
Or perhaps a rooming house should pay the same as a single-family
home.

  I know that the issues are not _exactly_ the same since the programs
are not consumables but there are acquistion costs that do relate to
the level of usage that affect profitability of a particular type of
programming versus alternative ones. That's why some shows are
pay-per-view, so the average watcher won't end up subsidizing some
high-cost showings.

  I don't mean that cable companies aren't greedy and self-righteous,
but let's not ignore the economic realities from their side completely.


[Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago, both Commonwealth Edison and
People's Gas charge a monthly 'service fee' for the presence of the
meter on your premises and the services of the person who comes to
read it every month (or two months in the case of gas). This fee has
no bearing on the amount energy you consume. The fee is constant.  PAT]

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Maestro Phones From Northern Telecom
Date: 21 Mar 91 14:57:33 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In TELECOM Digest Volume 11, Issue 199, Andrew Farmer <afd@aficom.
ocunix.on.ca> writes:

> 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".

This isn't universal yet. I receive long distance calls with both the
Long Distance and Unknown displays. The dispaly seem to be consistent
for the city calling.

I agree with the people who complain that calls from companies display
the actual trunk number instead of the billing number.  This prevents
Call Blocking from defeating telemarketers.  I have come home and seen
a call from an obvious telemarketer I blocked the number but that
evening received a call from a telemarketer with an adjacent number to
the one I blocked.  Call Blocking is marvelous. I just wish it could
be improved by using only one number for a company.


Tom Gray - forests are made up of trees


[Moderator's Note: My experience here in Chicago has been that by
blocking the listed number of a PBX you also block all the back lines
as well provided all are billed together.  Likewise, blocking the main
listed number of a centrex system *usually* seems to block the various
extensions associated. It does not work that way everytime.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Can You Disable Call-Waiting AFTER the Call Starts?
From: Ralph Sims <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 91 08:42:33 PST
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service


[e-mail] writes:

>> [Moderator's Note:  On my US Robotics Courier 2400 modem, you use '!'
>> to force the modem to flash the hook.

>> I guess you would get the modem's attention, with three plusses or
>> whatever, followed by ATDT !*70 O, where the final letter 'O' means
>> for the modem to go back on line.  PAT]

> Unfortunately as soon as you switch the line over the modem on the
> other end would drop the connection. Modems need to be in continuous
> contact else they give up. That is why a call-waiting beep will
> usually knock you off line.

> [Moderator's Note: And also, even if you did keep your modem on line,
> when the phone line clicked out for a minute to allow your *70 input,
> the distant end would think carrier had been lost.  You really can't
> win on this unless all modems everywhere were similarly adjusted.  PAT]

Right!  S9=20 and S10=20 should keep the modems online even with a
two-second drop in carrier.  NOTE: the caveat is that BOTH modems need
to be set up in this manner!  Dragging the settings out a bit might be
necessary to do the three +'s, etc. to get the modem back to command
status.  Ghads!  This stuff can be a Black Art!

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 91 11:45:28 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> Robert Jacobson <cyberoid@
milton.u.washington.edu> writes:

> The "alleged horrors" which Bill Berbenich has not yet experienced as
> a result of one month of Caller ID have to do with duration and
> penetration.  The telcos commonly pass off one month tests of small
> service populations as scientific surveys and are always relieved for
> their customers when alleged horrors do not occur.  The point is to
> wait a couple years when a few tens of millions of more people are
> forced into Caller ID and the files have started being built up.  Then
> let's see if the horrors happen, Bill.

> [Moderator's Note: What about in places like New Jersey, where
> Caller*ID has been a reality now for about a year? Maybe one or more
> of the 'veterans' of Caller*ID will write on the topic of abuses -- if
> there are any -- now that this new technology has had a chance to get
> established.   PAT]

Well, that might not be enough either. There may have to be a critical
mass of users for some effects to manifest themselves. The uses and
abuses of the service might not occur until there are enough of the
devices around to be statisitically significant and this might depend
upon a price that won't happen until the market is large enough on a
national basis. Also, some of the commercial applications might be
delayed by the fact that many potential users are parts of national
chains that might hold off until the service is more uniformly
available.  They also might be sensitive to offending their customers
over such privacy concerns for what would be a minor marketing
advantage. They are _very_ PR sensitive.

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 91 15:10:38 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ziggy Cartoon Mocks 900 Number "Easy Credit"


I don't know if anyone else noticed, but the 900-SUCKER number in the
cartoon doesn't have enough digits.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign
Date: 21 Mar 91 20:15:34 GMT


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

> Even if AT&T gets rid of every COCOT in the country, I will need to
> retain my FONcard for calls from private FONs. I really think they're
> cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Excuse me, but I don't get the point. I can use 10Nnnn dialing either
with a "0" for credit card calls or a "1" for billed calls from
private phones. In fact, I've never known it to fail since private
phones never block anything (except 900 and such).

Is there something special about FON cards that I don't know about?


R. Kevin Oberman            Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: [e-mail]        [phone]

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed to Use Call Manager
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 91 16:25:00 EST


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> Just for grins, I just tried this for an AT&T call from a Pacific Bell
> payphone.  The response was:

> "We're sorry.  The service you have requested is not available.  <click>"

Tim Irvin <[e-mail]> writes:

> I just tried it using 10288-0-NPA-7D (bong) 15nn.  I got an intercept
> that said "We're sorry the service you have requested is not
> available."

In New England Tel., Nashua NH, I tried the same thing.  I don't have
AT&T as the default; I had to use 10288 also.  It worked; <bong>1511#
immediately got me the "Thank you" message.  I tried two values of nn.

Now to see what the bill looks like. :-)


JBL

nets: [e-mail]    |    BBN Communications
  or: ...!bbn!levin    |    M/S  20/7A
POTS: [phone]  |    150 Cambridge Park Drive
FAX:  [phone]  |    Cambridge, MA  02140

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

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 91 13:08 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Microwave / Optical Links for Audio


Tim Pozar <farcomp![e-mail]> writes:

>     Perhaps the orginal poster should consider an STL at 950MHz?

Tim, shame on you. As you know, the rules are very specific about the
uses to which a 950MHz channel can be put. It is ONLY for BROADCAST
stations, and the primary purpose must be the transmission of main
channel program. The band is so overcrowded now that legitimate
broadcasters must use every trick in the book to keep one system from
trompling another.

Unless you have an AM or FM broadcast license, don't even THINK of
applying for a frequency in the 950MHz STL band.


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

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

From: Louis Linneweh <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dial "0" for Mickey Mouse
Date: 20 Mar 91 19:31:17 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL



In TELECOM Digest Volume 11, Issue 223, Message 1 of 9 <goldstein@delni.
enet.dec.com> (Fred R. Goldstein) writes:

> Y'see, back when WDW was being created, the swamps west of Kissimee
> were unpopulated and no telco served them.  So Disney created a
> telephone company subsidiary and got certificated to serve the area,
> which they named after, I think, a place in Anaheim (LBV).  They sold
> half to United, which no doubt added some expertise.  It's a fully
> modern operation with two COs, optical fiber, etc.  And given the
> growth in the area, it has quite a few phones in its territory.
> (Smart move!)

It is my understanding, via some traveling telephony salesman stories
from a co-worker, that a small independent telco was licensed to serve
the area that was to become Walt Disney World.  WDW gave them a
staggering list of requirements which would have resulted in the
independent growing by several orders of magnitude, and the capital
required was not forthcoming.  WDW was more tham happy to buy them out
to insure first class telephone service, and formed the joint venture
with United.

I believe the former owner (a one family operation?) got a good
dollar, but not a goldmine business!  Does anyone out there know the
whole story?

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PBS Pledge Drive for March, 1991
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 91 04:55:33 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has always been very generous with
> their corporate profits. They support programming on WTTW Channel 11
> here (public television). They support a variety of artistic things
> and special cultural events as well.   PAT]

Isn't this financially considered advertising, and isn't advertising a
legitimate rate base expense? If the answer is yes and yes, then this
is not at all generous, but a backdoor way to BOOST profits.

I really don't know much about utility regulation, but I am very
suspicious of corporate generosity.


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


[Moderator's Note: I am not suspicious of 'corporate generosity' at
all. In IBT's case, they do specific advertising in the print media as
well as television and radio, but they also engage in a variety of
philanthropic acts with little or no mention.  During the 1960's when
Martin Luther King visited Chicago on several occassions, I noted that
when he would speak at the Chicago Temple Auditorium the program given
out would always contain a single line note that "Dr. King's expenses
during his visit in Chicago have been met with a gift from Illinois
Bell Telephone Company." They give money now to an AIDS hospice here,
and a variety of other civic endeavors. For a couple years, they
sponsored the noon-time seminars / lectures produced by TRUST (To
Restore Urban Systems Together), a think-tank here working on getting
Chicago together once again. The only public mention would be a note
in the program material saying the lecture was being given on the
Illinois Bell charitable trust to benefit the community. I think you
are holding a cynical viewpoint. Corporations can be and frequently
are good citizens in their community. Have you any idea how many
millions of dollars AT&T has given away to the performing arts and
small neighborhood social service organizations? ... Millions.   PAT]

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

From: Tim Irvin <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Did MCI Give me $20?
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 91 16:49:14


TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [1] The Credit Card Protection
> people -- likewise a scam perpetrated on innocent consumers -- can sue
> you to recover their money if they like. [2] They probably won't, but in
> any event, you are now listed as a mail order deadbeat with at least a
> few companies.  [3] I hope you got something nice with the $40 you made in
> the process.  PAT

1. I hope they can find me, I've moved three times since then.

2. Is being listed as a "mail order deadbeat" supposed to be a bad
thing???  Anything that will keep the staedy stream of junk-mail outta
my house would be great, and it may save a few trees in the process.
Actually, I don't think this ever happened, since my steady stream of
junk mail never let up.

3. Since I was in college at the time, probably a few meals, or maybe
I used it to pay my phone bill.


Tim Irvin


[Moderator's Note: Some people *like* getting advertising offers
through the mail. They find it less pressuring to read the message at
their leisure instead of listening to a sales pitch on the phone. And
there are mail order houses which ship on open account credit, believe
it or not ... no requirement for advance credit card billing or check
with order. Of course, not if you're listed with one of the clearing
houses they use as a person who engages in petty ripoffs through the
mail.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu Mar 21 20:35:22 1991
From: Steve Baumgarten <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Davis Polk & Wardwell
Subject: Re: Telecom News From Delaware


Ken Weaverling ([e-mail]) writes:

> The good news is that all of the phones are genuine Bell Atlantic
> phones, and all seem to have LD service designated to AT&T.  Also, the
> incidence of vandalism on these phones is very low. (Perhaps since the
> dealers don't want to damage the tools of their business :-)

You're not kidding.  During the New York Telephone strike last year,
finding a working pay phone in lower Manhattan was more difficult than
finding a shred of logic in your phone bill.

But in my neighborhood, on a certain street corner, were not one but
TWO working pay phones.  Pay phones that worked 24 hours a day, seven
days a week.  Zero downtime.

Phones that, to my knowledge, have NEVER BEEN OUT OF ORDER.

Mere chance, you say?  No, just good ole' American capitalism at work.


Steve Baumgarten
Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York, NY

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #225
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20346;
          23 Mar 91 10:16 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11258; 23 Mar 91 8:59 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28422;
          23 Mar 91 4:49 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16940;
          23 Mar 91 1:15 CST
Date:     Sat, 23 Mar 91 0:47:24 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #226
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Mar 91 00:47:09 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 226

Very Special Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Early Days of Telephony [Donald E. Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Early Days of Telephony
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91


        In article <Digest v11, iss211>, Jim E. Dunne <motcid!void!
[e-mail]> describes an old North Electric branded telephone
he has questions about.  Probably one of the more "fun" antiques any
of us in this forum has is some very old telephone, mainly because
most of them can be made into a working antique.  I've even met people
who managed to get the answering service version of a 555 PBX and
hooked up a line or two, placing the thing in their living room,
because the wood cabinet was made of such fine lumber that it could be
refinished and made to look very nice; having its drops operate and
its dial work added an element of fun to it.

        Jim, however, has a problem making the ringer operate on a
Bell-style 20 Hertz straight-ringing line, saying the ringer is marked
"50 Cycles."  That frequency would be one from a non-Bell company that
used the party-line ringing method called "decimonic" ringing, where
the frequencies used were multiples of 10 Hertz, rather than the
multiples of 16-2/3 Hertz used in the more common "harmonic"
party-line ringing of independent Telcos.

        Decimonic ringing was most commonly used in the private
telephone systems operated by railways along their tracks. However, in
general, the basic ringer of all those old phones is electrically much
the same.  The item that made the difference was the value of the
capacitor connected in series with the ringer in most.  The ringer
capacitor should be readily visible as a replaceable item once one
opens the phone up, and a capacitance of the order of three times that
found in the 50 cycle ringer ought to tune it much closer to 20 Hertz.

        The North Electric Company long ago shifted its product
specialty to telephone power equipment, but it can still be found in
Galion, Ohio.  So long as the accountants have yet taken over
completely, and all the "old-timers" haven't been fired, you can
probably find a soul there who's interested in communicating with you
about that phone.

        Jim then asks:

> My question is, who were the phone manufacturers of old?  I'm
> sure that Western Electric made the phones for the Bell system, but
> who made the phones for the "other" companies?  And how/when did these
> other service providers, and their hardware makers, come on the scene?

        There's just a whole raft of stories and even intrigues
relating to who made the phones and how it got that way in the early
days of telephony in the U.S.  In fact, Bell's original patent claims
were sufficiently disputed by several parties. The most notable of
these was the caveat filed the same day by one Elisha Gray [of
Chicago, for our proud Moderator to take note].  Gray didn't press his
telephone to a working model for some years until it appeared that
Bell's backers would make a success of the business.

        Most interesting is that Gray's financial backer was the
Western Union Telegraph Company, which called its venture the American
Speaking Telephone Company.  Among other curious happenings was that
Western Union was reputed to have paid Gray some $50,000 to $100,000
for his patent claims, have bought out several others, and refused an
offer from Bell interests to buy the Bell patent for $100,000.

        Of course, in 1878, $100,000 was a considerable sum of money,
and the Bell interests sued Western Union as owners of American
Speaking Telephone for patent infringment, a suit that dragged on for
some years ... with the interesting settlement result that in return
for Bell paying WUTCo 20 percent of telephone rentals for seventeen
years and buying out WTUCo's American Speaking Telephone, the two
agreed to stay out of each other's business.  It's doubtful the U.S.
Federal government would have permitted such an agreement in later
eras.

        One drawback that both the Bell and Gray patent plans suffered
was that they both used a variation on the fabled cup of acid that
Bell spilled on his trousers.  What Gray had done (with WUTCo backing)
was to use Thomas Edison's contribution of the carbon-granule-filled
transmitter, making telephones at his firm called Gray & Barton,
selling the manufacture to WUTCo's American Speaking Telephone.  In
1882, after settling with WUTCo, American Bell purchased Gray &
Barton, changing its name to Western Electric.

        In the period through about 1888, Bell vigorously fought off
several conflicting patents of others, and set about on a rather
Hitler-like campaign of object lessons.  Printed history reveals that
in numerous cases, the Bell people obtained judgments in local courts,
then proceeded to enforce them by raiding non-Bell exchanges, ripping
out the equipment, and then burning it on public display.
Nevertheless, non-Bell telephone companies popped up in many markets
too small to be of interest to Bell.  Some number of these had
equipment purchased from American Speaking Telephone in the Gray &
Barton years.  One other source in this period was the Baxter Company
in Utica, New York.

        March, 1893 was when Bell lost their patent protection on the
telephone transmitter, while January, 1894 was the expiration of
Bell's receiver patent.  In the interim, Bell had bought every
"telephone" patent in sight, many of which had no utlimate use or
value.  But among these was one for a transmitter filed by Emile
Berliner in 1877.  The Berliner patent wasn't granted until 1891, and
Bell had hoped to ride on that one, but it had already drawn the
interest of the U.S.  Attorney General, who filed suit on behalf of
the public, saying the Patent Office had delayed its issuance for the
monopoly convenience of the Bell interests.

        Betting that the Attorney General would win, a number of
non-Bell "independent" telephone manufacturers popped up.  Among the
earliest of these was reported to be the American Electric Telephone
Company of Kokomo, Indiana.  American Electric was actually the
reincarnation of what had been the Missouri Telephone Manufacturing
Company of St. Louis that had been forced out of business by Bell's
vigorous patent prosecution.  American Electric moved its factory to
Chicago, then dissolved itself into two successor firms: Keystone
Electric of Pittsburgh and Northwestern Telephone Manufacturing of
Milwaukee.

        But names we now know began to appear, and at least one
researcher names an Ohio firm, Drumheller & North of Ohio, that first
got into business by repairing Bell telephones for the Cleveland
(Bell) Telephone company in 1884.  Within a few years, this expanded
into the North Electric Company, making equipment for the Erie
Telephone & Telegraph Company, which was a Bell licensee. At the time,
North could not manufacture transmitters of receivers, and Erie
Telephone rented these from Bell for use in the North manufacture.

        North provided at least two notable innovations to the
telephone industry.  First, North made the first Private Automatic
Exchange for the Galion, Ohio High School in 1920.  Its name, PAX, is
the source of this term in the non-Bell telephone industry. In 1922,
North followed the PAX with the first Automatic Toll Switchboard built
for the Northern Ohio Telephone Company. Later, in 1938, F.R. McBerry
of North Electric was credited as inventor of the Wire-Spring relay,
using a reed armature.  Anyone who worked on American relay-vintage
telephone equipment knows how basic the Wire-Spring relay became to
telephony in the U.S.  Along the way, one H.W. Boswau of North
Electric was credited with having built a push-button dialing
switching system in 1931, but it never reached manfacture.

        From this, one can see how North Electric provided advances
wanted not only by telephone companies but also the railways they sold
so much to.  And you, Jim, can see how much history resides in the
telephone you now own.  The way it likely wound up in the hands of a
GTE company is that GTE went on a binge of buying small non-Bell
companies in the 1950's and 1960's.  The one you found that phone in
was probably one supplied by North Electric.  North went through
several wide financial swings over the years, and was owned for a time
by L.M. Ericsson when LME wanted to manufacture and sell its crossbar
switches in the U.S. (not offering the technology to Stromberg-Carlson),
and this resulted in the North NX-1 and NX-2 crossbar exchanges that
enjoyed some popularity.  Finally, LME sold North out to United
Utilities, which made a third-league copy of Western Electric of
North, with its most visible entity today being the North Supply
Company (not a bad place to buy telephone equipment if you want to, by
the way).

        But, what of the others?

        My source material does not state the beginnings of the
Kellogg Switchboard and Supply Company of Chicago, but it was one of
the most innovative of developers in the late 1800's, and by 1901 its
founder, Milo G. Kellogg, had to leave a successful company in Chicago
in 1901 for his health, moving to California.  He left his company in
the hands of his brother-in-law, who promptly sold out to the Bell
interests. Behind this lies a story in which many claim Bell proceeded
on a route of killing Kellogg, to fill the non-Bell companies with
poor product, and simultaneously sue Kellogg over a variety of patent
issues, then control a weak defense.  This story also seems to bear
truth, in that Kellogg employees who held some minority shares first
wrote a letter of appeal to the President of AT&T, and getting no
reply, filed a lawsuit and won an injunction that required AT&T to
give up its ownership in Kellogg and enjoined Bell interests from
interfering with the management or control of the Kellogg company in
perpetuity.

        From that point, in 1906, Kellogg grew to be one of the major
names supplying telephone equipment to non-Bell companies.  Kellogg,
in fact, had many innovations to its credit before Bell did, among
these the "Grabaphone," a hand-held transmitter-receiver some years
before Western Electric's first one in 1926 ... and the Kellogg phone
was truly superior by 1933. Kellogg remained a power in the non-Bell
industry until ITT bought it in 1952, and Kellogg, as many others,
lost market when GTE began buying companies and feeding business to
its own manufacturing subsidiary, Automatic Electric.  GTE simply
decided in the 1950's to copy things that Bell had so successfully
clamped controls on a half-century earlier.  If you were around then,
you could have bought all the non - Automatic Electric telephones you
could carry for 50 cents each from any newly-acquired GTE company.
Many of us did, and hooked them up at home to become "criminals" in
GTE's eyes.  There wasn't much love lost between the public and GTE,
either.

        Automatic Electric, which GTE gained control of as part of its
1950's plans, had roots reaching clear back to the 1891 invention of
Almon B. Strowger, and through several incarnations at Chicago, then
Baltimore, then back to Chicago, Its name over these changes were
variations on the name, "Automatic." The last one was Strowger
Automatic Telephone Exchange Company, replaced finally by the name
Automatic Electric Company in 1901.  It finally became the Automatic
Electric Company (Illinois) based on Van Buren Street in Chicago
[Chicago once again!] until GTE flooded it with so many orders in the
1950's that AECo had to move to suburban Northlake, Illinois, until
GTE killed it in the 1980's, moving its remains to Phoenix.

        Throughout its history, Automatic Electric pioneered some
significant improvements to dial telephony, not the least of which was
what many telephone men regarded as the smoothest rotary dial ever
seen.  In that proud heyday of Automatic Electric, the name of
Strowger was memorialized in the Strowger Automatic Toll Ticketing
system, patented in 1925, but unsellable beause AT&T had by then
monopolized the long distance business.  A few SATTs were sold in
Europe, but when GTE needed an automatic toll ticketing system in the
1950's for its part of DDD, they pulled the original SATT drawings out
and spread what was by then a really unreliable asset though GTE
companies across the U.S.  Old Almon B. probably rolled several times
in the grave he'd been sleeping in since 1906.

        Alfred Stromberg and Androv Carlson joined in business making
switchboards in Chicago [Chicago again!] in 1894.  Stromberg and
Carlson had been employees of Chicago Bell and knew how to make a
sound-powered transmitter that Bell could not assail in patent suits,
so they managed a peaceable, prosperous existence out of reach of the
Bell wolves that killed most of the others.  Among things that
Stromberg and Carlson contributed to the industry was the first real
telephone set that was complete on a desktop on its own, including
magneto and ringer, instead of mounting on the wall. But, one of their
best clients, Rochester Home Telephone Company purchased control and
moved Stromberg-Carlson to Rochester, NY to protect their source of
supply from Bell predators.  Stromberg prospered in early days by
filling contracts for Kellogg clients until Kellogg recoverd from the
damage done by Bell, about 1909.

        The obvious Scandinavian bias of Stromberg's founders led them
to license manufacture of L.M. Ericsson mechanical telephone switching
technology known in the U.S. as the "Stromberg X-Y" switching machine.
X-Y was enormously popular in the non-Bell telephone companies just
after World War II.

        One more historic name one might run across is the Leich
Electric Company at Genoa, Illinois [close to Chicago!], based upon
buying the rights of North Electric's manual telephone equipment in
one of North's low points while North was getting into automatic
switches.  Curiously, what made Leich famous was its devlopment of its
own form of automatic switch, designed by a German who had worked at
North Electric, went to Germany to fight for the Kaiser, and came back
to the U.S. after the war. Leich's relay-switch most closely resembled
a crossbar switch for some decades before the term was coined, and its
unique style was quite suited to PBXs and very small telephone
exchanges. Leich enjoyed considerable popularity in this arena, and
supplied telephone sets that bore the Leich name.

        While there were a number of other long-dead suppliers. one
more deserves mention, because it is credited as being the source of
practical frequency-selective ringing that Bell nver really used.
That firm is Dean Electric Company of Elyria, Ohio.  W.W.Dean, its
founder, had worked at Kellogg, where he learned that although Western
Electric had tried frequency-selective ringing in the early 1900's,
they had failed at developing a stable source of the several
frequencies needed.  Dean managed to make the system of multiple
ringing frequencies practical, and the non-Bell companies adopted
variants of Dean's development widely.  Thus, we see one of the
leading differentiators between Bell and non-Bell telephones.

        This may have been a long and (hopefully not too) labored
response to a short question, but I hope it affords a rather full
picture of the several names of antique apparatus would-be antique
collectors might encounter.  In writing it, I relied heavily upon a
book I would recommend to anyone who really wants to understand the
mindset of various factions in the United States telecom industry, for
many of the attitudes of a century of history remain to this very day.
In that book, one can see how those attitudes were generated and how
they prevail ... as well as how much of today's operating methods
really replicate inventions of generations ago.

        The book to read is:

                "The Spirit of Independent Telephony,"
                 by Charles A. Pleasance
                 ISBN 0-9622205-0-7
                 Published by Independent Telephone Books
                 P.O Box 321, Johnson City, TN  37601
                 Last priced at $29.50 plus $3.00 (domestic)
                 or $6.00 (international) shipping.
                 Visa or Mastercard orders accepted at [phone]

        (And, once again, our Moderator can rightfully pride himself
on his home town's intimate involvement with telecomm history.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #226
******************************






ISSUES 227 - 228 REVERSE IN TRANSMISSION. 227 FOLLOWS AFTER 228.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24458;
          23 Mar 91 16:05 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25431;
          23 Mar 91 14:11 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05078;
          23 Mar 91 13:01 CST
Date:     Sat, 23 Mar 91 12:05:33 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #228
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Mar 91 12:05:20 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 228

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Court Voids Satellite Telephone License [AP Wire, via Bill Berbenich]
    More About Early Pay Telephones [Larry Lippman]
    Early Pay Telephone Exhibit at Richmond Airport [Robert M. Hamer]
    Phun Phones [Mark Matthewson]
    201-200 Prefix Now Exists [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Court Voids Satellite Telephone License
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 00:02:07 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


By LAURIE ASSEO

 Associated Press Writer

   WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal appeals court Tuesday voided a
government license for a proposed satellite system that aims to
provide nationwide mobile telephone service.

   The Federal Communications Commission did not justify its decision
to give the license to a consortium of companies instead of following
the usual practice of holding hearings on competing proposals, said
the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

   The court ordered the FCC to reconsider the license.

   "We regret that our present decision has the effect of delaying the
provision of a valuable and innovative communications service to the
public," the three-member panel of judges said.

   Currently, mobile telephone service is available in areas with
land-based stations to relay the signal, generally urban areas.

   The planned mobile satellite system, proposed in 1982 by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, would relay signals by
satellite. That would allow communication in rural areas not now
served.

   NASA's original petition said the mobile satellite system would
enhance emergency communications in rural areas and also help
truckers, oil companies and others with operations outside existing
mobile systems.

   The commission awarded the mobile satellite license in August 1989
to the American Mobile Satellite Corp., a consortium of companies. The
commission decided that hearings to compare various offers would be
too time-consuming and would delay the service, the court said.

   The license was challenged by Global Land Mobile Satellite Inc.,
Globesat Express and Mobile Satellite Service Inc. Those companies had
applied for the license but dropped out after refusing to pay a $5
million cash deposit that was required of all companies that sought to
join the consortium.

   The commission's decision to approve a consortium denied the other
applicants a chance to try to prove they had a better plan, the court
said.

   The commission must have "truly compelling grounds" to abandon its regular
procedure of holding hearings on competing applications, the judges said.

   In ordering the commission to reconsider the license, the court
said it could issue a license to a consorium only if it could
demonstrate grounds for doing so.

   The court also voided the requirement for a $5 million deposit,
saying it appeared to be "nothing more than an arbitrary device by
which the commission was able to winnow the applicant field."

   Commission attorney Gregory M. Christopher said it was too early to
say whether the commission would appeal the ruling or ask the court to
reconsider it. But he said he expected negotiations toward a possible
settlement.

   The ruling "deals a setback to our plan to have this service
initiated as quickly and as cheaply as possible," Christopher said.
"We gave everyone an equal opportunity to participate."

   The consortium estimates the system will cost about $300 million,
Christopher said.

   Attornies for the consortium did not immediately return phone calls
seeking comment.

   The Court of Appeals also rejected a challenge to the license by
another applicant, Aeronautical Radio Inc. That company's application
was rejected because it did not comply with FCC standards, the court
said.

                        ---------

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

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

Subject: More About Early Pay Telephones
Date: 23 Mar 91 00:49:45 EST (Sat)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Donald E. Kimberlin) writes:

> > 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."

    I have heard the same story.

>         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 the repository of Gray's and Strowger's patents.

    Gray's work pre-dates the Automatic Electric Company, which
was not formed until 1901, and its antecedent, the Strowger Automatic
Telephone Exchange Company, formed in 1891.  Gray was independent of
any other company until at least 1905, when he started a patent
infringement suit against the Baird Manufacturing Company.

>         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?

    If one considers a public telephone using an attendant to
collect the money, then the honor of being first apparently goes to
Thomas B. Doolittle of the Social Telegraph Association in Bridgeport,
CT.  The year was 1878.  By 1880, other attended pay stations were
available from the Connecticut Telephone Company and the American
District Telegraph Co. in New York City.  Obviously, ADT once provided
a service that they no longer offer today. :-)

    The first pay station that collected money by itself was the
subject of U.S. Patent 327,073 issued to H. Edmunds and C. Howard on
September 29, 1885.  While this was a very workable design (as opposed
to many other patents that were impracticable), it seems to have never
been manufactured in any quantity.

    The Edmunds and Howard device apparently pre-dates work of
William Gray, who did not receive his first patent until 1889.
However, Gray took on a partner, George A. Long, and began the
manufacture of pay stations in 1889 under the name of the Gray
Telephone Pay Station Company.  The first Gray device was installed in
Hartford, CT in 1889.

    In 1890, New York Telephone installed ten pay stations which
they bought from J. H. Bunnell and Company, with such devices being
the subject of a patent issued to H. Root.

    For Western Electric fans, the first pay station was
implemented by connecting a standard telephone to the No. 1A Coin
Collector, which was the subject of a patent issued on October 1,
1895.

    Gray continued with much further development in the area of
pay stations.  He is credited with inventing the concept of a coin
gong around 1890, later expanded to a multi-coin arrangement that was
patented in 1892.


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: Sat, 23 Mar 91 03:13 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Early Pay Telephone Exhibit at Richmond Airport


AT&T has set up a telephone exhibit in the lobby area of the Richmond
(VA) airport, just at the base of the elevator going up to the gate
area.  I thought I'd describe it, although I wish I could post
photographs because (a) part of the impact is visual, and (b) I was
too lazy to copy, word for word, all the identification plates,
commentary, etc.

The display subtly (not quite so subtle) promotes the role of AT&T in
the development of the pay telephone.  So it's a pay telephone
oriented exhibit.

It consists of four exhibits, each about four feet (wide) by eight
feet (high), each with a display on both sides, making about eight
displays.  I will discuss them in chronological order.  In the center
were some poster units with a bunch of AT&T propaganda which I didn't
read.

The first phone was labelled "1889," and the commentary said that
telephones were 13 years old, that 200,000 phones were in use,
including one pay phone in a bank in Hartford, CT.  Phone service
consisted primarily of local service, with about 7,000 toll calls made
daily.  The longest stretch of phone wire was the New York to Boston
run, and ten minutes on that stretch cost $4.00.  Local phone service
was $23.00 per month (expensive considering how much people made...).

The telephone on that display was a Gray Model 5 Coin Collector
telephone.  It consisted of a wooden box, about perhaps one foot deep
by two feet wide, by one foot in height, and mounted on top of that
wooden box was a smaller wooden box, perhaps one foot high by six
inches deep by six inches wide.  The smaller box had two bells as a
ringer on high on the front, a mouthpiece/mike at the end of a
projection in the middle, and an earphone in a rack on the side at the
end of a brown cloth-covered wire.

The large wooden box at the bottom had five slots on the top surface,
each with a large metal button next to it, which said, in turn, "One
Dollar," "Half Dollar," "One Quarter," "One Dime," "One Nickel" On the
left front was a brass plate containing instructions in all caps (no
punctuation but divided up into lines that sort of broke it logically.
A slash in my quote indicates a line.): "DIRECTIONS / CALL CENTRAL IN
THE USUAL MANNER / WHEN TOLD BY OPERATOR / DROP COIN IN PROPER CHANNEL
AND / PUSH PLUNGER DOWN"

On the left front was another brass plate that said, "No 5 / William
Gray / 1889" (again, slashes indicate a new line).  The commentary
said in part that William Gray had conceived the first automatic coin
telephone in 1889 when he was frustrated in trying to find a telephone
to call a doctor for his sick wife.  It said that he was an inventor,
and the invention for which he was best known prior to the coin
telephone was the inflatable chest protector for baseball.

The next exhibit was labelled 1908 and had two phones: on the left, a
modified 1317 standard wall phone, and on the right a modified desk
set.  The accompanying text explained that in those days AT&T often
combined a standard AT&T phone with a separate coin collector made by
the Gray Telephone Pay Station Company.  The wall phone was a wooden
box on which the phone itself was hung; there were three slots at the
top (looking like the familiar slots on the wall phones I knew when I
grew up rather than just holes in the surface of a wooden box as on
the 1889 model) for the quarter, dime, and nickel, and the mouthpiece
stuck out of the front of the phone.  The earpiece rested on a rack
attached to the left side of the wooden box.  A brass plate on the
phone stated, "Directions / Call the central office in the usual
manner.  Do not deposit money until told by the operator. / Gray Tel.
Pay. Sta. Co., H'F'D, C.T., Patd. Feb 8, '98" (Anyone know what H'F'D
is?  Could I just have read it wrong and it was M'F'D for "Manufactured"?)

The desk phone consisted of a standard desk set (You know, looked like
a candlestick with the mouthpiece at the top, and the earpiece racked
on the side) that was attached via an arm around its center to a box
containing three coin slots at the top with a brass plate that said,
"Do not deposit money until operator asks for it."

The next exhibit was labelled 1914 and looked familiar: the phone and
coin box were all black metal and one piece; it was no longer a phone
stuck on a coin collector.  The earpiece wire was still covered with
brown cloth and the mouthpiece still stuck out the front.  In the
description that follows I'm using the @ sign for the cent sign (you
remember, a c with a slash through it) because my keyboard doesn't
have one.  The paper/cardboard plate on the front said, "Telephone
number is KL5-099 / 1.  Please deposit @ 5 / 2.  Dial number / For
directory assistance, call operator" There was one thing funny: THERE
WAS NO DIAL ON THE PHONE.  An error on the part of the AT&T person
constructing the exhibit, putting a dial-oriented instruction card
with a phone with no dial.  Anyway, This was the first phone in which
money could be deposited before you talked to the operator because she
could return it if she needed to.  The text said it was a 50A Coin
Telephone designed by Gray Telephone.  The text also said that coast-
to-coast phone service was available for $66.90 for 10 minutes.
Boston-NY was still $4.00 for 10 minutes, and local service had
declined to $10.00 / month.

The next exhibit was dated 1927, and used the same basic box as above.
It did have a dial, with letters and numbers, no Q or Z, but the words
"operator" on the zero digit on the dial.  New York to London service
was available at $75.00 for 3 minutes.  The instruction card was above
the dial.  The earpiece wire was covered with black rubber, not brown
cloth.

The next exhibit (1945) was a REAL PHONE BOOTH, containing essentially
the same phone as the same black box as the 1927 exhibit, but the
mouthpiece and earpiece were integrated into a handset, which hung on
a switchhook.

The remainder of the exhibits (1978, and two 1989) were uninteresting
modern phones.

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 05:14:08
From: Mark <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phun Phones


Sean Williams writes:

> It finally dawned on me that it was acting just like 112 - making a
> long distance call! So I went and tried it from a pay phone - bingo! I
> even got my dime back.  Only catch was that only one person in town
> could use it at a time.  So, when word got around about this, the
> circuit was constantly busy.  Finally, it stopped working, and I heard
> through the grapevine that someone had been ordered off the circuit by
> a rather gruff craftsman.  To this day, I have no idea why that
> circuit was ever set up.  Perhaps it was a mistake.

> If you think that switch was strange, wait 'till I tell you about its
> replacement!

> [Moderator's Note: Please do tell us about it!   PAT]

If it is related dumb Telecom stories then I have one I guess.
Recently I had cause to make a call from a phone box in my area.
Problem was there was a queue of about three people. They all dialed
an international number several times and eventually connected. No
money as well. Further investigation revealed that the phone had been
out of order for about *TWO* years and I haven't seen it unused in the
two/three weeks I knew about it. Apparently they had tried to fix it
every now and then (last time was a month ago) and apparently felt it
was working.

Then one day (while ten people were queued for it :) along comes a
Telecom guy who proceeds to test the coin sorter again and again and
eventually gives up as it works every time. He turned the phone off
and its been off since.

The reasons behind such a long period are vague and I don't pretend to
know of them. The exchange is a pulse only crossbar type, very *dumb*
and old. (They had to modify to allow international). I'm not sure
about that exchange but normal Telecom proceedure to the best of my
knowledge is to check the coinage and meters collate on pay phones to
ensure abuses are caught. How this one got by I have *NO* idea. At
Aust$1.19 or Aust$1.60 a minute for international calls that meter
must have been red hot.

Somewhere in that payphone is a dead piece of equipment that once
every ten or so attempts ignored meter pulses. I have the SN of the
cabinet so if it is moved... :)

Please note everyone at trl.oz.au (Telecom Reseach Labs in Aussie) I
made local calls and paid for it :)


Mark Matthewson     [e-mail]
[e-mail]  P.O. Box 487 Essendon Australia 3040

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

Date: Sat 23 Mar 91 00:37:24 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: 201-200 Prefix Now Exists


201-200 appears in a new call guide as Jersey City, NJ.  (This is
written in response to an old note which wondered if any prefixes of
N00 form existed, and I had pointed out some in what is now 213/818 in
Los Angeles area.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #228
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25668;
          23 Mar 91 17:41 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27746; 23 Mar 91 16:38 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05078;
          23 Mar 91 13:01 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08433;
          23 Mar 91 11:50 CST
Date:     Sat, 23 Mar 91 11:08:58 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #227
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Mar 91 11:08:39 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 227

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Evolution of Hacker ==> Criminal is Complete [Bob Izenberg]
    Request For Cellular Phone Service Manuals [Brandon S. Allbery]
    A Reference to the Fire Brigade [Steve Forrette]
    25 Cent Surcharge For Card Calls From Payphones [Steve Forrette]
    Would That COCOTs Had This [Kevin A. Mitchell]
    Need Help Finding Voice Advisor Software [Tom Napoletano]
    Database of Dialing Conventions / Rules Needed [Jeff Wilkinson]
    Some Callers and Answering Machines [Bill Berbenich]
    Line Simulator Sought [Ray Berry]
    Centrex Outage in 415 [Daryl Jones]
    Invasion of the Phone Snatchers (COCOTs Strike Again!) [Mark Anacker]
    How Does REPEAT CALL Work? [Brian Jay Gould]
    Two Line Answering Machines [Dennis G. Rears]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob Izenberg <dogface![e-mail]>
Subject: The Evolution of Hacker ==> Criminal is Complete
Date: 23 Mar 91 07:41:14 GMT


[e-mail] (Arun Baheti) quotes a {New York Newsday} article:

> {New York Newsday}, March 7, 1991, By Joshua Quittner

> Like a hacker -- a phone computer cheat

I guess that Mr. Quittner isn't up on his Ted Nelson.  The evolution
of the word "hacker" from "a person curious about the workings of
systems or machines" to "criminal" is complete.  I don't want to bring
the whole semantic issue to Pat's doorstep, but there are people who
call themselves "hackers" who cannot be characterized by the
malapropism "phone computer cheat".  If you object to this admittedly
tiny part of the article, don't write Messrs.  Townson or Baheti, write
{Newsday}.


Bob Izenberg   cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei   512 346 7019

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

From: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request For Cellular Phone Service Manuals
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1991 04:43:56 GMT


Can anyone tell me where I can get service manuals for various models
of cellular phones?  (Preferably some kind of bookstore, etc.,
although I suspect I'll have to go directly to the manufacturers.  In
that case, addresses/phone numbers would be appreciated, as well as
pricing.)

I need these for my own nefarious purposes. :-) Actually, not so
nefarious -- I want to see which, if any, of the cellular phones on
the market can easily be modified for the 902-928 MHz amateur band.
(PROM burners count as "easily" -- I don't expect that any of them
come with repeater offsets. :-)

Reply by mail, please; if interest warrants, I'll summarize the
responses later.

Thanks in advance,


Me: Brandon S. Allbery                Ham: KB8JRR on 2m, 220, 440, 1200
Internet: [e-mail]        (QRT on HF until local problems fixed)
America OnLine: KB8JRR // Delphi: ALLBERY   AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88]
uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery          KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 01:14:42
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Reference to the Fire Brigade


David Wilson writes:

> 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

A couple of years ago my mom had the occasion to call 911.  Her new
neighbors were from Australia, and had somehow started a small
electrical fire in the breaker box.  When the dispatcher answered and
asked what the problem was, my mom responded: "I don't know, really;
my neighbor keeps yelling for the Fire Bridage!"  The dispatcher
reportedly laughed slightly, apparently having heard this occasionally
before.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 01:19:58
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: 25 Cent Surcharge For Card Calls From Payphones


Linc Madison writes:

> 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:

> (2) An additonal 0.25 surcharge applies on calling-card calls from coin
> phones, EVEN IF THEY'RE PAC*BELL PAYPHONES.

With the new COCOT regulations that went into effect in California
last August, there is now a 25 cent surcharge for intra-LATA calling
card calls from COCOTs handled by Pacific Bell.  The COCOT owner gets
credits on his/her bill for these calls.  This was to satisfy the old
argument "Why shouldn't I get compensated for the wear and tear on my
phones from calling card calls."  This only affects intra-LATA Pacific
Bell-carried calls, as far as I know.  I didn't know they added the
extra 25 cents from their own payphones as well.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin A. Mitchell)
Subject: Would That COCOTs Had This
Organization: Datalogics, Inc.
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 03:17:21 GMT


I made a call from a pay phone outside the Harlem and Lake EL station
in Forest Park (Chicago suburb) today. The Illinois Bell phone had new
instruction cards that had the following on them:

o Names of local and long distance carriers (IBT and AT&T) with address
and 800 number for complaints.

o A statement stating that you could use an access code to get your own
long distance carrier.

o The address of the appropriate folks at the FCC to send complaints of
regulatory violations to, in red type no less!

I bet a lot of folks see this, and remember it the next time they get
stuck with a COCOT. I don't expect many complaints to the FCC about a
Bell payphone, but basically, they've told the public where to
complain about everybody else's!


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


[Moderator's Note: The payphones in our office had these new cards
installed on them a couple weeks ago. They are really sharp looking,
and explain very clearly how to make complaints, etc.    PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 00:45:19 EST
From: Tom Napoletano <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Help Finding Voice Advisor Software


  I am looking for a voice advisor type system that is PC based.
(voice advisor or teletext type, ie. IRS tax information via touch
tone phone).

  I do not want a voice mail system, however I would like some of the
options that voice mail utilizes (hookflash transfer and DTMF
generator).

  I have a voice mail system in operation and can add this option for
about $4500, but with the tight budget it is not possible at this
time.  I do have access to an under-utilized PC and would like to take
advantage of this machine to help prove the worth of the advisor
options.  (One or two month's lease of the upgrade will probably cost
as much as the PC software.)

  Please email information on product names, vendors, and ballpark
costs (if known) to [e-mail].


AdvanTHANKSce        Tom Napoletano        N.E.O.U.C.O.M.

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

From: Jeff Wilkinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Database of Dialing Conventions / Rules Needed
Date: 23 Mar 91 01:12:06 GMT


I'm trying to categorize all the ways that phone numbers can be
structured for a mostly-automatic dialing system.  We are going to be
providing a product where the operator retrieves the number of a
patient to be dialed from a database and sends it to the computer.
The computer's job is then to dial the number.  Sounds trivial, huh?

Well, it would be, but we are trying to be as kind to the operator as
possible.  The Right Way (TM) to do this would have the operator enter
the number into the database in the way that it appears in the phone
book, adding the area code for numbers that need it (entering the area
code is optional for numbers within the local area code).  The
computer would then take care of all the extra details like:

- not doing anything extra for numbers within the PBX.

- adding a network access to get outside dial tone, if this is a PBX.

- stripping the local area code, if present.

- adding a 1, or a WATS access code (in-state and out-state properly
differentiated) if this is a toll call.  Non-toll calls to different
area codes, and intra-area code toll calls need to be considered, also
(providing the ability to bypass the default long distance carrier to
some areas might be fun, but not crtical).

- adding the operator's PBX billing ID number, if required.

- accounting for any other foibles introduced by the phone system which
I don't know about.

I recall that there was a discussion of phone number conventions
awhile back in comp.dcom.telecom, but this might have only involved
the proper format for international calls. (?).  Is there anyone that
has experience in this area?  Is this a big problem (i.e., I need a
large database of area code/exchange vs. area code/exchange tuples) or
little?  Any ideas?  Do PBX's with carrier selection do this?

To simplify matters somewhat, the assumption can be made that the
device will be calling from North America.  International destinations
are a possibility, but if this complicates things significantly we'll
just tell the operator to do those manually.

Unfortunately, we have lost our newsfeed here for the past few months,
so replies need to be sent to me directly.  If I get some response
I'll summarize it at a later date.


Jeff Wilkinson                [e-mail]
Medtronic, Inc.
7000 Central Ave NE           Voice [phone]
Minneapolis, MN  5543         FAX   [phone]
My opinions are my own. Isn't that obvous by now?

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some Callers and Answering Machines
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 00:19:31 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Ever since I got Caller ID, I've noticed that some callers will call,
Call -- CALL, and will never leave a message.  I can understand why
telemarketing creatures would not leave a message - they don't want to
take any more time on a call in order that they may cover as many
phones as possible within a given amount of time.  Besides, a machine
can't slip up and inadvertently commit to a sale.

But why won't some people leave a message?  Don't they realize that
most people have other things to do besides sit by the phone waiting
for it to ring?  Most of us take showers, use the restroom, putter
about in the yard, go over to the local basketball court, eat dinner,
wash the dog, wash our clothes (in that order), and shop.  Maybe these
people who don't leave messages are just gamblers at heart and they
want to take their chances catching their callee at a free moment.
Maybe they don't realize that if they leave a message they might
(probably will) get a call back, but if they don't leave a message
they definitely WILL NOT get a call back - unless I get real curious
and call a strange number back.

I'll be posting a "First Month of Caller ID" note here next.


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

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

From: Ray Berry <ole![e-mail]>
Subject: Line Simulator Sought
Date: 23 Mar 91 02:07:11 GMT
Organization: Seattle Silicon Corp., Bellevue, WA.


I'd like to locate a line simulator that:

 (a) reflects the actual impedance of a typical subscriber loop.
 (b) can generate clean sine-wave rings (20 Hz ok) of programmable
     amplitude and duration (or which could be keyed from an external
     gating signal).
 (c) offers a programmable DC loop voltage, 24-105 volts.
 (d) a dial-tone and offhook detector would be handy, but not absolutely
     required.

Other bells and whistles might be nice, but the above reflects my
present need.  I don't know if anyone makes this kind of equipment, or
how to find it if they do, hence this posting.  Pointers would be
appreciated. Thanks.


Ray Berry  kb7ht  uucp: ...sumax!ole!ray CIS: 73407,3152 /* "inquire within" */

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

Subject: Centrex Outage in 415
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 91 20:36:45 PST
From: Daryl Jones <[e-mail]>


Tuesday at about 2 pm, several Centrex systems in the 415 area were
out of service for about 45 minutes. I received a call back from a
Pacific Bell trouble reporting center in North Hollywood after the
problem had been corrected. I was told that an error had been made
when installing a new translation table in several 5ESS machines. The
erroneous change caused all local traffic to be routed to AT&T,
instead of handled locally.

During the outage, I was able to successfully dial a nearby office.
The call sounded very noisy, as if it were going through a very long
path.  Dial tone was instantaneous. Most calls encountered a weak and
distant reorder tone.

Are translation table changes implemented in several 5ESS machines all
at the same time? I can see how such an error would cause one CO to
fail, but would it cause multiple CO's to fail at the same time?


Telecommunications Engineering Associates
Daryl Jones, KA6VEP    409 Wildwood Drive
So. San Francisco, CA 94080  Phone: [phone]
{decwrl,pacbell}!tcomeng!daryl

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

From: Mark Anacker <dsinet![e-mail]>
Subject: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers (COCOTs Strike Again!)
Date: 23 Mar 91 00:27:19 GMT
Organization: Digital Systems Intl., Inc.


Hi,

  Last weekend my wife and I stopped in a touristy little town here in
Washington called Leavenworth.  We needed to call some friends in
town, so we pulled up at one of the many, *OFFICIAL-LOOKING* pay
phones.  It wasn't until it refused to complete her call, and ate her
quarter, that I went over and found it was one of those infernal coin
disposal machines disguised as a phone.  We looked around a bit, and
it appears as if THE ENTIRE TOWN has been converted to these things!
They're everywhere - like some plague of sales-locusts descended on
the town one day.

  If I hadn't been in the town before, and knew of the only
alternative, we'd have been stuck.  Attached to the wall of the GTE CO
in town, like a shining beacon of hope, was a real GTE pay phone.
Apparently the only one in town.  My guess is that this is what the
locals use, and leave the new phones to the sucke ... er, tourists.


Mark Anacker                ...{!dsinet,!toybox}!marka
Digital Systems International, Inc.    Redmond, WA   USA    [phone]

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

From: Brian Jay Gould <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Does REPEAT CALL Work?
Date: 23 Mar 91 03:32:27 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


I understand why (but don't agree with the FCC limit) I can't get
Caller*ID on inter-lata calls.  But NJ Bell (well, one rep ...) says
that the Repeat Call feature (where the system would continue to
attempt the call until it is no longer busy) will work for any number
in the country where the destination number's CO also has the feature
available.  I can't see how this is right.

Either they don't rely on SS7 and simply repeat the attempt every xx
seconds, or they use SS7 and both numbers have to be in the same lata.
I couldn't get the rep to change her story.  She read her "features
document" over the phone and it did indeed indicate that it works as
stated in paragraph one above.

Can anyone explain this?


Any disclaimers made for me, by me, or about me - may or may not accurately
reflect my failure to be reflecting the opinions of myself or anyone else.

Brian Jay Gould - Professional Brain-stormer

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

From: Dennis G Rears <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two Line Answering Machines
Organization: U.S. Army ARDEC, Dover NJ
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 01:36:33 GMT


    Does anyone know where I can get a quality two line answering
machine?  I now it sounds simple but they are not available here.  Is
there any way I can convert a one line phone to handle both lines?


dennis

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #227
******************************






ISSUES 227 - 228 REVERSE IN TRANSMISSION. 228 CAME BEFORE 227.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27096;
          23 Mar 91 18:52 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01206;
          23 Mar 91 17:24 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19327;
          23 Mar 91 16:18 CST
Date:     Sat, 23 Mar 91 16:11:12 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #229
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Mar 91 16:10:51 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 229

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Len Rose Pleads Guilty! [AP Wire, via Bill Berbenich]
    NYNEX/Boston FMR Charges, Answer [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Caller ID Draws Opposition in Illinois [Bill Berbenich]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Len Rose Pleads Guilty!
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 14:29:14 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


   BALTIMORE (AP) -- A computer hacker pleaded guilty Friday to
stealing information from American Telephone & Telegraph and its
subsidiary Bell Laboratories.

   Under an agreement with prosecutors, Leonard Rose pleaded guilty in
U.S.  District Court to one count of sending AT&T source codes via
computer to Richard Andrews, an Illinois hacker, and a similar wire
fraud charge involving a Chicago hacker.

   Prosecutors said they will ask that Rose be sentenced to two
concurrent one-year terms. Rose is expected to be sentenced in May.

   Neither Rose nor his attorney could be immediately reached for
comment late Friday.

   "Other computer hackers who choose to use their talents to
interfere with the security and privacy of computer systems can expect
to be prosecuted and to face similar penalties," said U.S. Attorney
Breckinridge L. Willcox.

   "The sentence contemplated in the plea agreement reflects the
serious nature of this new form of theft," Willcox said.

   Rose, 32, was charged in May 1990 in a five-count indictment
following an investigation by the Secret Service and the U.S.
Attorney's offices in Baltimore and Chicago.

   He also had been charged with distributing "trojan horse" programs,
designed to gain unauthorized access to computer systems, to other
hackers.

   Prosecutors said Rose and other hackers entered into a scheme to
steal computer source codes from AT&T's UNIX computer system.

   The plea agreement stipulates that after he serves his sentence,
Rose must disclose his past conduct to potential employers that have
computers with similar source codes.


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

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

Date: 23-MAR-1991 03:01:14.92
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: NYNEX/Boston FMR Charges, Answer


In early February, I posted a copy of a letter which I sent to GTE
Mobilnet's headquarters in Houston, dealing with NYNEX/Boston's
charging for FMR activations. The problem was, and still is, that
NYNEX/Boston charges airtime and a daily roam charge of $3 for every
FMR activation or deactivation which takes place in its New England
Service Area. This means that if I hit *18 to activate Follow Me
Roaming, yet do not receive or make any further calls in that system,
I will be billed $3.75. ($3 for the daily charge, and $.75 for the one
minute of "airtime", which is basically two seconds of confirmation
tone.).

What's worse, let's say I was in Connecticut and had FMR activated to
CT. If I were to roam into Boston, and decided to turn FMR off (so
that callers could get my GTE/San Francisco Voice Mail), I would also
be billed $3.75 for pressing *19! I've never been a fan any sort of
"daily roam charge", and I think that the cellular companies could
make a lot more money on roaming if they worked out less costly system
where the companies can share in the roaming profits, and thus
customers would be more inclined to use thier phones in other service
areas. Nevertheless, I am willing to pay the $3 charge at times, but
NEVER to simply activate or deactivate FMR. Moreover, when I signed up
for GTE/SF for service, I was told that there were no such charges,
which is why I was very surprised when the first bill came.

I then called GTE/SF, who removed the charges month after month each
time I had been in Boston. (There were some months when there was a
whole page of "*18 FMR ACTIVATION $.75 1MIN" on my bill, mainly
becuase FMR sometimes takes SO long to activate that I hit *18
multiple times.) In December, when I made my monthly call to get the
charges removed, the person who handled my call, Rudy Kadett, who was
the roam coordinator for GTE/SF, told me that GTE would no longer
remove the charges on my bill, and that I should write to Ilene
Sandrafield in Houston if I had any further questions. (This later
turned out to be incorrect, all inquiries SHOULD be handled at GTE/SF.)

I just got off the phone with Ilene, and after an hour-long
conversation to Houston, I can once again say that I made the right
choice in choosing GTE Mobilnet for cellular service. Ilene manages
all roaming agreements for GTE Cellular systems, and seemed quite
knowledgeable and interested in explaining the problem with NYNEX's
FMR and what they intended to do about it. Ilene had contacted the SF
office, explained that there was nothing that GTE could do to prevent
NYNEX for charging these activation charges, but said that GTE/SF
would continue to take these calls off my bill, and that Mr. Kadett
was wrong in saying that GTE/SF would no longer do so.

Basically, what this means, is that I will have to call GTE/SF each
time I got to Boston and use FMR. They will deduct the airtime charges
for *18/*19 calls, and if there were no other calls that day, the $3
roam charge as well.  They were even willing to give me a number at
GTE/SF that I can call directly, without having to wait for the
Customer Service people to pick up. (GTE/SF has QUITE long waits at
times to talk to Customer Service.)

In my conversation with Ilene, I was told that the problem was that
NYNEX/Boston has decided to charge for FMR calls, and that every
company that deals with NYNEX is forced to bill their customers for
this. She noted that GTE as well as other companies had tried to get
NYNEX to stop this practice, but that NYNEX flatly refused. One
company, Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems, is even considering charging
NYNEX/Boston roamers the same FMR charge, as one of their customers
made a fuss about these charges as well. (I'd sign up with BAMS if
they did this ... just to make a (small) point to NYNEX! :) )

Overall, she felt, as I do, that this practice is very unfair, and
that in the long run it hurts the industry by creating a great deal of
annoyance and confusion to all "B" system customers, and that NYNEX
was taking advantage of the present state of the industry which
allowed it to levy such charges and get away with it. GTE can not
charge NYNEX/Boston customers for FMR activations unless they charge
everyone for this, and thus GTE can not "retaliate" without annoying
the vast majority of roamers who do not need to use the NYNEX/Boston
system. When I asked how Bell Atlantic can do this, she responded that
they are able (or will be able) to target individual outfits like
NYNEX/Boston, but that GTE as of yet can not, or that the process of
doing so is too cumbersome to enact throughout the GTE Mobilnet
system.

We also discussed cellular fraud. In my letter, I noted that the $3
per day daily roaming charge was, in my opinion, way too much to
charge for ESN validation. She responded that the $3 per day charge
was also designed to recover costs due to fraud, and then got into a
rather long discussion about how cellular *roaming* fraud takes place,
and what GTE was planning for the near future to reduce these losses.
(Much along the lines of the posting from March 14th from the {Houston
Chronicle}, although we discussed a few specifics about what was being
done, such as "IS-41", which is a "new" (?)  ESN-validation system
which will not be subject to the delays which the present one is. I
believe that IS-41 is in place between GTE and Pac*Tel in CA and
Texas, but we didn't get in to many specifics as to where this new
system will be used. A good bet is in the high-fraud areas of NY and LA.)

Although I do appreciate that the Cellular Industry is plagued by
fraud, I'm not sure if the best way to prevent it is to charge roamers
$3 per day, especially when the roam rates are so high as it is. The
{Houston Chronicle} article mentioned that perhaps 20% of roam revenue
is lost due to fraud, yet I wonder if the $3 per day charge and the
high airtime rates do not go way beyond this 20% figure. That is to
say, does roaming actually COST the cellular companies money -- are
they LOSING any money which the $3 per day compensates them for? -- or
are they using the 20% "uncollectable" figure as a justification for
these charges, and ultimately end up making even more money?

I didn't press her on this issue, since that was not really what my
letter was about, but I got the impression that in actuality what was
happening was that the cellular industry was under immense pressure to
raise a good deal of money very quickly (so each company can expand to
fill its designated territory, as I believe the FCC requires after a
certain period of time), and thus, when someone says "Hey, we need to
get more money, we have lot's of bill to pay this month (including
some due to fraud, no doubt), and we need some extra revenue ..." the
end result is that roamers get soaked, as they are the easiest targets
and the ones who have the least ability to effectively alter company
policy. (ie, if GTE/SF were to raise its rates, I could go to Cell
One/SF; yet a roamer in GTE/SF's area is stuck using them, and if s/he
comes from some small Cell Co. where s/he is the only one who roams in
GTE/SF, there is little incentive for GTE/SF to take his/ her concerns
into consideration.)

Overall, though, a very interesting conversation, and an hour well
spent!  GTE has repeatedly demonstrated that they ARE concerned with
their customers needs, and in many cases will bend over backwards to
retain their customers, including taking a loss of $3 or more per
month (which they have to pay NYNEX in Boston regardless of whether I
have to pay the charge or not) to cover for an irresponsible and
downright greedy cellular company which GTE has no control over. This
incident, as well as their receptiveness to my FMR activation delay
complaints and the speed at which they reinstated international
calling after it had been blocked for all GTE/SF customers, tells me
that THIS is the company I should be giving my cellular business to.

As a comparison to how bad things can be, let me mention my "favorite"
mobile company on the "other" coast, Metro High-Bill in Connecticut.
Of the two letters and fifteen phone calls I have made to them
regarding their most recent charge, that of charging customers airtime
charges for call forwarding (of course without letting us know about
this before the change was made), I received the following:

1. A letter from some office manager saying that the reasoning behind
   Metro Mobile's charging airtime for call-forwarding was because it
   was "allowed by law..." to do so, yet failing to mention why no one
   was notified, especially customers such as myself who had relied on
   statements as well as prior practice by Metro Mobile which clearly
   indicated that there were no such charges.

2. A call (via cellphone? Heard static, so it was probably Metro..! :)  )
   by "Mr. Linderman", and 4:55PM, to my voicemail. I call back Metro
   the next day, no one has heard of Mr. Linderman. Turns out this guy
   in the chairman of Metro Mobile, so I call him, and he's not in.

3. After fifteen calls to his office to try to get Mr. Linderman when
   he IS in, I get: "He's out of the country...", "He is sick today",
   "He is at his doctor's office", "He is at lunch", "He has left for
   the day" (at 11:30 am ?), etc. Maybe they think I am with "60
   Minutes"? Something to hide, eh, Mr. Linderman?? :)

4. I sent a letter to Mr. Linderman requesting that if he is not able
   to respond to me at this time, to please have someone else provide me
   with an explanation of the charges. This was BEFORE I sent my letter to
   GTE in Houston. It was a FOLLOWUP on my first letter from October. And,
   of course, I have heard nothing from them.

So although many of you may think that GTE's response to my
NYNEX/Boston complaint is perhaps insufficient, and that GTE should be
able to correct the problem without my having to call for a credit
each time I use FMR in Boston, consider for a moment that I have grown
used to Metro's standard tactics (above) for over two and a half
years, and any minor improvement, or a more substantial one as in the
present case with GTE, is one which I will enthusiastically welcome.

Time now to write to NYNEX/Boston telling them what a bunch of rip-off
artists they are ... I *still* don't think *I* should be the one who
has to take time to do all this...! :/


Doug

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

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Draws Opposition in Illinois
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 03:33:29 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Caller ID plan draws opposition from rape counseling centers

 By DAN SHOMON Jr.

   SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (UPI) -- Several representatives of rape and
domestic violence counseling centers spoke out Tuesday against a
proposed telephone feature that allows people to see the phone number
of who is calling them.

   The plan, which has been dubbed Caller ID, has already been
implemented in New Jersey and other states.

   The Illinois Commerce Commission is expected to make a decision
whether to allow Illinois Bell and Centel to begin the service to its
phone customers in Illinois.

   Beth Savage-Martin, coordinator of hotline volunteers at
Springfield's Rape Information and Counseling Service, told a special
public hearing that the plan would keep rape victims from calling for
help because they would fear someone would get their number.

   "This could be the last straw that breaks the camel's back,"
Savage-Martin said. "Anything that deters the victims from calling us
is not a positive thing."

   Caller ID has been touted as a way to protect people because it
would display the phone number of an abusive caller but Savage-Martin
said she thinks criminals would probably use pay-phones and take away
any advantage of the device.

   More opposition came from Mary Pat Browne, who oversees sexual
assault counseling services at the YWCA in Sterling.

   "Caller ID will jeopardize our efforts to provide confidential,
safe services for victims," Browne said.

   Both Brown and Savage-Martin said they would probably lose
volunteers when Caller ID goes into effect because those people would
be worried about their phone numbers getting out to victims and
perpetrators.

   However, Illinois Bell said it would avoid such problems by giving
out telephone calling cards to rape hotline and crisis counseling
employees.

   Besides helping the at least 65,000 people in the state who
received harassing calls in 1990, Bell spokesman Laura Littel said
Caller ID could also reduce the growing number of false fire alarms
and bomb threats.

   At the hearing, two forms of the Caller ID program were discussed.
Bell's plan would not allow someone to "block" someone else from
seeing their own telephone number, even though that is something that
rape counseling services would support.

   However, Des Plaines-based Central Telephone Company of Illinois
wants to implement a Caller ID program that includes "blocking." The
company would provide blocking for all of its residential and single-
line business customers at no charge.

   Even though there were several groups in opposition, at least two
women testified that Caller ID would help end harassment they have
faced.

   Linda Butler of Springfield said she had a serious problem with
phone harassment in 1987 and was forced to pay the phone company more
than $300 to trace calls and also spent more than $300 on a phone
answering device in an attempt to catch the culprit.

   The Caller ID program would probably cost most people less than $10
per month and Butler said she favored it because "many consumers are
not in the same position as I am that I can spend that kind of money
to have my calls traced."

   Freda Schrenk of Riverton echoed Butler's concerns. "The people
that make these calls don't care who they're spouting their filth at,"
Schrenk said.

                         --------

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


[Moderator's Note: Follow-ups to this article should be sent to the
telecom privacy list, '[e-mail]' for publication.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #229
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28712;
          23 Mar 91 21:05 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18008;
          23 Mar 91 19:30 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20090;
          23 Mar 91 18:24 CST
Date:     Sat, 23 Mar 91 18:01:35 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #230
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Mar 91 18:01:20 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 230

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Questions About AT&T Credit Card Calls [Ron Newman]
    NJ and PA Payphone Instruction Cards [Carl Moore]
    Telephone Monopoly in Delaware Ends [Ken Weaverling]
    Automated Telephone Information Systems [Ernie Froemel]
    Sources For Tariff Information [Paul Wilczynski]
    Bob Allen Live Speech FREE on 900 Number [Mark A. Emanuele]
    Questions About New Service Being Installed [Dennis G. Rears]
    RS 485 Information Wanted: URGENT [Markus Fischer]
    Looking For New Replacement Modems [Dale Bryan]
    Taking Exams by Phone [Jim Huggins in RISKS, via Nigel Allen]
    Local Competition Article in {Business Week} [Jerry Leichter]
    Happy Birthday! [David Lesher]
    The Ultimate in 900 Marketing [Jonathan White]
    Reminder: Voice Recognition Project Needs Your Help! [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ron Newman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions About AT&T Credit Card Calls
Date: 23 Mar 91 01:22:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.


1. If I use an AT&T Universal Card to make an intra-LATA call (e.g.
between 617 and 508), how does this get billed?  Is the call carried
by AT&T or by the local Bell operating company (in this case, New
England Telephone)?  How does the BOC know that it should accept an
AT&T-issued card?  (Note: an AT&T Universal card number does not begin
with a "real" phone number.)

2. Can I use an AT&T Universal Card to make an intra-LATA call between
a Bell and a non-Bell area?

3. For the above two questions, does it matter whether I dialed 10288
(10ATT) or not?

4. What happens if I try to use an AT&T Universal Card on
for a non-AT&T inter-LATA call, because either -

  (a) the "Dial 1" selection was not AT&T, or
  (b) I used a carrier code such as 10222, 10333, etc. ?


Ron Newman        [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 12:58:58 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: NJ and PA Payphone Instruction Cards


I am just back from New Jersey, and would like to report two stops at
places with pay phones:

Admiral Halsey service area on NJ Turnpike (northbound, at exit
13-A): Pay phones are on 908-289; however, as noted in my earlier trip
to Phillipsburg, some phones still have 201 noted on them.  289 is an
Elizabeth exchange, and it is local to Newark, NJ, remaining in area
201.  Now get this: instruction card on the pay phone says that local
calls outside area code require the area code, but the phone book's
call guide says it does not!

Same instruction card as above appeared in PA along southbound I-95
(using Yardley prefix 215-493), and this is possible because 215 is
dropping the leading 1 for long distance within it.  The "OUT OF
CHANGE?" message at bottom, however, says 0 + number when it should be
or become 0 + areacode + number.

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

From: Ken Weaverling <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1991 10:03:56 EST
Subject: Telephone Monopoly in Delaware Ends


The {News-Journal}, Delaware's largest local paper, had the following
headline March 20:

                    "Telephone monopoly in Del. ends"

Below are some excerpts, comments, and a few questions...

"The Public Service Commission ended Diamond State Telephone Co's
monopoly on long-distance calling within the state Tuesday. ... The
commission's action follows a national trend by regulators to break up
local Baby Bell phone monopolies ... It will be at least July 1 before
new carriers can join in the competition for intrastate business."

I have been a regular reader of the Digest for about a year now,
though I don't read every single article.  I don't recall reading
about similar action in other areas, except on some business lines.

*Is* this a trend across the country?

Also, no mention was made of whether calls to (215) would be open to
competition. Area Code 215 (Philadelphia) is within our same LATA.

This doesn't make any sense to me, since Delaware has been moving
towards unlimited local state-wide calling. If I can call downstate
for free, what is MCI, Sprint, and AT&T going to offer me?

This expanded local calling area seems to contradict trends across the
country to measured unit local calling.  Is this why I wonder. My
speculation is somewhat confirmed in this same newspaper article...

"We are generally pleased by the ruling," Diamond State spokesman Ells
Edwards said after the ruling.

"Factors on the local company's side as competition opens up include
markedly lower rates, expanded calling areas enacted by the commission
on January 1 and proposed statewide toll-free calling now being
studied by Diamond State."

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

From: Ernie Froemel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automated Telephone Information Systems
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 09:21:10 GMT


Does anyone know of microcomputer-based applications that control
automated telephone information systems?  I'm looking for something
that:

    1.  answers incoming calls,
    2.  plays a recorded set of instructions,
    3.  switches the caller to other instructions or to
        other phones based on touch-tones,
    4.  transfers to another phone in the absence of
        touch-tone input.

Any guidance as to vendors or experiences with such software would be
appreciated.


Ernie Froemel   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 01:22 GMT
From: Paul Wilczynski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sources For Tariff Information


The March 18, 1991 issue of {Network World} reports the following
sources for tariff information (all telephone numbers listed as
published):

TeleResource Service
Bell Communications Research
Bellcore Customer Service
60 New England Ave.
Piscataway, NJ  08854
[phone]

The Center for Communications Management Information
11300 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD  20852
[phone]

Downtown Copy Center
1114 21st St N.W.
Washington, DC  20036
[phone]

Fair Press Services
Division of Washington Information Group, Ltd.
PO Box 19352
20th Street Station
Washington, DC  20036
[phone]

International Transcript Services, Inc.
2100 M St N.W.
Washington, DC  20037
[phone]

Lynx Technologies, Inc.
P.O. Box 368
Little Falls, NJ  07424
[phone]

Telecommunications Information Services, Inc.
9 LaCrue St.
Concordville, PA  19331
[phone]

Tele-Tech Services
A division of Telecommunication Systems Technology, Inc.
P.O. Box 757
McAfee, NJ  07428
[phone]

Valucom, Inc.
501 Church St N.E.
Suite 303
Vienna, VA  22180
[phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Emanuele)
Subject: Bob Allen Live Speech FREE on 900 Number
Date: 23 Mar 91 08:46:34 GMT
Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc.


I just got a letter in the mail from AT&T that Bob Allen's live speech
at the AT&T shareholders meeting will be available to the general
public on 1-900-200-2700 at 9:45 to 10:15 am Central time on April 17,
1990.  They say that the call is TOLL FREE. I wonder why they are
using a 900 number instead of an 800 number? They also say that A
recorded version will be available until 8:00 pm that evening.


Mark A. Emanuele   V.P. Engineering  Overleaf, Inc.
218 Summit Ave   Fords, NJ 08863   [phone]
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Callers during the thirty minute period noted above
will be connected to live audio from the location of the shareholder's
meeting.  For the remainder of the day, the program will be repeated
on tape. You may of course dial in at any time, and my understanding
is you will hear Mr. Allen's address from the beginning, rather than
'barging in' in the middle somewhere. The reason for using a 900
number is because of the huge volume of traffic which can be
accomodated at any one time, versus more limited accomodations on an
800 line.  If someone will transcribe the highlights, I'll publish it
in the Digest as well.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 07:00:20 EST
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions About New Service Being Installed


   I am moving and got some questions about my new telephone service.
I will be getting two lines with circular hunting (circular just in
case I get more lines installed).  They are letting me have one line
with touch tone and the other line without.  Am I correct in assuming
that touch tone only applies to dialing and not the sending of the
tones after the connection is made?  All of may phones are switchable
to either touch tone and pulse.

   I found out my new service will be serviced by a 1ESS switch.  Can
anybody explain the difference between that and a 5ESS switch?  I
would really appreciate it if somebody could detail what each switch
capability is.

  I agreed to have it billed on one number.  The installation is $42 &
$16 for the second line, for a total of $58.  If I wanted two billing
numbers it would have cost $42 and $42.  That seems unreasonable to me.
($42 seems unreasonable to me for one line when you consider it is a
$15 hookup charge for electric and $14 for gas).


Dennis

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

From: Markus Fischer <[e-mail]>
Subject: RS 485 Information Wanted: URGENT
Date: 23 Mar 91 03:18:49
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland


I need information about the RS 485 communication norm. Specifically,
I need cabling schematics, signal IDs and signal levels.  I would
prefer the answers in e-mail, and I promise I'll post the information
to the net.


Fred

[e-mail]  or [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

From: Dale Bryan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For New Replacement Modems
Date: 23 Mar 91 00:08:22 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego


    I am currently working on a project that utilizes modems in an
underwater acoustic data communications system.  I am new to the
project and don't know much about modems.  Part of my tasking is to
investigate what's new in the world of modems and to see if there are
off-the-shelf units that are more capable than the ones that are being
used now.  The modems being used are 1981 vintage Rockwell R24
synchronous DPSK 2400 bps with fallback to 1200 bps.  They are printed
circuit board modules that require a host controller.  They use V.26B
and V.27bis formats.  I am looking for replacement modems that may
offer 2400 bps or higher at SNR-BER performance that is as good or
better than 9dB for .00001 BER.  I am particularly interested in
anything using adaptive equalization and adaptive echo cancellation
for long time delays as the acoustic channel can be very dispersive.
Any help or insight into what's on the markets these days will be
greatly appreciated.


Dale Bryan    (619)-553-1902      email:  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 09:23 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Taking Exams by Phone (From comp.risks)
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue


  From: James K. Huggins <[e-mail]>

With the recent discussion on voting-by-phone in RISKS, I thought the
following (excerpted) article, taken from "U.: The National College
Newspaper" might be of interest to readers.

"Test Taking Goes Touch-Tone": Seema Desai, _The_Daily_Pennsylvanian_
(student newspaper of the University of Pennsylvania)

At Governors State U., a wrong number can cost students more than a
quarter.  It can cost them their grade point averages.  The small
university near Chicago recently adopted a telephone system that lets
students take multiple-choice exams over a touch-tone telephone.

Donald Fricker, a management professor who spent about two years
developing the application, said students call a special number and
respond to recorded multiple choice questions by pressing digits on
their phones.  The system, named Big Mouth, has been in operation
since this fall, and four professor currently use it to administer
exams.  Fricker said more than 100 students in classes ranging from
psychology to management have taken exams on the system, adding that
most students have responded positively to the new technology.

[student and faculty testimonial deleted]

Some students and faculty have raised concerns about abuse of the
system.  Currently, students have to enter their social security
number to access the system.  Students are on their honor not to
cheat, Fricker said.  And because students have only five seconds to
answer, Scherzinger said cheating is difficult. [quote deleted]

In the near future, Big Mouth will have the ability to repeat
questions and accept short essay answers.  Fricker said he also plans
to add more security measures to the system, including offering
multiple versions of exams and giving each student a special security
code. [...]

Despite some of the system's drawbacks, Scherzinger said he thinks it
will gain wide acceptance in the academic community.  "I personally
believe that the system will come to every college within the next 10
years."

The RISKS here are abundant: students hiring other students to take
their exams for them (a risk that is somewhat minimized by an
in-person exam) using their identification number, students
deliberately using someone else's Social Security number to flunk the
exam for them, and students recording the exam as it is being given in
order to distribute copies to their friends.

I hope Big Mouth never comes to Michigan.

Jim Huggins, Univ. of Michigan ([e-mail])

   [This is getting to be an old-hat topic.  But it will recur.  PGN]


[Moderator's Note: Governors State University is a school here in the
Chicago south suburban area.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 10:32:54 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Local Competition Article in {Business Week}


Readers with an interest in dial-tone competition may find an article
in a recent {Business Week} of interest.  "The Baby Bells Learn a
Nasty New Word: Competition.  (Breaking up local phone monopolies -
via new technologies - looks to be the 'issue of the 1990s'.)"
Business Week, 25 Mar 1991.  You may have to search around a bit -
it's in the "Information Processing" section, which seems to be one of
the sections that BW uses only in some editions.

The same issue also has a brief article titled "Future phone?  The PCN
is a wireless to watch."
                            -- Jerry

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Happy Birthday!
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 91 20:04:10 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


click, click, click...bzzzzzp, kerchunk.

Yep, 10 Mar 1991 was a birthday for our close friend and vigilant
helper - the Strowger Switch. It's been a while since that undertaker
got annoyed.

Would c.d.t. readers care to guess how many candles Mr. Switch gets? I
suggest we don't let John Hignon enter - he could cheat by checking
the manufacturing codes on those in his CO ;-}


[e-mail]   (305) 255-RTFM

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

From: jonathan white <acf5![e-mail]>
Subject: The Ultimate in 900 Marketing
Date: 23 Mar 91 14:41:03 GMT
Organization: New York University


NYNEX just sent me my copy of the new Yellow Pages for Manhattan.  In
the front is the FYI Pages "Your guide to useful and entertaining
1-900, 976, and 540 numbers...". The ultimate though is on page 7 - a
1-900 number to call to "Find out about the industry that's
revolutionizing telecommunications with 540 and 900 numbers"

I've always thought that one way to tell when a market was saturated
was when ads start appearing for consultants wanting to advise others
on how to get into that market.

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

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 91 10:31:44 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reminder: Voice Recognition Project Needs Your Help!


I called the voice recognition project (suggest you call it if you
have not done so already).  The number is 800-441-1037, where 800-441
PREVIOUSLY was the prefix for toll free to Delaware from other states.
(However, 800-441-1037 did work from Delaware.)


[Moderator's Note:  The project takes voice samples, and requires no
obligation on your part other than a couple minutes of your time.
Please help them out.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #230
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00106;
          24 Mar 91 0:50 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15332;
          23 Mar 91 21:36 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08425;
          23 Mar 91 20:31 CST
Date:     Sat, 23 Mar 91 20:00:30 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #231
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 23 Mar 91 20:00:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 231

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Pac*Bell References to Area Code Splits [Ted Marshall]
    Analog Fiber Optic Systems [Jeff Brown]
    Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security [Lauren Weinstein]
    Payphones in Public Schools [Sean Williams]
    Questions on SONET [Ming Yin]
    120 VAC-Powered Ringers [Irving Wolfe]
    Senate Committee Action on Bill [Peter Marshall]
    Little Noticed Rate Increase in Massachusetts [John R. Levine]
    PacBell Blocks 950-xxxx [Galen Wolf]
    MCI Around-Town Disappearing [David Lesher]
    Followup: Caller*ID Program for Macintosh [Brian Holmes]
    Pay Phone 10xxx-0- Access [David Lesher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 08:13:20 PST
From: Ted Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pac*Bell References to Area Code Splits


Here in San Jose, Ca (408), the new phone books just came out. With
all of the recent talk here about people not finding out in advance
about area code splits, I wanted to see what Pac*Bell would have on
the upcoming 415/510 split. As expected, there was a page in Customer
Guide section outlining both the 415/510 split and the 213/310 split
down in L A. In addition, in the main white-pages section, the banner
at the top of each odd numbered page reads "415/510 Area Code Split
9-2-91". (The banner on the even numbered pages lists the cities
covered, as usual.) It would have been nice if the new banners were
more different (grey instead of black, for example) to help catch the
eye, but hopefully, this will catch a few people's attention.

As a side note, this phone book also has white-page listings for Los
Gates, which is serviced by GTE. These listings are in a separate
section of the Pac*Bell book. The split warning was not put in the
banner in this section, even though it was clearly type-set by the
same folks.


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

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

From: Jeff Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Analog Fiber Optic Systems
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 23 MAR 91 13:45:44


I need an Analog to Fiber Optic to Analog transmission system.
Basically a one-way analog to fiber modem.  I'd like zero to five VDC
on each end with any type fiber in between.  DC supply power and EMF
hardening would be helpful.  A 10 mhz analog bandwidth and AC coupling
are musts.

Any sources you might suggest would be helpful.  Thanks.


Jeff Brown  [phone]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 13:15:41 PST
From: Lauren Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security


Greetings.  There have been reports in various forums recently of
various concerns regarding U.S. Sprint's new policy of allowing access
to almost all (1+ long distance dialing) customer account balances
based only on ten-digit phone numbers (previously, account numbers had
been needed to obtain such information).  Account balances for all
phone numbers with 1+ service selected to Sprint, except for those
customers connected to Sprint by high volume leased line facilities
(e.g. T1) are apparently accessible via the system.

Concerns have been expressed about misuse of this data by outside
organizations, competitors, or even other carriers looking to target
the "big" customers.  Certainly most people have been assuming that
the amount of their long distance bills was not "public" information.

I have been following this rather closely, and over the last several
weeks have had a complaint working its way up the chain in Sprint.  As
a user of Sprint (as well as other carriers) I personally feel that
account balance information should be private between the carrier and
the customer.  If reasonable protections cannot be provided for that
information in automated systems, customers should at least have some
method for "opting out" of the automated account system itself.

Sprint has been very good about staying in touch about this issue.
The "end of the line", so to speak, has been Ms. Rochelle Richter at
the Sprint Executive Offices.  She's an "Executive Analyst" in the
offices of the President of Sprint (Mr. LeMay) and the Sprint CEO (Mr.
Esrey).  She tells me that they have been informed of the concerns I
expressed over this system.  The number for the Sprint Executive
Offices where Ms. Richter (or the other persons mentioned above) can
be reached is [phone].  Ms. Richter also discussed the issue
with the gentleman in charge of the development and management of the
automated system itself, Mr. Rick Shield at [phone].

I'm sorry to report that Sprint at this time does not view the privacy
issues involved as a problem.  They do plan to add a requirement that
users enter their zipcode as well as their ten digit number,
apparently viewing the zipcode as a security measure.  I assume that
most of us agree that the addition of the zipcode does not represent
any real security improvement, since it is trivially available to
anyone who wants it in most cases.

The Sprint view is that they have had very few complaints from
customers about the system (she claims only two), that they don't see
what the concern is about account balance information, and that they
haven't heard of any similar systems causing problems for the
customers or the companies providing information.

She invites those with concerns about this issue to contact her
directly at the toll-free 800 number above.  She made it clear that
unless they get significant numbers of complaints from customers,
there is currently no intention for any change other than the
"zipcode" requirement mentioned above.  She also invites comments to
herself or Rick Shield from persons who have documented evidence of
the privacy/security problems which could result from such systems.

If any of you are Sprint customers and *are* concerned (either as an
individual or as an organization) about the privacy issues involved
with this system, or even if you are a non-customer and can offer
Sprint some insight into the issues involved, I would suggest that
each of you take Ms. Richter up on her offer and express your views,
so that Sprint will have more opinions on which to base any future
decisions about their system.


 --Lauren--

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat Mar 23 06:06:26 EST
Subject: Payphones in Public Schools


Robert L. Oliver <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]> writes:

> Actually, in my Junior High / High School in Philadelphia (J. R.
> Masterman), we had a payphone right outside the school office.
> [...] I don't know if Bell would make the same decision today [...] But I
> would bet that money was to be made.  Students during lunch hour, teacher
> personal calls, etc.

My school, Susquenita Junior/Senior High, has two payphones, both of
which were provided by United Telephone.  One is located in the main
lobby, and the other is located in the gym lobby.  These are used
during sports events and after school activities.  The phone in the
lobby is used for "whatever".  There are provisions to add a second
phone in the gym area, if it would eventually become necessary.

The elementary school also has a payphone, located in the main lobby.

All four phones are regular Northern Telecom, black, Touch-Tone
payphones (LD via AT&T, if anyone wants to know).  They replaced the
previous rotary-style models, probably from the same manufacturer.  As
these are "real" telephone company-owned phones, they work just as one
would expect, and they don't charge extravagant rates to do so.  Equal
access also is available.

It should also be noted that these phones see plenty of use.  They
must, since the school has had at least one payphone since back when
my mother went there.


Sean E. Williams            attmail.com!seanwilliams
333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227    [e-mail]
Duncannon, PA 17020-0227  USA        voicemail: [phone]

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

From: Ming Yin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions on SONET
Date: 22 Mar 91 00:21:59 GMT


Presently, I am involved in a project whose goal is to transport HIPPI
frames using SONET payload. After reading numerous articles on SONET,
I am still unclear on SONET standard. My questions are:

1) What is the algorithm used in scrambling STS-1 frames?

2) Given a STS-1 frames, by looking at the frame can one tell
   if the STS-1 payload contains one DS3 signals or several
   DS1 signals? Or does it matter?

3) HIPPI interface has two different data rate - 800 Mbit/s and
   1,600 Mbit/s. This means that one should use STS-18 (933 Mb/s)
   and STS-36 (1866 Mb/s), respectively. From what I can gather,
   the number of columns allocated to overhead is 3N for STS-N.
   This means that there are 54 and 108 columns allocated to
   STS-18 and STS-36, respectively. This is correct? If it is, then
   it seem to alot of waste of having 54 or 108 columns (translates
   to overhead of 40.104 Mb/s and 80.208 Mb/s) allocated to overhead
   for a single source.

Thanks in advance.


Ming Yin   [e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

From: Irving Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: 120 VAC-Powered Ringers
Date: 23 Mar 91 05:47:20 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island


A while back, I inquired here about externally powered, extra-loud
ringers that would not put much load on a phone line so several could
be used on a single extension of a key system for signalling in our
three buildings.

I did not get a useful answer from anyone.

I recently found a manufacturer -- of both strobes and horns, powered
by the AC line, in models for internal and external installation:

    Wheelock Inc.
    273 Branchport Ave.
    Long Branch, NJ  07740

The local Graybar outlet stocks part of their line.  I bought a few strobes
and they seem quite satisfactory.


[e-mail]         Happy Man Corp.     206/463-9399 ext.101
4410 SW Point Robinson Road,  Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399     fax ext.116

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 09:03:13
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Senate Committee Action on Bill


According to the 3/20 WALL STREET JOURNAL, "The Senate Commerce
Committee overwhelmingly approved legislation allowing the regional
Bell telephone companies to make telecommunications equipment...."

The JOURNAL article said the 18-1 vote on the bill introduced by
Committee Chair Ernest Hollings was criticized by AT&T and consumer
groups, because the phone companies would be able to compete unfairly,
which could lead to higher rates.  The article also indicated that
although Hollings wants a full Senate vote soon, a specific schedule
has not yet been set; and that although similar House legislation is
also expected, it is not likely to move quickly.

Rep. Markey is preparing a broader proposal, according to the JOURNAL.
Along with the Hollings bill's manufacturing provisions, Markey's bill
includes purported safeguards that would be placed on RBOCs if
Congress or the courts allows them to enter other now-restricted lines
of business.  The safeguards would allegedly prevent anti-competitive
behavior.  The action on the Hollings bill was praised by the Pacific
Telesis official who heads the RBOC coalition that has been pushing to
remove all the MFJ restrictions.

However, the JOURNAL reports opponents are trying to stop or change the
bill.  An AT&T spokesperson commented "This will take the equipment
market back to the past."  The article indicates that with some
exceptions, the present bill is much like the one that passed this
Committee in the last Congress.

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

Subject: Little Noticed Rate Increase in Massachusetts
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 16:34:24 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


When you have more than one phone line at your house here in
Massachusetts, it has in the past been the case that New England Tel
will unlist all but the first at no charge.

Recently I signed up for "Ringmate," the service that puts multiple
numbers on one line with different rings.  NET sent me a postcard
asking me to call them, and when I did they said that they will no
longer make the second line unlisted at no charge.  In fact, they now
charge extra to unlist the extra Ringmate numbers, too.  So I listed
them in the name of my dog, but the whole thing is rather strange.

I've called the DPU to complain, I'll report what they find.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 91 02:00:51 PST
From: Galen Wolf <[e-mail]>
Subject: PacBell Blocks 950-xxxx
Reply-To: Galen Wolf <hoptoad.UUCP![e-mail]>
Organization: Gentle Wolf


It used to be that it was always chancey to run into various COCOT's in
the SF Bay Area, so I'd always look for the PacBell payphones to place
my 950-0488 calling card calls, but as of a couple weeks ago, every
PacBell payphone I can find in Marin County is blocking touch-tones
after completing the connection to ITT/MetroMedia.  If I understand
correctly from reading here, this is illegal blocking of equal access,
and should be reported to the PUC, no?


[e-mail] {amdahl,pacbell,pyramid,sun,ucsfcgl,uunet}!hoptoad!galen
(Galen Wolf, Anu, POB 2010, Sparks, NV 89432-2010)
(800)SKY-PAGE, PIN:234-0000#, your (AAA)NNN-NNNN#


[Moderator's Note: It may be some technical problem instead, so before
reporting it to the PUC, why not ask PacBell what is going on?   PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Around-Town disappearing
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 91 19:39:56 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


As of 1 April, MCI's Around-Town is no more.

This was a GREAT feature, IMHO. Basically, if you used 950-xxxx access
from your local calling area, you did NOT pay the ripoff $0.75/0.80
charge. I've made lots of one minute calls that cost $0.19 or so. I've
got cards that are "local" to several areas so as to avoid overpaying
while traveling.

Last year, MCI started charging $0.25 per.

As seems to be the case, not just with MCI but all American business,
I only found out while calling about another matter. They promised
that my March statement would have a note stating such, but I just got
my AMEX bill, and there isn't a word about it in there.

Does Metromedia still offer their card with this feature?


[e-mail]   (305) 255-RTFM

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

From: Brian Holmes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Followup: Caller*ID Program for Macintosh
Organization: Wayne State University, Detroit
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 91 12:51:11 GMT


Many people have been asking me about the program for the Macintosh
that I made reference to in a previous article.  We have a beta
release of this program so I can't disclose what it is, but basically
it hooks into the serial port, and when someone calls it looks up in a
database to find who's number it is and tells you who is calling
before you even pick up the phone.  I'll post another message with
more info when I am at liberty to do so.


PHONE:    [phone]  FAX=577-5626          Wayne State University
BITNET:   [e-mail]               5925 Woodward
INTERNET: [e-mail]                 Detroit, MI 48202  U.S.A

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Payphone 10xxx-0- Access
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 91 19:46:52 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


I've been trying out 10xxx-0- access from payphones, and I'm getting
confused. I thought it should go:

    10xxx-0-ten digit <blat> card number

where in my case <blat> says "MCI."

But the end result is a voice-droid that says "Please enter a valid
calling card number" when it *IS* valid.

MCI, of course, claims to have NEVER heard of FGD access.

What gives?


[e-mail]     (305) 255-RTFM


[Moderator's Note: What gives, very simply, is that what you are
trying to do only works with Bell/ATT calling cards. You can still use
10222 or whatever, but you need to give a Bell/ATT card. To use your
MCI card, dial 950-1022 or 800-950-1022. It will work that way.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #231
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13736;
          24 Mar 91 6:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02994;
          24 Mar 91 4:43 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01668;
          24 Mar 91 3:37 CST
Date:     Sun, 24 Mar 91 2:41:24 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #232
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Mar 91 02:40:58 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 232

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cuban Telephone Service [[e-mail]]
    More About Selective Ringing [David Lesher]
    Hayes Applications Developers Conference [Toby Nixon]
    Silly Phone Arrangement For Arbitron Ratings [Curtis E. Reid]
    Tone on Cordless Phones [Roger B.A. Klorese]
    MCI Card for Germans Includes $15 Gift [Wolfgang R. Schulz]
    I Need Help Understanding the Terms Here [Christopher Wolf]
    Testing the Local COCOTS For Compliance [Doctor Math]
    Re: Microwave / Optical Links For Audio [Tim Pozar]
    Mickey Mouse Fone Company and Cellular Service [[e-mail]]
    Re: I Want to Buy a COCOT [Michael J. Logsdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 00:06:26 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cuban Telephone Service


     I remember, some time back, a discussion of the U.S. to Cuba
telephone links.  While I haven't been or called there, I do listen,
at times, to a shortwave station called Radio Rebelde.  I don't know
why it is called that since it is run by the Cuban government and is
not a clandestine.  Since my grasp of the Spanish is rather poor, I
listen to this and other stations as practice.

     A couple of months ago, the studio announcer was interviewing
several correspondents in Latin America about sports teams in their
areas.  The program was either live or someone made off with their
editing block as I heard three or four rather interesting telephone
calls.  The dialing and establishment of the line was being done off
the air, but every line was really pathetic.  The voice was
understandable enough, but the noises on each of the lines were like
something one might have heard on a U.S. telephone line 25 or 30 years
ago. There was the usual dialing cross-talk, a strong 60HZ hum on each
line, and a curious low-pitched beep like one hears on call-waiting.

I think that this was to indicate toll charges since it seemed to be
every two or three minutes.  Once, the remote correspondent's voice
ended suddenly with a loud click as something happened to his end of
the line.  After a few seconds of hum and noise, the Havana announcer
got the call restarted again.

A few minutes later, on the next call, the interview was going along
at a brisk clip when the operator, probably in Havana, brok in and
asked if they were through.  Neither the Havana announcer nor the
remote correspondent even slowed down in their conversation like this
sort of thing is normal.  A minute or so later, a different female
voice popped onto the line and asked again if they were through.

 From all of this, it seems that when free enterprise returns to Cuba,
the suppliers of modern telephone equipment will have a gold mine
refurbishing the island's networks.

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: More About Selective Ringing
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 11:50:17 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


Donald E. Kimberlin suggested that changing the capacitor in tuned
ringer phone will change its response to other frequencies. I hate to
object to his statement when the rest of his submission was full of
great telco history, but, according a friend of mine, who did
extensive magnetic (i.e. ferroresonant transformers) design work AND
also collected telephone equipment:

    The cap does NOT set the response of a mechanical ringer;
    rather it's done in the armature/coil design.

I can only add a story of my own. One day, the Big_Boss brought in
this old piece_of_junk 500 set, and complained it would no longer
ring.  Well, I hooked it up to my Subcycle, and sure enough, it hmmmed
a little, but no ring. Ah_ha, I thought, bad cap in the 425K network.
So I got the cap off of an old E1, and put it across A & K. Same
thing.

Well I asked the Big_Boss WHEN it stopped ringing, and got an evasive
answer. Turns out it was his mother's, and I guess he was catching
hell for not being able to fix it.

So then I took a stab in the dark, and said, "She used to have a party
line, before she moved. Correct?" He, at last, admitted such. I told
him to find another ringer, and I'd install it. He did, I did, and his
90 year old grandmother was happy with him.  Me? I kept the tuned
ringer, and gave it to friends for their telephone museum.

When you looked at the ringer, the magnetic shunt was cut.

      sssssssss
      s       s
    cccccc    s
    cccccc    s
    cccccc    sx
    cccccc     x
    cccccc    sx
    cccccc    s
    cccccc    s
    cccccc    s
      s       s
      sssssssss

where c is the coil, s the shunt, and x a piece of much thinner
material spot-welded around the gap.

By the way, there is another Ohio name to add to the saga.  C. P.
Stocker designed the first magnetic 60-20 hz converter, called it the
Sub-Cycle, and founded Lorain Products Inc. just west of Cleveland.
They also made no end of telco power equipment. I recall hearing about
a 5000 amp, 9 volt supply. Think how many Walkmans THAT would
run.

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Hayes Applications Developers Conference
Date: 24 Mar 91 00:14:07 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


1991 HAYES APPLICATIONS DEVELOPERS' CONFERENCE
Wednesday - Friday,  24-26 April 1991
San Francisco, California.


We would like to invite you to Hayes' Second Annual Developers'
Conference taking place 24-26 April 1991 at the Parc 55 Hotel in San
Francisco, California.

In order for you to develop leading-edge products, Hayes will show the
potential for developing the next generation of communications
software applications.  Attending the conference will be a great way
to get acquainted with Hayes and to learn about the newest
technologies for high-speed, multi-tasked communications and the
support programs that Hayes offers developers.  This three day
conference will focus on the following topics we feel are of interest
to you:


DAY 1 - Wednesday

ISDN - Integrated Services Digital Network

        ISDN is a standardized network that integrates voice, data,
        and image communication needs.  We will discuss the many
        opportunities for ISDN applications which use the unique
        capabilities of ISDN through our standard interfaces for
        ISDN:  Hayes Standard AT Command Set Enhanced for ISDN and
        the Hayes ISDNBIOS Interface.


DAY 2 - Thursday

Future Technology Directions

        Consists of a review on emerging standards, including the new
        facsimile DCE standards (Class 1 and 2).

ESI/ESP(TM)

        This interface, necessary for high performance serial port
        operations, eliminates data loss, improves system throughput
        and offloads the CPU during high speed serial communications.
        We will provide you with an understanding of how to implement
        this important Hayes technology.

AutoStream

        AutoStream is an interface for multisession operations on
        serial data channels.  It supports multiple software sessions
        through X.25 Packet Switching Networks (X.32/Dial-up X.25).
        This segment will provide an understanding of how to
        implement AutoStream in your environment.


DAY 3 - Friday

LANstep(TM)

        LANstep is Hayes' new Local Area Network Operating System.
        This network overview provides information on multi-tasking
        applications opportunities.  LANstep interfaces include:
        LANstep Network API and LANstep Mail API.


A conference brochure and registration form with pricing and other
information is available in the Developer SIG on the Online with
Hayes BBS -- 1-800-US HAYES (800-874-2937) or +1 (404) HI MODEM
(404-446-6336). Please select option 9 on the main menu to access the
Developer SIG.  Seating will be limited, so please register early.
We look forward to seeing you there.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call: Shereen Eltobgy,
Hayes Developer Conference Coordinator, 404-449-8791


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: Sat, 23 Mar 91 15:14 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Silly Phone Arrangement For Arbitron Ratings


During the last week I have been getting messages from a lady
representing "Arbitron Ratings" saying that I have been chosen to
participate in the TV/Radio rating.  Sounds good, right.

Well, the only catch is that this lady MUST reach me in person (on
phone) but she kept getting my answering machine.  She would call once
every day for five days at various hours until she gave up.

Why didn't I call back?  I could have if she HAD left her name and a
phone number to return the call!  I can't understand why someone would
keep calling everyday and never leave a name and phone number for me
to return the call.

I had to find a number for Arbitron Ratings (located in Maryland; I'm
in NY) and then I called them to "yell" at them about that lady.  They
said the placement interviewers are instructed NOT to leave a name or
phone number so that we won't have to pay long distance calls to
return the call.  I asked them that why can't you set up a 800 number?
They said no because they are all indidivuals and some may be
operating from their home which you can't call collect.

So, this one is the most stupid business practice I've yet to receive!
I won't be able to give them a rating because no one knows who is that
lady that they can follow up.  The lady's final message on the machine
said "This is the last time I'm going to call.  You are no longer
chosen to participate in Arbitron Ratings.  Bye."


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

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

From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tone on Cordless Phones
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 12:57:52 PST


Does anyone know of a cordless phone which will send tone for the full
time the key is depressed?  I've worked with some information services
that do not accept the minimum-duration tone consistently.


ROGER B.A. KLORESE                          MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
MS 6-05    930 DeGuigne Dr.   Sunnyvale, CA  94088      [phone]
[e-mail]         {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!rogerk

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

From: SuperVisor <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Card for Germans Includes $15 Gift
Date: 23 Mar 91 17:27:48 GMT


Since MCI now offers "Call USA" from Germany (by toll-free number
0130-0012), unlike AT&T's Calling Card, everybody can get the MCI
Card, as long as he has a MasterCard or VISA Card.  With sign up
until March 31, 1991 you will receive $15 off calls to the U.S.  The
address is: MCI International, Langstrasse 50 6450, Hanau.
Phone: [phone]-24   FAX: [phone]


Wolfgang R. Schulz, Hamburg, Germany BTX (and phone): 0405521878
Bang:     ...unido!mcshh!wrs     UUCP: [e-mail]
Internet: [e-mail]     MCI:  241-2526

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

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 01:50:05 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: I Need Help Understanding The Terms Here


I don't mean to bother everyone, but could someone explain some of the
terms and words used in a previous Digest post?  I've pulled portions
of the text from the document.  The words marked with '*'s are the
words or phrases I don't understand.

> He was on the last of four *POTS lines, and the "ground on one side
> of the pair was VERY obvious ... he reported that he had a *board
> full of failures, and both *(60 ma. loop) *ASR-28's were *"running
> open," too.

POTS                    - what are they?
'ground on...obvious'   - what does this mean?
board                   - what is it?
running open            - what does this mean?

> I quickly *(before the last pair died - a few minutes later) reminded
> him to use the 156 mhz radio as needed, and had him drive down the
> cable route to find the problem.

What happens after the last pair dies?

> Through some miracle, I got the *611-droid to wake up the Cable foreman
> for the area. After several attempts, I got the one for the correct
> district ;-}. *(The others went back to sleep.)

611-droid      - what is this?
back to sleep  - huh??

> fire had been at a *corner pole, and had wiped out a *splice cap, too. A
> four man crew, or maybe more, worked until late that afternoon. It was

corner pole    - what is it?
splice cap     - what is it?

> What you REALLY want to do, John, is just get a *SLC-96 installed in
> your basement ;^]. Then, next fire, all they would have to do is run
> some new fibers.

SLC-96     - what is it?

I can guess at some of the stuff, like the SLC-96 having to be some
sort of terminator for fiber optic cable, but most is WAY above me.
If someone gets some time, could you mail me and explain some of the
terms aboce, and some of the effects of some of the things mentioned?

Thanks!

Christopher Wolf

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

From: Doctor Math <moocow![e-mail]>
Subject: Testing the Local COCOTS For Compliance
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 02:21:03 GMT
Organization: Brown Cow Software (a licensed Waffle developer)


Today I went to Local Mall and tested some COCOTS found therein for
compliance. Free 800 and 950, 10288+0 indeed got me an AT&T Operator,
0+10D didn't get me anywhere, and I couldn't dial 102xx+0+10D. It also
didn't allow 1-700-555-4141 or any combination thereof (see below).  I
called the 800 number on the front of the phone and Some Lady took my
complaint that I could not make ANY long-distance calls. I'll check up
on them next time I'm over there.

Handy Side Note:

10xxx+1-700-555-4141 will reveal the name of any known long-distance
carrier, regardless of the default 1+. 10732 tells me "You have
reached a private network. To complete long-distance calls, you must
be authorized by your account team or long-distance sales
representative. You may dial 102881 plus the number you desire to
call.", followed by a local intercept: "Your call did not go through.
Please try your call again."  Question: What is AT&T's SDN, what does
it do, and can "ordinary" people get it?

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Pozar)
Subject: Re: Microwave / Optical Links for Audio
Date: 24 Mar 91 18:16:03 GMT
Organization: Late Night Software (San Francisco)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Kauto
Huopio OH5LFM) writes:

>> 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.

    This will not work, unless you can get a all-pass filter to
correct for the phase distortion that the parametric EQ will introduce
into the path.  I also haven't found a parametric EQ that will pass
the 75KHz or so needed for composite stereo.

    Perhaps the orginal poster should consider an STL at 950MHz?


Tim
       [e-mail]  Fido: 1:125/555  PaBell: 415-788-3904
    USNail:  KKSF-FM / 77 Maiden Lane /  San Francisco CA 94108

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 14:41:43 PST
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mickey Mouse Fone Company and Cellular Service


Does anyone know if there is cellular service at Walt Disney World?

reb

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 20:42:46
From: "Michael J. Logsdon" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Want to Buy a COCOT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


With the various solutions mentioned to avoid installing a COCOT, one
included installing a TOLL restrictor on one of the school's PBX lines
or stations.  If any school intends to do this, I'd be glad to give
them (or any experimenter) one of the 12 Mitel units we have just
taken out of service.


Mike Logsdon  [e-mail]
University School
VOICE 216-831-2213  FAX [phone] enter 388

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #232
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14241;
          24 Mar 91 7:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10859;
          24 Mar 91 5:47 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02994;
          24 Mar 91 4:43 CST
Date:     Sun, 24 Mar 91 4:02:38 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #233
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Mar 91 04:02:35 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 233

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta [Robert Jacobson]
    Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta [Terry Kennedy]
    Re: Urban Legend?  -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins! [William Degnan]
    Re: Urban Legend?  -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins! [John Ruckstuhl]
    Re: Caller*ID Hits Toronto [David McKellar]
    Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu / Motorola [C Ibbotson]
    Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu / Motorola [P Hull]
    Re: PBS Pledge Drive for March, 1991 [Tim Irvin]
    Re: PBS Pledge Drive for March, 1991 [Peter Marshall]
    Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones [Randy Borow]
    Re: Would That COCOTs Had This [Stan M. Krieger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta
Date: 23 Mar 91 00:56:03 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle


In response to the Moderator's question,

Caller ID in New Jersey has a penetration of between three and ten
percent, hardly an appealing marketshare for those planning various
forms of universal databases based on telephone number IDs.  Combined
with the fact that New Jersey, grand as it is, does not constitute a
broad geographical or demographic market (it's only about eight
million people, of whom a third are children or retired without
means), the NJ "experiment" is far too small to engender major abuses.
What's needed is for a whole or a substantial part of an RBOC,
combining several SMAs, to go Caller ID.  Then we should see the
information brokers at work!


Bob Jacobson

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta
Date: 24 Mar 91 08:35:47 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


In article <[e-mail]>, cyberoid@milton.u.
washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: What about in places like New Jersey, where
> Caller*ID has been a reality now for about a year? Maybe one or more
> of the 'veterans' of Caller*ID will write on the topic of abuses -- if
> there are any -- now that this new technology has had a chance to get
> established.   PAT]

  Well, I believe my employer (St. Peter's College) was the first
non-internal installation of Caller*ID. We had just converted to
Centrex from a Dimension PBX and started having problems like people
calling the main number from the corner payphone and asking "May I
have an outside line, please?". Since the Dimension consoles provided
the extension number and the Centrex attendant position didn't, there
was no way of knowing what was an inside call and what was not.  This
would have remained a minor nuisance except that the pranks were
extended to bomb threats.

  In pursuing this with the authorities (both police and telco), we
were informed of the plans for Caller*ID. We got display units (AT&T
models, not the plastic ones the telco now offers) for the main
numbers. At that time, ICLID was enabled for all Centrex lines, even
though it didn't show up in the feature set in CCRS (I believe this
was a special generic, if that makes any sense, which was loaded for
us). It also delivered the information before _each_ ring instead of
on the first ring only, as it does now.

  Somewhere along the way it was converted to a per-line basis and
first-ring only. We stopped getting the threats and other harrasment.
At this point I have ICLID enabled on my office phone, but don't have
a display box. I haven't received any more or less sales calls than
before Caller*ID was offered, and I don't recall any that were
"targeted" at me (as some suggest Caller*ID would be used by
merchants). The same is true for my home phone.


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

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 16:16:42 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Urban Legend? -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins!


 From: [e-mail]

> The story goes that a woman in Florida with "caller ID" on her
> phone was receiving obscene phone calls.  She reported the phone
> number to the police and the caller was charged.

Well, it is unlikely it was Florida. I don't believe it has been
implemented there.

I suspect we would have heard about it (if true) before you could have
heard about it in class.


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]

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

From: John Ruckstuhl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Urban Legend?  -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins!
Date: 24 Mar 91 01:10:39 GMT
Organization: EE Dept at UF


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nancy J
Airey) writes:

> The story goes that a woman in Florida with "caller ID" on her phone
> was receiving obscene phone calls.  She reported the phone number to
> the police and the caller was charged.
> The caller sued her for invasion of privacy and won.

Probably not in Florida -- a Southern Bell Customer Service person
told me that CallerID wasn't available in Florida (yet) because of
current state laws.  An easy way to disprove the story is to verify my
information (left as an exercise to the reader -- I don't know who to
ask for *guaranteed* accurate information, but I'm sure some of you do. :)


Best Regards,

John R Ruckstuhl, Jr            [e-mail]
Dept of Electrical Engineering        [e-mail], uflorida!ruck
University of Florida            [e-mail], sphere!ruck

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

From: David McKellar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Hits Toronto
Reply-To: David McKellar <[e-mail]>
Organization: Digital Media Networks
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1991 12:44:21 -0500


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Eric Skinner) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 218, Message 5 of 12

> According to an otherwise-clueless Bell Canada representative,
> Caller*ID, or "Call Management Services" as it is known here, will be
> available in Toronto effective April 22nd.

A phone bill insert also says that subscribers can call the operator
and ask to have their phone number kept secret for one call - the
operator then places the call.  FOR ONLY C$.75 A CALL !!!!!  Anyone
want to start a Canadian 1-900-STOPPER service for 50 cents a shot ?


Dave McKellar   UUCP: [e-mail]
UUCP bang: ...!uunet!jtsv16!geac!dmntor!djm
BITNET: [e-mail]

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

From: Craig Ibbotson <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu vs Motorola
Date: 23 Mar 91 20:07:35 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> I am certainly happy with mine. But buy it because it is good, not
> because it is "American".

I agree with you 100%.  My point was simply if there are two products
of equal quality, performance and price, I would buy the American
product.  Buying something just because it is "American", regardless
of quality, is rewarding poor performance if that product is not up to
snuff.

Any of you who are interested in a more detailed review of the
Motorola Personal Communicator should see this month's {Cellular
Business}; there is a review on page 74.  This month's cover story is
about cellular fraud, a topic which has been showing up here and in
comp.risks with increasing frequency.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu vs Motorola
Date: 24 Mar 91 05:56:39 GMT
Reply-To: <cogsci.berkeley.edu![e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


> That Fujitsu phone was developed with Japanese government money,
> targeted to destroy the Micro-TAC and Motorola.  Please understand
> that Japanese view competition as warfare, and that they (like George
> Bush) do not settle for less than total victory.  Motorola must
> develop new products out of revenues from sales of existing products,
> like all American companies.

> You may choose to ignore these facts when you make your choice of
> products.  But you may wish to ponder the impact thousands of
> decisions like yours will have on the future of America, and your job.

These facts (I'm assuming they ARE facts) would only serve to
encourage me to buy the Japanese item.  If they're smart enough to
figure out a way to design a competitor to the Micro-TAC that's so
good that it puts an end to the the Micro-TAC, more power to them.

Instead of whining about their methods or buying inferior products
that are made inefficiently by ill-educated and/or lazy U.S. workers,
the truly American response would be to buy the best product at the
lowest price, regardless of its origin.  Perhaps the solution to your
problem is to have the U.S. government actually develop a national
industrial policy.  When it's done that, perhaps it could look past
its parochialism and learn something from Japanese methods ... even
perhaps ... dare I suggest it? .... fund new product development.


Philip V. Hull

INTERNET: [e-mail]   BITNET: [e-mail]
UUCP: ucbvax!cogsci!hullp  OR: ucbvax!cogsci.berkeley.edu!hullp

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

From: Tim Irvin <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: PBS Pledge Drive for March, 1991
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 09:38:36


In TELECOM Digest V11 #225, Moderator writes:

> Have you any idea how many
> millions of dollars AT&T has given away to the performing arts and
> small neighborhood social service organizations? ... Millions.   PAT]

How many millions??  You say Millions of millions??  Well let's see
that would make at the least 1,000,000 x 1,000,000 = 1,000,000,000,000
or a Trillion Dollars.  But then since you said Million*s* of millions
then I guess this would be Trillion*s*.  Boy I had no idea AT&T was
THAT generous, no wonder their rates are so high :).


Sorry, I just couldn't resist.....

Tim Irvin


[Moderator's Note: What I mean of course was millions of dollars, not
millions of millions ... but I know you were just joshing me!  :)  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: PBS Pledge Drive for March, 1991
From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 00:42:04 GMT


Mr. Poulsen's wariness toward the "generosity" of telcos is both
healthy and warranted, although the example he cites may not be
appropriately labelled advertising.

The overall area is signficant enough that whole books have been
written about it, although with the current example, we may be talking
about what would be called "charitable contributions." In regulatory
practice, such expenses can be, and are, treated as either above or
below-the-line for ratemaking purposes. It is also the case that such
"charitable contributions" can have their "political" purposes and can
thus be leveraged for the contributor's purposes.

More could be learned from PUC staff on the topic, of course.
It is all too obvious, finally, that the Moderator did not, and does not,
share Mr. Poulsen's scepticism, choosing simply to paint it "cynical" in
his apologia.


Peter Marshall

                    halcyon![e-mail]
  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA


[Moderator's Note: Well, it is just that I have seen so much good come
from corporate charity in Chicago, I find it hard to believe it was
all -- or even a large part of it was -- being given in a cynical way.
Sears, Roebuck has kept an inner-city branch of the YMCA of
Metropolitan Chicago going for years. Granted, the institution is
named the 'Sears YMCA'. We have large quantities of **old** money
here, left by George Pullman, Phillip Armour, Aaron Montgomery Ward,
Richard Sears, and others which continues to do good. What corporate
benefits has Standard Oil received lately from Rockefeller's having
founded the University of Chicago, or his endowment of the Riverside
Church 65 years ago?  What benefits does Armour and Company get these
days from the Illinois Institute of Technology?  What benefits does
Kodak receive because George Eastman endowed the Rochester Symphony
Orchestra?  And in our own area of interest Alex Bell gave lots of
money to organizations working with deaf people. When his wife Mabel
died, she left even more.  Every one of them cynics, is that it?  PAT]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones
Date: 23 Mar 91 20:31:27 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

>        Walk to Radio Shack and pick up a Touch-tone phone? I've never
> been satisfied w/ anything less than a genuine Bell-made or AT&T-made
> Touch-tone phone. I've had nothing but bad luck with those Radio
> Shack, QT&T, etc.  phones. Give me a REAL Touch-tone phone, with those
> familiar beeps and boops, anyday. Who'd you think invented
> "Touch-tone" anyway? Of course, it has fallen into everyday use, like
> other corporate trademarks: xerox, etc.

    There is a whole continuum of telephone manufacturers these
days, from AT&T (clearly out in front in terms of quality) to the kind
of outfit that builds the football-shaped gizmos that Sports
Illustrated gives away.

    IMHO Radio Shack phones are nearer the high end of the quality
spectrum than the low end, especially the stuff that was built by
Stromberg-Carlson (do they still stock them?)

    In fact, I have seen Radio Shack phones that were clearly of
higher quality than some of the stuff marketed by the Baby Bells.

    All the phones at my house say "AT&T" on them, though.


Jeff Carroll  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat Mar 23 09:53:42 CST 1991
Subject: Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones


I suppose I should have clarified what I meant by "Genuine Bell"
phones. I agree with most of you hypersensitive critics of such
phones. What I actually meant by such terminology was the old Western
Electric phones -- you know, the hard as rock, durable, nuclear bomb
proof phones with the authentic Bell logo on them. Heck, my
grandfather worked in the old Cicero, IL. Western Electric factory
(remember THAT place, Pat, and its towering walls on Cermak?), and I
can't forget the stuff he got for us years ago. Over 40 years he spent
with them. It was a sad time when they called it quits!

So, I know some of AT&T's phones, GE's phones, SW Bell's phones, etc.
"ain't what they used to be." I simply miss the old days. Nothing
wrong with a bit of nostalgia, now is there, folks?


Randy Borow   Rolling Meadows, IL.

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 15:15:29 EST
From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Would That COCOTs Had This
Organization: Summit NJ


(About an Illinois Bell phone)

> A statement stating that you could use an access code to get your own
> long distance carrier.

What I've seen on some COCOTs lately is a statement to the effect that
if I want to use a different Long Distance company, I should contact
that company for instructions (BTW, does that mean the keyboard won't
be disabled on 1-800 and 950 numbers?).

Anyway, the instructions my long distance company gave me was to push
10-ATT-0 before the area code and number, but that doesn't work, so
now what?


Stan Krieger                     All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
AT&T UNIX System Laboratories    if related to my employment, are my own and
Summit, NJ                       do not represent any public or private
att!attunix!smk                  policies of my employer.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #233
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15183;
          24 Mar 91 8:21 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14826;
          24 Mar 91 6:52 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10859;
          24 Mar 91 5:47 CST
Date:     Sun, 24 Mar 91 4:56:09 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #234
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Mar 91 04:55:57 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 234

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign [Peter da Silva]
    Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign [Michael Ho]
    Re: Phone Line Simulator Needed to Test Modems [Mark Oberg]
    Re: New Online Service? [Randy Miller]
    Re: The Press and Numbers [Joe Abernathy]
    Re: 201-200 Prefix Now Exists [Terry Kennedy]
    Re: Questions About New Service Being Installed [John Higdon]
    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Brad Haynes]
    Re: Questions About AT&T Credit Card Calls [David E. Sheafer]
    Re: Higdon an Expert on 2600 Hz? [Floyd Davidson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 1991 23:08:10 GMT


I said:

> > Even if AT&T gets rid of every COCOT in the country, I will need to
> > retain my FONcard for calls from private FONs. I really think they're
> > cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I think I should clarify, because there has been some question about
this comment...

I'm talking about business phones. PBXes in offices rarely allow
anything but 1+, and some of them (like the place I now work) won't
even allow that unless you have an employee code. But I can call
1-800-877-8000 from anywhere, and get dialtone I can depend on.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 01:56:48 GMT


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

> Excuse me, but I don't get the point. I can use 10Nnnn dialing either
> with a "0" for credit card calls or a "1" for billed calls from
> private phones.

 .. if they have Equal Access, which is mandated for BOC's.  Is it
mandatory for independent carriers?  Are there still areas in the
country that are, er, unEqual?

And there's still a problem if you're inside somebody else's PBX
system, many of which really don't appreciate 10XXX.

Anecdote warning:

For a long time, our analog Centrex system at UNL permitted the 10xxx
override in a roundabout way.  LD calls have to be dialed as 9-area
code-number.  I took a guess that the '9' was getting passed on as a
'1' to the outside world, so I used 90xxx-1-area code-number...  and
the (700) number reported the right carrier.  The Telecommunications
Office billed me AT&T rates regardless, but the point was to get on a
better line (yes, there was a region where an alternate carrier had
better lines than AT&T during that time).

When the Centrex was upgraded from an analog switch to a digital
switch, the 0xxx1 trick magically failed to work.  (This is how it was
described to me, so I may be wrong about the switches.)

UNL also goofed up the billing that month, during which they 1) failed
to apply an AT&T rate cut and 2) forgot how to perform answer
supervision, leading to a whole slew of one-minute calls.  They
rectified both a couple of months later.


Michael Ho, University of Nebraska  Internet: [e-mail]
Disclaimer:  Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be
         applied to any university agency.

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

From: Mark Oberg <grout![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Line Simulator Needed to Test Modems
Date: 22 Mar 91 22:16:41 GMT
Organization: Eric's PC   Beltsville, MD


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Joseph Chan) writes:

> We got several V32 9600baud modems.  I have not got them to talk at
> 9600 baud rate.  They work at 2400 baud.  I suspect that the phone
> line (we had) may have trouble to connect at 9600 baud.  To determine
> this, I would need a simple phone line simulator, such that I can
> connect two modems together with go through the local phone line.
> Could anyone show me how to make a simple phone line simulator?  Thank
> you.

I once wanted to do something similar and found that if I connected
the two modems together with a RJ-11 type cord I could get them to
talk to each other by placing each modem on it's own terminal program
(and computer) and instructing one modem to "ATO" (Hayes for go
online) and the other to "ATA" (Hayes for answer a call).  The two
modems will send their carrier and handshake sequence, connect, and
you can send data between them.  No need for a phone line simulator;
just a phone cord.


Mark Oberg - Voice: Northstar Telecom, Inc.  [phone]
UUCP: uunet!grout!mark
Fidonet: 1:109/506 & 1:261/1067
BBS: No Place Like Home - [phone] & [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 22:03:26 CST
From: Randy Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Online Service?


In message from [e-mail], Mr. Sicherman writes:

>  The latest issue of BYTE (March 1991) has a stiff card with an ad
> offering free time on a new online service in return for some feedback
> on the service. Does not mention how long the free time will last or
> how much use will be allowed. Also no mention of access means or
> costs.  The card has questions on hardware configuration so they can
> send the proper software. Also inquires about other online services
> that you use.

>  The front of the card is addressed to Telecommunications
> Clearinghouse in Vienna VA.  Is this a front address for the actual
> company and does anyone know anything more about it?

  By looking at the street address, it appears to be Quantum Computer
Services, the company that gives us People-Line, PC-Link and America
Online.  They've done this type of thing before, with the predecessor
to America Online, AppleLink Personal Edition (and yes, you can
imagine the confusion brought about by the those of us that have used
the REAL AppleLink, run by Apple Computer via General Electric
Information Services Co. system.)  I'd be wary of them, since I've had
problems with them in the past.


Randy Miller  [e-mail]   crash!pro-harvest!rs.miller

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 17:05:55 CST
From: Joe Abernathy <chron!magic322![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Press and Numbers


One more time, then, since some of you have chosen to turn nasty.

I find the discussion of whether the man was telling the truth to be
of interest, but a couple of things need to be put into order.

First: The number isn't wrong because somebody here (or anywhere)
throws out undocumented numbers saying so. It isn't wrong if some rate
guide you have says it is, unless you research the tariffs governing
operation of the phone service in question during time of crisis --
we're talking about a war, remember.

Next: Even if the number is wrong, the way it was presented is
completely valid journalism. "That sort of fraud can total up to
$30,000 a day." What this statement is intended to do is provide some
sort of general framework so that the casual observer can get a feel
for what's going on. He didn't say how much money his company had
lost, and he wasn't having the conversation with me in good graces, so
you couldn't expect him to throw open his books. What he gave us was a
reasonable statement for a man who felt his company to be under fire.

There are a lot of niceties involved in getting a reliable number in
this sort of story, but as this discussion should reveal, there are
also a lot of holes for you to fall into when you choose to attack
such a number. If I tried to print any of the discussions I've read
here, I'd be accused of spouting wild-eyed speculation.

Give it a rest, guys, or do some research of your own.


Joe


[Wild-Eyed Speculator's Note: Yes folks, lets give it a rest, or take
it to the alt.bash.abernathy newsgroup. By and large, his article was
good and useful; and I was privileged to have it for use here.  Of
course, I may just be speculating on this last point! :)   PAT]

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 201-200 Prefix Now Exists
Date: 23 Mar 91 21:33:52 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Carl Moore)
writes:

> 201-200 appears in a new call guide as Jersey City, NJ.  (This is
> written in response to an old note which wondered if any prefixes of
> N00 form existed, and I had pointed out some in what is now 213/818 in
> Los Angeles area.)

  This exchange has had subscribers for the last seven months, and was
active (with no assigned numbers except internal ones) for longer than
that. It is being billed as "for ISDN subscribers only", although one
of my co-workers has a 200-0xxx number for his house (and no, he
doesn't have ISDN 8-).


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

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 19:34 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Questions About New Service Being Installed


"Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]> writes:

>    I found out my new service will be serviced by a 1ESS switch.  Can
> anybody explain the difference between that and a 5ESS switch?  I
> would really appreciate it if somebody could detail what each switch
> capability is.

The 1ESS is the original Electronic Switching System. It is archaic.
It is essentially an electronically controlled mechanical switch. The
processor is slow and the memory is small and as a result its feature
offering is deficient. It does not have enough feature store for SS7
and hence cannot provide CLASS features. Its Call Waiting cannot be
temporarily cancelled (not enough room for CCW in the feature store).

The 1AESS is the mid-seventies enhancement of the 1E. It uses a much
more capable processor, a greatly expanded (and faster) memory, and a
rich feature offering, although it is still analog. It can offer all
features, including CLASS and its feature implementation is considered
industry standard. To the ear, it sounds identical to the old 1E and
cannot be differentiated in that manner. (A good test is whether or
not Cancel Call Waiting is available.)

The 5ESS is AT&T's current flagship switch. It is fully digital and
offers or will eventually offer every single CO switch feature known
to mankind. It does ISDN, CLASS, everything. It has lousy three-way
calling compared to either the 1ESS or the 1AESS, but you cannot have
everything. It's three-way is better than a DMS100 without the proper
hardware/software packages, however.

I am told that someday (no one knows when) all the crossbar in my CO
will all be replaced with a 5ESS. Couldn't help but be an improvement.


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

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

From: Brad Haynes <emory!tridom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws
Organization: AT&T Tridom; Marietta, Georgia
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1991 03:05:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chuck
Forsberg WA7KGX) writes:

> Yes, Senate Bill 12 for 1991.  Ask your senator to mail you a copy,
> then bug him to support it if you agree with it.  Hearings were held
> on S.12 last week, but the issues were not covered by CNN.

This is an issue that I have been supporting for quite some time.  I
live in an apartment complex in Metro Atlanta that contracted with
Maxtel Cable to provide CATV services.  We signed up as soon as we
moved in.

The installation guy was the most unprofessional person I have ever
dealt with.  He knocked over stuff in every room trying to tone out
each of the outlets in the apartment.  The choice of premium stations
was pretty poor and the local station signals were worse than having
and indoor antenna.  This was really frustrating since the local city
cable provider has a great reputation, better selection and pricing.
We were stuck.  After griping at Maxtel for a while, I solved the
problem by disconnecting their service and living without.

As far as wiring, I have wanted to do some creative things with the
TV/CATV/VCR connections in every place I have lived.  In each case,
each outlet was run back to the provider's box.  Very annoying.

I guess the point to all this is to support the Senate Bill!


Brad Haynes; AT&T Tridom; [e-mail]

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

From: "David E. Sheafer, Class of 1989" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About AT&T Credit Card Calls
Date: 23 Mar 91 23:47:20 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron
Newman) writes:

> 1. If I use an AT&T Universal Card to make an intra-LATA call (e.g.
> between 617 and 508), how does this get billed?  Is the call carried
> by AT&T or by the local Bell operating company (in this case, New
> England Telephone)?  How does the BOC know that it should accept an
> AT&T-issued card?  (Note: an AT&T Universal card number does not begin
> with a "real" phone number.)

   This would be billed by New England Telephone and you would not
recieve the 10% AT&T credit.  The Baby Bells have access to AT&T's
database and therefore can verify that it is a valid card.

> 2. Can I use an AT&T Universal Card to make an intra-LATA call between
> a Bell and a non-Bell area?

> 3. For the above two questions, does it matter whether I dialed 10288
> (10ATT) or not?

  No, because the call is being handled by NET and not AT&T.

> 4. What happens if I try to use an AT&T Universal Card on
> for a non-AT&T inter-LATA call, because either -

>   (a) the "Dial 1" selection was not AT&T, or
>   (b) I used a carrier code such as 10222, 10333, etc. ?
>
   Most likely wont go through.  With MCI you will get an "invalid
card" message.  (AT&T cards related to an actual phone number will go
through and be billed by the MCI).

   With Sprint, you will most likely ending up talking to an operator.


David E. Sheafer  internet:  [e-mail]
uucp:      samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b
GEnie:     D.SHEAFER             Freenet ap345
Bitnet:    Sheafer_davi@bentley

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hidgon an Expert on 2600 Hz?
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1991 07:35:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Steve Forrette) writes:

> John Higdon writes:

>> For the record, there was another way calls could be rotary dialed
>> without hard wire. Many LD tandems used to respond to pulses of 2600
>> Hz and would complete calls based on numbers "dialed" in this manner.
>> Hence, 2600 Hz would serve as both supervisory and signaling carrier.
>> It was called "SF" (single frequency).

> You seem to know an awful lot about what 2600Hz can be used for! :-)

> [Moderator's Note: And what about you Steve? Are you familiar with the
> process also?  Do you use it a lot at your place?  :)  For those not
> in on the joke, 2600 hz was long used as a fraud tool by phreaks to
> override the billing equipment and make calls for free. If you want to
> know *how*, write each other -- NOT me! I have enough problems this
> century, and I won't answer nor will I print any letters on the subject.

I'd be quite happy to discuss the use of 2600Hz on trunks with anyone
who wants to.  From 'x' type SF units (the ones with tubes) to what is
used today.  But first a little comment: You poke a 2600Hz tone on a
trunk through *my* toll switch and one of two things happens, 1)
nothing if it is a ccis trunk, or 2) a nice log report prints out
telling everyone what trunk and what the calling number and called
number were.

Talk about blue-boxing all you want, but don't even think of using
one.


Floyd L. Davidson  |  [e-mail]   |  Alascom, Inc. pays me
Salcha, AK 99714   |    Univ. of Alaska      |  but not for opinions.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #234
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29635;
          25 Mar 91 0:37 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31722;
          24 Mar 91 22:59 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30095;
          24 Mar 91 21:54 CST
Date:     Sun, 24 Mar 91 21:47:02 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #235
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Mar 91 21:46:53 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 235

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: UK Deregulation - Big News [Jarom Hagen]
    Re: Telephone Monopoly in Delaware Ends [Michael Ho]
    Re: Punch Down (or Something Similar) For Home [Andrew Morley]
    Re: Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security [John Higdon]
    Sprint's Marvellous Billing [John Higdon]
    Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones [Lou Kates]
    Re: Anyone Remember the "Tele-Trainer"? [Jim Greenlee]
    Re: The Early Days of Telephony [Al L. Varney]
    Re: Ziggy Cartoon Mocks 900 Number "Easy Credit" [Brian Crawford]
    Re: PacBell Blocks 950-xxxx [Peter da Silva]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jarom Hagen)
Subject: Re: UK Deregulation - Big News
Date: 24 Mar 91 17:15:56 GMT
Organization: NPRI, Alexandria VA


tharr![e-mail] (Steve Hamley) writes:

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

>>> On a different note: what exactly are "lifetime telephone numbers"?

> As for the technical feasibility, both the BT and Mercury digital
> networks are already capable of assigning a logical telephone number
> or block of numbers to any physical location. The lumbering giants
> will no doubt take years to decide on the marketing and how much to
> charge though.

In Brazil they offer "lifetime telephone numbers" exclusively.  In
other words you pay the phone company for your "number". This probably
has to do with the fact that most homes don't have telephones (still a
luxury item in Brazil), so even the wiring to your house may have to
be done for the first time.

However, in Brazil you may not be able to get a telephone line even if
you have the money because "all the numbers in your area have been
sold".  At least that is what they tell you when they put you on a
waiting list until one becomes available.  Once you have a telephone
line you may also sell it to someone else.


Jarom

*Not paid for and/or endorsed by National Political Resources Incorporated.
                   602 Cameron St, Alexandria VA 22314
  (UUCP: ...uunet!uupsi!pbs!npri6!jhagen)


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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: Re: Telephone Monopoly in Delaware Ends
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 05:41:37 GMT


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

[competition within states]

> *Is* this a trend across the country?

I don't know.  Nebraska is highly deregulated; the PUC -- we call it a
PSC, or Public Service Commission, here -- has *NO* authority to
question a local company's rate increase unless a petition of
complaint, signed by 3% of the subscribers, is received.  (I believe
it's 3%.  If I'm wrong, it's 5%.  It certainly isn't lower.)

As such, all of my in-state long-distance calls -- regardless of LATA
crossovers -- go to my Dial-1 carrier.  At least, I know this is true
for US West <-> US West and US West <-> LincolnTel.  I don't know if
it is true for LincolnTel <-> LincolnTel, as there's nothing else in
LincolnTel territory that I care about (lots of corn, few people).

It appears that when a call is "close enough," the call goes by
default to the BOC -- such as from Omaha to Blair, a 10-mile call --
but that can be overridden by 10xxx.

(An example of deregulation: It cost me $65 to get a phone installed
in US West territory.  Is that unusual in the outside world?  It only
cost $25 or so here under LincolnTel.)


Michael Ho,  University of Nebraska    Internet: [e-mail]
Disclaimer:  Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be
         applied to any university agency.

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

From: [e-mail] (Morley A.B.)
Subject: Re: Punch Down (or Something Similar) for Home
Date: 24 Mar 91 14:53:19 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim
Ray) writes:

> I was wondering if there is any sort of mini-block punch down or

We are building a new house (actually a barn conversion) and are
thinking about the telecom implications (ie running six or eight cores
to each room).  My question is: What IS a "mini-block punch down"?
Might it be of use to me?


Andrew Morley - Flossie - [e-mail] ... [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 21:10 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security


Lauren Weinstein <[e-mail]> writes:

> If any of you are Sprint customers and *are* concerned (either as an
> individual or as an organization) about the privacy issues involved
> with this system, or even if you are a non-customer and can offer
> Sprint some insight into the issues involved, I would suggest that
> each of you take Ms. Richter up on her offer and express your views,
> so that Sprint will have more opinions on which to base any future
> decisions about their system.

I have expressed my opinions to Sprint until my throat and fingertips
hurt. You get a lot of "we appreciate your business" but not any real
action. When Sprint started handing out my account balance (and the
date and size of my last payment) to the world, I stopped prefixing
any of my calls with 10333. If people want to get an idea of the
amount of my long distance traffic, they will not get it from the
Sprint Chatty-Kathy.

Last night, I learned that an associate had just had one of his lines
slammed by Sprint. That, coupled with the outage today, the chronic
billing problems and the unreliability enhanced by a brain-dead
service department has pretty well convinced me to save myself future
headaches and go elsewhere for long distance service. At this point,
Sprint would have to be nearly free for me to consider using it
further.

BTW, the suggestion by Sprint of using zipcode as a security key is a
major laugh. Right now, it is given to the inquiring caller: "the
zipcode on this account is 'XXXXX'. If this is correct press '1'." So,
if you have any thoughts about sneaking a peek at someone's Sprint
account and you really do not know the billing zipcode, be sure to
call now and Sprint will give it to you for future reference!

For the record, I have had a Sprint account since it was Southern
Pacific Communications offering the excess capacity of the railroad
communications. Considering the resouces, technology, and talent that
operation has had available to it, it certainly has become a
monumental disappointment.


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

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

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 91 20:45 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Sprint's Marvellous Billing


Last month, I posted about how Sprint had billed me for $125 worth of
calls to Edgecliff, TX from an number that I had not controlled for
years. While they agreed to remove the charges, I received a threat of
disconnection one week later for not paying the bill. The immediate
outcome was some reassuring phone calls that all would be made right
and an admission that the problem was all at their end (I had, indeed
notified Sprint of the disconnection of the number in question).

This month's bill had another surprise. This time it was $254 worth of
calls from that same number to not only Edgecliff, TX, but Atlanta,
India (the country), Santa Monica, and Torrance. I called the rep who
agreed once again to remove the calls and said that the billing number
in question had been removed from my account on March 3.
Unfortunately, there are calls from that number billed through the
cutoff of the March 13 invoice. If anyone had any suspicions or hopes
that Sprint has finally put its billing house in order, I can
authoritatively dash them now. Sprint's billing is still very much as
bad as ever. I wonder if I will be billed for calls to that old number
forever?

On another Sprint note, a train derailment in Hayward today killed all
Sprint service to the Bay Area for a number of hours. The media was
quick to point out that customers could place calls through MCI or
AT&T but did not give any instructions on how that might be done.

Remember the old days when such an occurance would just plain knock
out long distance service and there was no way around it?


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

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

From: Lou Kates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones
Date: 24 Mar 91 14:28:39 GMT
Reply-To: Lou Kates <[e-mail]>
Organization: Teleride Sage, Ltd., Waterloo


In article <[e-mail]# Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax!
[e-mail]> writes:

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

#    There is a whole continuum of telephone manufacturers these
# days, from AT&T (clearly out in front in terms of quality) to the kind
# of outfit that builds the football-shaped gizmos that {Sports
# Illustrated} gives away.

Would anyone care to give us information on which are manufacturers of
the high quality sets? With a cordless phone this is particularly
important. AT&T? Sony? ...?


Lou Kates, Teleride Sage Ltd., [e-mail]

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

From: Jim Greenlee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Anyone Remember the "Tele-Trainer"?
Date: 24 Mar 91 15:51:25 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


In article <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail]
(Larry Lippman) writes:

>    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.

Indeed - I remember someone bringing a Teletrainer to my first-grade
class one day (this was in the mid-60's - I don't remember it being
referred to as a Teletrainer, but the setup was just as Larry
described). There was a small box that was controlled by the
"operator", and two telephones that were used by the "caller" and
"callee" (I don't think either of the phones had dials).

As I recall, the control box would signal when either of telephone
handsets went off-hook, and the "operator" could either ring the call
through, or return a "busy" signal to the "caller" (this could be done
whether or not the handset of the other phone was off-hook - more on
that later :-). If the call went through, then the conversation could
be heard by the rest of the group.

Several of us in the class took turns at being the "operator" or one
of the "callers". I got a chance to be "operator", but got sent back
to my seat because I kept giving busy signals (they never let me have
*any* fun :-).  That particular demonstration stands out as one my few
memories from that first grade year.


Jim Greenlee ([e-mail])
Instructor, College of Computing
Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA 30332

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

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 10:28:24 CST
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Early Days of Telephony
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Donald E. Kimberlin) writes:

>        In article <Digest v11, iss211>, Jim E. Dunne <motcid!void!
> [e-mail]> describes an old North Electric branded telephone....

>        The book to read is:

>                "The Spirit of Independent Telephony,"
>                 by Charles A. Pleasance
>                 ISBN 0-9622205-0-7
>                 Published by Independent Telephone Books
>                 P.O Box 321, Johnson City, TN  37601
>                 Last priced at $29.50 plus $3.00 (domestic)
>                 or $6.00 (international) shipping.
>                 Visa or Mastercard orders accepted at [phone]

         And the place to visit is:

      "Museum of Independent Telephony"

Located in the back half of the Dickinson County Museum, Abilene, Kansas
       (just East of the Eisenhower Museum, also worth a visit).

An interesting collection of old telephones, switchboards and other
equipment that involve non-Bell companies.  The curator/manager gives
individual "tours" and will talk at length on about any "Independent"
topic you want to name.  She has the most complete collection of
"Independent Telephony" books and magazines I've seen.

   Kansas was rife with Independents, and still has several.  My home
town was almost surrounded with very small ones.  Some were just a
switchboard, with maybe a 100 square mile territory.  Short poles and
8 gauge(?) steel wire were common; my Dad purchased a mile segment of
the wire when Southwestern Bell bought out one of them.  (The wire was
stiff and very rusty, but it made a good electric cattle fence.)  One
of the last Independents in the area was very modern, and had
underground cable way before SW Bell put it in locally.  Underground
cable was very desirable, because ice storms took out wire/poles every
year or so.

   We had 8-party Southwestern Bell service, went dial in about 1960.
I still remember the "open house" of the little SXS CDO, about the
size of a two-car garage.  This had the battery plant, Dist. Frame,
tone generator, etc. as well as those wonderful switches.  (Little did
I know that twenty years later I would be working at the Hawthorne
Plant in Cicero, IL -- where the switches were still in production (or
at least parts were).  ANI was added around 1973, before that you
dialed a toll call as 1+ ..., but the operator had to ask "Number,
please?"; you KNEW she meant the number you were calling from!

   The little CDO is still in operation, but will be replaced soon by
an Ericsson switch.  That will signal the end of four-digit toll-free
calling for the folks back home (and the number always starts with
3!).  It took several visits to explain Divestiture to my grandmother
(90+); how will I EVER explain why she has to dial 428- in front of
her friends numbers ????  I did ask a former "farm boy next door" (1.5
mile walk) who now works for SW Bell why they couldn't make the whole
town a Centrex group and retain the nine-digit numbers ... he didn't
have an answer for me.  { Hey, Steve, any chance I can get a old
switch from the CDO?  Please? }


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ziggy Cartoon Mocks 900 Number "Easy Credit"
Date: 24 Mar 91 15:00:47 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Carl Moore)
writes:

> I don't know if anyone else noticed, but the 900-SUCKER number in the
> cartoon doesn't have enough digits.

It does if there's more than one :)

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PacBell Blocks 950-xxxx
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1991 23:20:25 GMT


[e-mail] (Galen Wolf) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: It may be some technical problem instead, so before
> reporting it to the PUC, why not ask PacBell what is going on?   PAT]

I would humbly like to note that when I made a similar comment about
more traditional COCOTs I was widely flamed as pandering to slimy
AOS-COCOT ripoff artists. If tactics like calling the PUC and sticking
labels on the offending phones are reasonable anywhere, they are all
the more reasonable for a phone compnay who (I must presume) would be
expected to know more about programming the things than the local
chinese take-out place.

[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The difference is, we don't usually expect this
sort of response from Bell payphones ... with COCOTS it is old hat:
refused connections and outrageous prices, etc. We know complaining
about COCOTS does very little good. No so with Bell payphones.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #235
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01771;
          25 Mar 91 2:34 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21362;
          25 Mar 91 1:05 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22631;
          25 Mar 91 0:00 CST
Date:     Sun, 24 Mar 91 22:54:38 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #236
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Mar 91 22:54:21 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 236

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phone Line Simulator Needed to Test Modems [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Information Needed to Use Call Manager [Steve Vance]
    Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign [Randal L. Schwartz]
    Re: Remote Call Forwarding / Transfer Device Needed [Edward Elhauge]
    Re: Caller*ID Hits Toronto [Steve Pershing]
    Re: Cellular Service at Walt Disney World [John R. Covert]
    Re: GTE / California Helps Prevent Slamming [John Debert]
    Re: Tone on Cordless Phones [Steve Pershing]
    Re: Cuban Telephone Service [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: RS-485 Information Wanted: URGENT [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Caller ID Blocked Call Blocker [Ken Jongsma]
    Cellular Phone Association [David E. Sheafer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Line Simulator Needed to Test Modems
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1991 17:30:04 GMT


I would like to note that if your phone line is hostile to V.32 9600
baud connectios, you might try Telebit Trailblazers. They connect at a
nominal 19200 baud, and the actual transfer rate is 18000 baud down in
100 baud increments until they find a set of frequencies they can live
with. This is before any compression is applied to the connection.

The only places I've found that faze Trailblazers are London, England
and some Sprint long-distance connections.


[e-mail]

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

From: Steve Vance <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed to Use Call Manager
Date: 24 Mar 91 23:05:49 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


Sprint has something similar to Call Manager.  If I remember right, it
is just called the "Accounting Code Feature".  You call them up and
have it activated.  After that, anytime you make a long-distance call,
you get a tone after you finish dialing.  You dial any two digits, and
then your call is completed.  Presumably you would assign a two-digit
code to each roomate, and stick to it.  On the bill, calls are divided
up for you, with page breaks and totals for each code that was used
during the billing period.

I had this feature activated on all three of my phone lines that had
Sprint as my service provider.  There was no extra charge, so I
figured, what the hell.  Then, suddenly, there were $5.00 per month
charges added to each bill.  With no advance notification, they had
started charging for a service that had been free.  Oh well.  I called
up and complained, and they took the charges off and discontinued
"Accounting Code Feature" for me.  I imagine that it would still be
useful, though, for business use, or if you have a lot of roommates! :-)


Steve Vance  {hplabs,lll-winken,pacbell}!well!stv
well![e-mail]

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

From: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign
Reply-To: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 00:25:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, ho@hoss (Tiny Bubbles...)
writes:

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

| > Excuse me, but I don't get the point. I can use 10Nnnn dialing either
| > with a "0" for credit card calls or a "1" for billed calls from
| > private phones.

|  .. if they have Equal Access, which is mandated for BOC's.  Is it
| mandatory for independent carriers?  Are there still areas in the
| country that are, er, unEqual?

GTE here in the Northwest has "select your own 1+ carrier", but no
10XXX dialing.  I won't switch from AT&T because of that.  I'd really
hate to be stuck on a busy traffic day when some undercapicitized
carrier is out of lines and not be able to let Ma Bell handle the
call.  Call me a relic of the past, when there was just one company. :-)


Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III
[e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn

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

From: Edward Elhauge <lever![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding / Transfer Device Needed
Date: 25 Mar 91 00:31:08 GMT
Organization: Lever Industries, San Francisco


I have a similar problem as the point A, B and C caller. I would like
to have my calls forwarded to me to wherever I am at customer sites.
As most of my customers are large businesses with labs and such I am
not at the same desk or phone all day. I would like to call my home
office (which doesn't have a receptionist) and alter the call
forwarding to different numbers as I move about. I would also need to
call and disable call forwarding, which would let the answering
machine take it when I was in conference or debugging.

I could see that a cheap modem connected to my voice line and a DTMF
recognizer such as those available on PC voice mail cards would work.
I would prefer a smaller standalone version of this I wouldn't need to
invent the software for.  Basically a DTMF recognizer that would
trigger a DTMF output after a time delay would work. Please e-mail and
I will summarize. Brand names please.


Edward Elhauge       {hoptoad,uunet}!lever!ee    [e-mail]
Lever Industries     San Francisco

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

Subject: Re: Caller*ID Hits Toronto
From: Steve Pershing <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 17:24:56 PST
Organization: Questor - Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC::[phone]


[e-mail] (David McKellar) writes:

> A phone bill insert also says that subscribers can call the operator
> and ask to have their phone number kept secret for one call - the
> operator then places the call.  FOR ONLY C$.75 A CALL !!!!!  Anyone
> want to start a Canadian 1-900-STOPPER service for 50 cents a shot ?

The local telco (GTE subsidiary, BC Telephone Co.), tried to do the
same thing here, and was, I believe, denied the operator charge.  How
they are going to get around it, I don't know.

On an unrelated matter, they are dropping TTone charges from $1.30 per
residence line and from $2.55 per business line, while at the same
time raising the basic rate for all lines by $.90 per month.


Steve Pershing, System Administrator

The QUESTOR Project: FREE Usenet News/Internet Mail; Sci, Med, AIDS, more :

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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 19:11:10 PST
From: "John R. Covert  24-Mar-1991 2206" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Service at Walt Disney World

> Is there cellular service at WDW?

Coverage maps in "The Cellular Telephone Directory" indicate that WDW
is well within the service areas of both the "A" and "B" carriers in
the Orlando area.  In Orlando, "A" is McCaw and "B" is BellSouth
Mobility.

Credit card orders for your own copy of "The Cellular Telephone
Directory" can be called in to 800 366-6731.


john


[Moderator's Note: I ordered (and received) my copy of the Cellular
Telephone Directory about a month ago. It has a wealth of information
about cellular service around the world.   I recommend the book.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Debert)
Subject: Re: GTE / California Helps Prevent Slamming
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System 408 241-9760
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1991 04:36:56 GMT


 From article <[e-mail]>, by wybbs![e-mail].
umich.edu (Ken Jongsma):

> According to an bill insert, GTE California is now offering an
> authorization form to prevent "slamming" by other long distance
> carriers.

A day late and a dollar short. CA is making it illegal to "slam".


jd   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Tone on Cordless Phones
From: Steve Pershing <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 17:18:44 PST
Organization: Questor - Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC::[phone]


[e-mail] (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes:

> Does anyone know of a cordless phone which will send tone for the full
> time the key is depressed?  I've worked with some information services
> that do not accept the minimum-duration tone consistently.

Sure... the one I have been using happily for over a year now.  It
look a bit like the old Star-Trek communicator.  It is a Panasonic
"easa-phone", model number KX-T3000.

It also has the added benefit of a speakerfone in the base/charger
unit.


Steve Pershing, System Administrator

The QUESTOR Project: FREE Usenet News/Internet Mail; Sci, Med, AIDS, more :

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

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

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 01:58 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cuban Telephone Service


  In article <Digest v11,iss232>, [e-mail] writes:

> I do listen, at times, to a shortwave station called Radio Rebelde.
> I don't know why it is called that since it is run by the Cuban
> government and is not a clandestine.

        It's surprising you heard Radio Rebelde on >shortwave<, as it
has been a Cuban national network of about two dozen mediumwave (AM)
stations all in the lower portion of the band ranging from 540 to 750
kHz.  The only functional shortwave outlet for the nation has been
Radio Habana Cuba for many years.  RHC, of course, broadcasts in
Spanish and many other languages (not the least of which is English).
That's not to day that RHC has never rebroadcast programs from Radio
Rebelde, especially in its North America transmissions.

        As to the apparent conflict in the name, remember that
although they're all getting gray now, Castro's people were all young
rebels three decades ago.

        Regarding getting Spanish practice, you'll of course be
getting the Cuban vernacular from Havana.  To hear the *real*
Castellano, you can tune in Radio Exterior de Espana any evening from
8PM-11PM (CST) on 9630 Khz.  It's one of the biggest, clearest signals
on the shortwave bands on North America.  But, when Fidel Castro makes
one of his (less and less frequent) speeches, it's very easy to
understand Spanish.

        Later, he describes the dialup connections heard on R. Rebelde:

> every line was really pathetic.  The voice was understandable
> enough, but the noises on each of the lines were like something one
> might have heard on a U.S. telephone line 25 or 30 years ago. There
> was the usual dialing cross-talk, a strong 60HZ hum on each line...

        Certainly. It's the condition that Cuban network was left in
when it lost its capital support from its former U.S> owners, AT&T and
ITT (in equal shares of the Cuban-American Telephone & Telegraph
Coporation). However, there's still similar hum to be heard from U.S.
lines, too.  It's just that U.S. broadcasters have obtained better and
better broadcast interfaces to dial lines, not the least of which is
extensive filtering to keep the hum off the air.  That's not to say
the Cubans aren't having a time keeping plenty of *old* cable in
function, as evidenced by the crosstalk you heard.

        Then he describes:

> a curious low-pitched beep like one hears on call-waiting.
> I think that this was to indicate toll charges since it seemed to be
> every two or three minutes.

        That, in fact, is probably some crosstalk from a signal to a
supervising operator, described later:

> A few minutes later, on the next call, the interview was going along
> at a brisk clip when the operator, probably in Havana, brok in and
> asked if they were through.  Neither the Havana announcer nor the
> remote correspondent even slowed down in their conversation like this
> sort of thing is normal.  A minute or so later, a different female
> voice popped onto the line and asked again if they were through.

        I'd venture that's an indication of the shortage of intercity
trunks in Cuba.  Having a supervising operator signaled to interrupt
and try to harrass you off the line is a fairly common practice in
nations where there are trunk shortages.

        Finally, the post concludes:

> From all of this, it seems that when free enterprise returns to Cuba,
> the suppliers of modern telephone equipment will have a gold mine
> refurbishing the island's networks.

        To which I'd add only that it will be a gold mine to the
suppliers of the nation that gets its government to finance the deal.
That's been the way of world telecomm export sales for decades now.
Needless to say, the U.S. is not a leader in such dealings.  If the
U.S> *does* prevail, it will be a pleasant surprise.

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

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 02:05 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RS-485 Information Wanted: URGENT


        In article <Digest v11,iss230>, Markus Fischer<FISHER@sc2a.u
nige.ch writes:

> I need information about the RS 485 communication norm. Specifically,
> I need cabling schematics, signal IDs and signal levels.  I would
> prefer the answers in e-mail, and I promise I'll post the information
> to the net.

        Uh-uh ... that's a no-no, Markus! Standards of the Electronics
Industry Association are copyrighted material, just as are the
standards of any other nation's standards body or any international
standards organization.  The *proper* place to get EIA documents is by
mail order from EIA's Washington, DC address.

        HOWEVER, you may be surprised at how close you can find some
people who know by just wandering across Geneva to 2, rue du Varembe,
asking around the ITU HQ for who's there that attends CCITT Study
Group XVII, the datacomm standards group.  Many of its participants,
at least those from North America, also participate in the EIA
meetings back in the U.S.  In fact, the CCITT Bookstore may even have
EIA documents in stock for sale.

        For a surface run-down, RS-485 is an implementation of RS-422
signal levels (which are essentially CCITT V.10) in a four-wire, full-
duplex manner to provide up to 32 polled data terminals up to 57,600
bps on local wire.  If you don't really want to build the interface,
some manufacturers have been making RS-232 (V.24/28) to RS-485
adapters since late 1984.  The one I know of is ARK Electronic
Products of Melbourne, FL, since absorbed into AT&T/Paradyne of Largo,
FL. When you get past the droids at Paradyne, you can probably get
some without much trouble.

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

Subject: Caller ID Blocked Call Blocker
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 12:14:33 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


According to an article in the April 1 edition of {Business Week},
Colonial Data Systems (CDS) is now selling a Caller ID box that
prevents calls that are marked as "blocked" from ringing your phone.
The box replies to the caller "This party does not accept blocked
calls" and inhibits the ringing to your phone.

CDS is the same company that makes the Caller ID boxes that Bell
Atlantic and Hello Direct have been selling, so they should be
available from those sources. No price information was given.


Ken Jongsma               [e-mail]
Smiths Industries         [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan    ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

From: "David E. Sheafer, Class of 1989" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Association
Date: 24 Mar 91 11:31:34 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


Does any have any information on the Cellular Phone Association?  What
services do they provide, etc.

Thanks,

David E. Sheafer

internet:  [e-mail]   our uucp:      samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b
GEnie:     D.SHEAFER             Clevleand Freenet ap345
Bitnet:    Sheafer_davi@bentley
David E. Sheafer

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #236
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03626;
          25 Mar 91 3:43 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03875;
          25 Mar 91 2:10 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21362;
          25 Mar 91 1:06 CST
Date:     Mon, 25 Mar 91 0:20:25 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #237
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 25 Mar 91 00:20:08 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 237

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MCI Card for Germans Includes $15 Gift [David E.A. Wilson]
    Re: Early Pay Telephone Exhibit at Richmond Airport [Floyd Vest]
    Re: Automated Telephone Information Systems [Floyd Vest]
    Re: Urban Legend? -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins! [John Temples]
    Home Telephone Wiring Opinions Wanted [Dave Anderson]
    Canadian RTC Rejects Bid to Stop Caller ID [David Leibold]
    Re: Threatening Phone Calls in Canada [Jordan Kossack]
    Bell of PA Answer Call Standardization [George A. Theall]
    Baud Rates for Current Lines and Modems [Keith Sorn]
    Need Comkey 416 and Multiline Phone Information [Jeffrey Jonas]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Card for Germans Includes $15 Gift
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 04:49:45 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> Since MCI now offers "Call USA" from Germany (by toll-free number
> 0130-0012), unlike AT&T's Calling Card, everybody can get the MCI
> Card, as long as he has a MasterCard or VISA Card.

As we in Australia have access to Call USA (0014 881 100) what are
MCI's rates for such a credit card call from Australia to the USA? Is
there any financial advantage over OTC's rates?

OTC    Aus->USA    Peak: A$1.60/min    Off-Peak: A$1.19/min

The above are charged in A$0.22 units.


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

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

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1991 22:41 CST
From: Floyd Vest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Early Pay Telephone Exhibit at Richmond Airport


[23 Mar 91 07:13:00 GMT] [e-mail] (Robert M. Hamer)
wrote:

> Pay. Sta. Co., H'F'D, C.T., Patd. Feb 8, '98" (Anyone know what H'F'D
> is?  Could I just have read it wrong and it was M'F'D for "Manufactured"?)

I suspect it was "H'F'D, C'T" or something like that ... Hartford,
Connecticut, the birthplace of the payphone and the home of William
Gray.

The hint was contained in your own post:

> The first phone was labelled "1889," and the commentary said that
> telephones were 13 years old, that 200,000 phones were in use,
> including one pay phone in a bank in Hartford, CT.
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Floyd Vest <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Manager, Administrative Systems--Auburn University, Alabama USA
Voice: [phone]  BBS: [phone]  FIDO: 1:3613/3

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

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1991 22:42 CST
From: Floyd Vest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Telephone Information Systems


[23 Mar 91 09:21:10 GMT] [e-mail] (Ernie Froemel)
wrote:

> Does anyone know of microcomputer-based applications that control
> automated telephone information systems?  I'm looking for something
> that:

>    1.  answers incoming calls,
>    2.  plays a recorded set of instructions,
>    3.  switches the caller to other instructions or to
>        other phones based on touch-tones,
>    4.  transfers to another phone in the absence of
>        touch-tone input.

We bought such a system from the EPOS Corporation (205/826-7056).  The
system is programmable ... The type we bought will handle up to
sixteen lines concurrently.  It can also communicate with remote hosts
to access online applications, or credit card verifications.  The
system also claims to accept input from rotary phones (we haven't
tried that).  The company also has provided excellent support and
service.  If you call ask for Ben Mitchell and tell him you heard it
from me ... maybe he'll buy me lunch :-)

I have no connection with EPOS other than being a satisfied customer
(with my employer's money :-))


Floyd Vest <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Manager, Administrative Systems--Auburn University, Alabama USA
Voice: [phone]  BBS: [phone]  FIDO: 1:3613/3

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

From: John Temples <jwt![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Urban Legend?  -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins!
Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 05:19:54 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nancy
> J Airey) writes:

>> The story goes that a woman in Florida with "caller ID" on her phone

> Probably not in Florida -- a Southern Bell Customer Service person
> told me that CallerID wasn't available in Florida

Caller*ID was available to a limited number of people for a few months
here in Orlando three or four years ago.  I think they were just doing
a market test at the time.  I know someone who had it, and I saw it in
action, so this isn't just hearsay.  I don't know about the rest of
the state.


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

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

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 00:04:45 GMT
From: Dave Anderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home Telephone Wiring Opinions Wanted


I'm finally about to break down and re-do the telephone wiring in our
house and, since I want to do it 'right', I'm soliciting opinions and
comments.

It's a two story house with unfinished basement and attic; three rooms
plus kitchen and enclosed porch on the first floor and four rooms plus
bathroom and open porch on the second floor.  I can get into the
first-floor walls from the basement and into the second-floor walls
from the attic; but getting from the basement to the attic requires
opening and repairing a hole in a wall, so I'd like to only do it
once.  The demarc is in the basement.  I've got two POTS lines, one
with Boston metro service used for most calls (including data calls)
and one with measured service (mostly so I'm still reachable while
making long data calls).

My basic idea is to install punch-down blocks in the basement and
attic, run 'enough' pair between them, then run a separate cable with
'enough' pair to each phone outlet.  I'm currently planning to install
wall boxes with one or two RJ11 jacks for the outlets; this should
give me more flexibility than using the common little-box-with-one-
RJ11-that-mounts-on-the-baseboard.  All wiring will be twisted-pair.
(With a little luck, this will also kill off a noise problem; the
house is currently wired with quad.)

If I remember correctly, the standard surge protector will do a fine
job of protecting a 500 set but isn't really up to protecting modern
modems (or many electronic telephones, for that matter).  I'm
considering hunting up a more capable surge protector to install on my
side of the demarc.

Since I use the same line for voice and (outgoing only) data calls,
I'd also like to get some sort of exclusion widget that will,
depending on which picks up first, disconnect either the modem or all
of the telephones (wired in parallel) from the line.

Most of the telephones we have date from before we added the second
line.  Is there some sort of inexpensive device (even 'micro-PBX'
seems far too grand) which would allow our single-line instruments to
use and answer both lines without confusing my wife (who is somewhat
telephobic).  In particular it would need to automatically 'do the
right thing' when a phone is taken off-hook in all common situations,
while still allowing (for instance) two instruments to be connected to
the same line (so we could both talk to someone).  If such a device
exists, I'd imagine that it would include the modem-exclusion feature
mentioned above.

I'm interested in both comments on the general scheme and answers to
the following specific questions.  I'll summarize any answers mailed
to me ([e-mail]) but not posted.

- What is a suitable number of pairs to run to each outlet?

- What is a suitable number of pairs to run between the basement and
  attic?   I'd expect that the minimum reasonable number is about six
  -- one for each upstairs room plus one for a modem.

- What kind of cable do I need?  If I remember correctly, it's 24-gauge
  solid copper twisted pair; but are there different grades or types?
  What number of pair per cable (of interest to me) are easily available?

- If I remember correctly, the punch-down blocks I need are some variant
  of 66 block.  The basic variety has 3+3 connections horizontally and
  50 vertically, but I probably want some 6-across connections to make
  it easier to wire many outlets in parallel?

- The punch-down blocks should presumably be enclosed in something, to
  protect both the wiring and people.  What is the appropriate enclosure?

- I'll need a light-duty punch-down tool.  Any recommendations?

- Any comments or suggestions concerning surge suppression, modem exclusion,
  or 'micro-PBX's?

- For all of the above, what are the exact 'standard' part designations and
  about how much should I expect to pay for them?  (I don't have convenient
  access to any catalogs.)

- Where can I buy this sort of material?  I live near Boston, and the phone
  book tells me there's a Graybar not too far away (in Somerville); but is
  there a better source?  I work out near I495, so any place north or west
  of Boston and not too far beyond 495 is worth considering.

Thanks in advance for your help,


Dave

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

From: [e-mail] (woody)
Subject: Canadian RTC Rejects Bid to Stop Caller ID
Reply-To: [e-mail] (woody)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 00:19:30 GMT


While on the subject of Caller ID appeals and that, the CRTC (Canadian
Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission) recently rejected
a bid by some consumer and rights groups to stop Caller ID from coming
to Bell Canada's territory, and particularly rejected an attempt to
offer free caller ID blocking to all (caller ID blocking is available
to anyone who dials through the operator at 75c per local call; it is
free to phones in those shelters for domestic violence that are
certified by Bell Canada, however).

In the Telecom Decision 91-4, the CRTC made a passing comment:

"While there may be other groups or individuals who could make out an
equally compelling need [for free Caller ID blocking], they have not
been identified in ACEF's application. If any such groups or
individuals were to apply to the Commission, they might be able to
justify the extension of Caller ID blocking to them."

Some people might be seeing visions of piles of CRTC applications from
people who want to have Caller ID blocking for free.


ACEF is a Quebec-based group seeking to appeal or modify the Caller ID
tariff.


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

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 06:38:05 CST
From: Jordan Kossack <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Threatening Phone Calls in Canada


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

> U.S. readers may encounter similar obstructionism from the police if
> they receive harassing calls. In that case, they may want to consult
> their state justice department or local legal clinic about what their
> options are, including swearing out a complaint or filing charges
> themselves.

     If these harrasing telephone calls are considered so unimportant
by telco and the police, perhaps one should forward the calls to them
since they don't thinkc it is a problem.  No - scratch that, although
it might be emotionally satisfying to do such, the police dispatchers
don't make the policy and shouldn't suffer as a result.  Now, if you
could only forward such calls to a 900 number and have the harassing
caller pay for it ... at $50 a call, they'll stop soon.  :-0

     Of course this assumes that such calls are arriving at a time of
day such that you are unlikely to receive ligitimate calls - like 4am
or some such.  Too, you need Call Forwarding.  On the other hand, if
the calls get bad enough, perhaps they SHOULD be forwarded to whatever
official(s) are responsible for Caller-ID not being available in your
area.  Either that or (if your employer and friends have a sense of
humor) change your answering machine to something like "FBI, please
hold." followed by appropriate 'music on hold.'

     As a side note, what happens if you forward your calls to
yourself?  Will the callers get a busy signal?  What if you do/don't
have Call Waiting?  Just curious ... but not curious enough to order
these things just to find out.  Thanks.


[e-mail] | Jordan Kossack | n5qvi | [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Previously here in Chicago, if you forwarded a call
to yourself, the call was forwarded to you. Of course you had to dial
twice to establish call forwarding, since the first time you dialed
the line was busy ... :) Then we got new generics which if you
forwarded to yourself (you still could do so) subsequent callers got a
busy signal forever until you cancelled it. Now the latest software
forbids the entry. Trying it, I get a re-order (fast busy) tone and it
was not accepted no matter how many times I re-dialed it.  PAT]

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

From: "George A. Theall" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell of PA Answer Call Standardization
Date: 24 Mar 91 13:53:55 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


<begin journalistic mode>

  Bell of Pennsylvania says it will standardize its Answer Call voice
mail service in April. Essentially this means the numbers one presses
when retrieving messages will be rearranged.

  In the announcement, which Bell of PA left on subscribers' mailboxes
yesterday, this standardization will make it easier to interact with
other voice mail systems, at work, in businesses, etc ... details on
the new rearrangement will be sent to subscribers shortly.

<end journalistic mode>

  Does anyone know what standard Bell of PA is referring to? Is there
really a committee somewhere weighing such matters as to whether, say,
one should press <4> or <7> to delete a message? And exactly what sort
of compliance can realistically be expected of other, existing voice
mail systems?


George

[e-mail]        Dept. of Economics
[e-mail]        Univ. of Pennsylvania
[e-mail]        Philadelphia, PA 19104

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

From: Keith Sorn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Baud Rates for Current Lines and Modems
Reply-To: Keith Sorn <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1991 17:50:22 GMT


    I need some information regarding how many bits per second I
can send on a telephone line.  This seemingly simple question has many
sub-questions, though.

    What is standard technology today? What rate can all phone
lines support?  How much does a modem which operates at this rate
cost?  What is the quickest rate that a standard phone line supports
and how much are their accompanying modems?

    In the near future, what will be the standared rate?  What
impact will fiber optic networks have on this rate?  Will AT&T's ISDN
be likely to increase the standard baud rate?

    Lastly, are there any other factors I should consider in
calculating baud rate over standard telephone lines?

    Please email directly your response.  Thank you in advance for
your time.


Keith Sorn   c/o Department of Physics  Loomis Laboratory of Physics
1110 West Green Street   Urbana Illinois 61801

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

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 21:01:39 -0500
From: synsys![e-mail]
Subject: Need Comkey 416 and Multiline Phone Information


I just obtained a set of three AT&T Comkey 416 phones.  Now it sinks in:
How do I use them?  Two have the power supplies, one doesn't.

Do any of you know what they do and how to wire them?  Much to my
disappointment, they seem to require 50 wires to each phone.  (A-ha!
Now I see all the fuss about Merlin, Spirit, etc.  They work over four
or six wires!)  I guess that the phones all wire in parallel.  It
handles one to four lines, but where do I connect the tip and rings?

I also got two ivory push-button multi-line desk phones (the type with
the six buttons along the bottom).  Am I correct that their only value
is to someone that needs a replacement?  Does anybody want them?

I have two wall phones without dials or ringers.  What the heck am I
to do with those?  I can buy an external autodialer with a horrible
membrane keypad and that'll make them DTMF, but it adds an external
box.  They're for sale, cheap!

Thanks in advance.


Jeffrey Jonas   synsys![e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #237
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05020;
          25 Mar 91 4:47 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29709;
          25 Mar 91 3:16 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac03875;
          25 Mar 91 2:11 CST
Date:     Mon, 25 Mar 91 1:09:43 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #238
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 25 Mar 91 01:09:36 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 238

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Into the Telecosm [Scott Loftesness]
    Re: More About Selective Ringing [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Other Telecom-Related Lists [Steve Pershing]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 91 09:48:17 EST
From: "Scott Loftesness W3VS (HamNet)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Into the Telecosm


In my reading this week, I came across an exciting article by author
George Gilder in the latest issue of the {Harvard Business Review.}
"Into the Telecosm" urges action at the state and national levels to
begin rapid deployment of a national fiber-optic networking capability
that ultimately would provide a fiber connection to every American
home.

Gilder claims that the rapidly advancing technologies of microchips,
electromagnetic waves, and fiber optics will transform commerce:

"In the next decade or so, microchips will contain a billion or more
transistors, expanding a millionfold the cost-effectiveness of
computer hardware.  The terminals on our desks and televisions in our
living rooms will give way to image-processing computers,
"telecomputers" that will not only receive but also store, manipulate,
create and transmit digital video programming.  Linking these
computers will be a worldwide web of fiber-optic cables reaching homes
and offices."

The problem, according to Gilder, is that only one of these
technologies - computer power - is developing at a rapid pace.  The
big problem area is communications or, rather, the lack of it.  "Today
the wiring is holding back what people and boxes can do."

Progress in the computer area is indeed impressive.  Gilder cites
quadrulping the number of transistors on a chip every three years and
reductions in the cost of processing power of up to 50% a year as two
examples of the incredible progress being made on the hardware side of
computing.  Much of this new power is being put to work on images of
one sort or another.  But there is a big problem.  The telecommunications
infrastructure can't handle what the new telecomputers require in
terms of information bandwidth.  "You cannot send an ocean through
pipes developed for a stream," says Gilder.

"While the efficiencies of decentralized computing spring from the
laws of solid-state physics - the "microcosm" - breakthroughs in
communications will spring from the "telecosm," a domain of reality
governed by the action of electromagnetic waves and in which all
distances collapse because communication is at the speed of light.
The law of the microcosm militates for increasingly distributed
computing; the telecosm enables powerful links between computers.  The
challenge is to close the gap between microcosm and telecosm, between
the logical power of computers and the power of their communications."

Gilder points out that much of the work in the computer industry is
devoted to trying to live within the limited bandwidth available on
today's networks, on compression hardware and software products.
Claiming that the communications crisis is more "a failure of
imagination than of technology," Gilder points out that a major piece
of the potential solution is at hand:

"In a crisp formula, Nicholas Negroponte of MIT's Media Lab outlines
the needed change: what currently goes through wires, chiefly voice,
will move to the air; what currently goes through the air, chiefly
video, will move to wires.  The phone will become wireless, as mobile
as a watch and as personal as a wallet; computer video will run over
fiber-optic cables in a switched digital system as convenient as the
telephone today."

Citing this "reversal" issue as a key one for policymakers, Gilder
points out that there is plenty of spectrum available for new
innovative services if the FCC's regulations were changed to help
force this shift in delivering video from over-the-air to fiber
optics.  Citing the common industry objections to this approach,
Gilder claims "costly fiber optics is just as mythical as scarce
spectrum."  The problem is the regulatory environment that prevents
telephone companies from laying fiber to homes.

Fearing a situation analagous to the videotape recorder, Gilder fears
that the delays in deploying fiber to the home will result in the U.S.
again losing a critically important technology leadership position in
optoelectronic technology and that the U.S. fiber optic production
capacity is at exposed to lower cost competition from Japan, a country
that apparently is getting very serious about installing fiber to the
home.  Gilder says that although the U.S. still spends far more money
per capita on its communications infrastructure than any other
country, a large chunk of that spending is for private business
networks that will "ultimately be bad for U.S. business and,
ironically, is starving the ultimate distribution system for its
services and products.  To open new markets, business leaders need a
national network, not simply a Babel of business networks."

A very important effect of this kind of transition to fiber to the
home, according to Gilder, will be the transition from broadcast to
narrowcast that the technology will now permit.  Fiber will enable
cause a shift "from a mass-produced and mass-consumed horizontal
commodity to a vertical feast with a galore of niches and
specialties."  Marginal costs of delivering another program choice
drop to almost nothing.  The two-way nature of the medium enables a
huge number of new sources of program material, driving the money from
the distribution channel of today to the creators of programming
tomorrow.

Gilder urges business leaders to take action to force the reform of
the "telecom snarl that imperils creativity and progress in computers
and communications."  The problem is political.  The vested interests
"all focus on the destruction and mobilize to prevent it.  In the
U.S., the broadcasters are marshaling their forces to preserve what
they claim are the special virtues of free and universal broadcast
service.  The cable industry is fast becoming a political juggernaut -
a group of PACs with coax - moving to prevent the phone companies from
installing fiber-optic networks.  Meanwhile, television networks and
manufacturers around the world are holding out the promise of HDTV,
which is the old medium dressed up with a bigger screen and sharper
pictures."

Gilder's article makes very interesting reading for a very interesting
time. In April, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administation (NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce is scheduled
to release its "comprehensive study of the national telecommunications
infrastructure."  How strongly will the administration advocate a
dramatic shift in the regulatory enviroment to enable this kind of
national broadband network?  As they say on TV, "film at 11."


Scott Loftesness      [e-mail]      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Loftesness is the Moderator of the Telecom SIG
on Compuserve. (On CIS at any prompt, GO TELECOM).  My thanks for what
I will call our best article of the week. Come visit us more often!   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 02:03 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More About Selective Ringing


    In a post (Digest v11,iss232) David Lesher writes:

> I hate to object ... but, according a friend of mine, who did
> extensive magnetic (i.e. ferroresonant transformers) design work AND
> also collected telephone equipment:

>        The cap does NOT set the response of a mechanical ringer;
>        rather it's done in the armature/coil design.

        Unfortunately and confusingly, David, *both* ferroresonant and
L-C tuning were used to set the frequency of ringers.  My remarks were
perhaps hasty, in that I thought of the many Automatic Electric phones
used by GTE companies from the fifties onwards.  It is in fact,
probably more likely that ferroresonant ringers were used in the
earlier era.  And, it's very likely that Bell Labs got the max value
it could from ferroresonance in its 20 Hertz-only ringers, being as
they had Western Electric make millions of them for the monopoly-era
Bell System.

        But, the next anecdote is curious:

> ... the Big_Boss brought in this old piece_of_junk 500 set... and sure
> enough, it hmmmed a little, but no ring. Ah_ha, I thought, bad cap in
> the 425K network. So I got the cap off of an old E1, and put it across
> A & K. Same thing.

> Well I asked the Big_Boss WHEN it stopped ringing, and got an evasive
> answer. Turns out it was his mother's, and I guess he was catching
> hell for not being able to fix it.

> So then I took a stab in the dark, and said, "She used to have a party
> line, before she moved. Correct?" He, at last, admitted such. I told
> him to find another ringer, and I'd install it. He did, I did, and his
> 90 year old grandmother was happy with him.  Me? I kept the tuned
> ringer, and gave it to friends for their telephone museum.

        Watch out you didn't fool yourself a bit there.  Did you look
at the frequency of your Sub-Cycle?  *Most* of them put out 30 Hertz,
not 20, and a nice, sharply-resonant 20 Hertz straight-line ringer
won't work on a PBX Sub-Cycle for that reason, be it ferroresonant or
a tuned circuit.

        Later description in the post about cutting the magnetic shunt
of the ringer core probably has some bearing on the matter, but it
goes beyond my knowledge of what WECo did in fact do.  The remark that
it was a 500 set, taken at face value of that set being of WECo
origin, indicates that maybe Bell Labs did go heavily into ferroresonant
techniques.

        However, the point I'd like to make very strong is that Bell
did *not* use frequency-selective ringing ofr its party-line service
offerings (at least in general).  Bell people were usually quite
puzzled when it came to Harmonic, Decimonic, Synchromonic, or the
other various forms of party-line ringing.  Bell instead, used 20
Hertz exclusively, and a system of ringing tip-to-ground or ring-to-
ground for two-party, adding polarized (negative or positive) polarity
to the tip- or ring-to-ground connection for four-party.  That's
really what the yellow wire inside the phone was for, when you find
those strange cords with only three wires ... red, green and yellow in
the jacket.

One side of the ringer would be connected to the yellow wire and then
connected to a ground wire brought inside to the the 42A block.  That
also explains the several forms of three-conductor station wire found
in old buildings.  You may have heard the common Bell jargon, "tip
party" and "ring party," alluding to which side of the line their
ringer was connected to.  Bell called its party line ringing system,
"divided ringing," and telephone sets made for divided ringing usually
had the suffic letter "D" (for example, 500D).  In the manual days,
the code letters M,J,R or W added to a phone number alluded to the
four possible combinations of line side and ringing polarity.

        Meantime, non-Bell companies could ring a half-dozen or more
parties straight-line with different frequencies, and when they got
really clever and added divided ringig to it, they could ring a dozen
or more on a line.  I personally suffered one in the 1950's that had
*thirteen* parties on one pair.  Needless to say, we had a rotten
grade of service!  Also, needless to say, I changed a *lot* of ringer
capacitors in that network ... which was *not* Bell-style!)

        David's post concludes with:

> By the way, there is another Ohio name to add to the saga.  C. P.
> Stocker designed the first magnetic 60-20 hz converter, called it the
> Sub-Cycle, and founded Lorain Products Inc. just west of Cleveland.
> They also made no end of telco power equipment.

        In fact, when my first post got to the point of North Electric
and then W.W.Dean's frequency-selective ringer, I thought of
mentioning Mr. Stocker's Sub-Cycle, but its date was 1935 and we were
getting too far from Chicago and very early suppliers, so I left it
out.  The book I mentioned does give Mr. Stocker due credit for yet
another non-Bell innovation in telephony.  Lorain Electric is, of
course, still in business, providing many a Sub-Cycle to this very
day.  If one wants to brag on the *many* innovations of non-Bell
sources, Ohio certainly ranks up there with Illinois.  The book I
referred to credits the Lorain (Ohio) Telephone Company with the first
ship-to-shore radio- telephone service, which survives to this very
day on the Great Lakes and the Mississippi-Ohio river valleys, as the
Lorain Radio Company.

        Herein lies a perfect example of one of the major problems
with trying to develop a balanced sense of telecommunications history.
Bell history also accurately claims rdaiotelephone service to ships,
but at sea, and beginning in 1929, in a service well-documented to the
U.S.S.  Leviathan sailing the Atlantic.  But, the non-Bell domestic
operators on the Great Lakes didn't know of it; thus they inaccurately
claim primacy in that technique.

         David ends with yet a third topic:

> I recall hearing about a 5000 amp, 9 volt supply. Think how many
> Walkmans THAT would run.

        No question about that, but I don't know what anyone use that
large a 9 Volt supply for.  Voltages of 24, 48 or 52 Volts at 2,000 or
5,000 or even 10,000 Amps weren't (and still aren't unusual to provide
talk battery for a whole telephone exchange.  They consist simply of
an AC-powered set of rectifiers charging ("floating") a large string
of lead-acid batteries, just like the one in your car, to power the
phones and for that matter the switching and transmission equipment as
well.  What's fun is to happen to be near the cells when the AC fails.
The current draw is such you can see the plates in the glass cell
tanks bend and flake under the stress.

        The whole notion of rectifier-floated batteries went so far as
to have a 252 Volt battery string for the plate voltage in microwave
atations.  It consisted of *forty-two* 6 Volt automobile batteries
connected in series, floated across a rectifier.  THAT not only could
shock you; it could do a nice burn at the same time. Needless to say,
one works *very* carefully in such plant!

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

Subject: Other Telecom-Related Lists
From: Steve Pershing <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 91 18:34:27 PST
Organization: Questor - Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC::[phone]


I would appreciate it if you could point me to other telecom-related
mailing lists.  At present, I am aware of [e-mail],
and recall seeing references to others, but a search of the 350
messages currently on my system in comp.dcom.telecom reveals nothing.

Thanks in advance.

Steve Pershing, System Administrator

The QUESTOR Project: FREE Usenet News/Internet Mail; Sci, Med, AIDS, more :

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


[Moderator's Note: Telecom-Priv is actually an offshoot of the Digest.
It was started as a place for extended conversation pro and con on the
topic of Caller ID.  As noted in the first message in this issue,
another good forum is located on Compuserve. From any CIS prompt, just
enter GO TELECOM to get there. It is a huge group, with many
specialized areas of interest. There is also the telecom consultants
BBS sponsored by MCI, and the BBS operated by {Teleconnect Magazine.}
I don't have the numbers handy, but I'm sure someone will write you
with these numbers and others. Many independent BBS' with a telecom
motif also get the Digest. I hope their sysops will contact you.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #238
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27256;
          26 Mar 91 0:19 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15877;
          25 Mar 91 22:33 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01451;
          25 Mar 91 21:27 CST
Date:     Mon, 25 Mar 91 20:58:00 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #239
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 25 Mar 91 21:57:39 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 239

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Threatening Phone Calls (Not Necessarily in Canada) [John R. Covert]
    Re: Remote Call Forwarding / Transfer Device Needed  [David Lesher]
    Re: The Early Days of Telephony  [David Lesher]
    Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign [John Higdon]
    Re: Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security [Bob Yazz]
    Re: Need ComKey 416 and Multiline Phone Information [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu / Motorola [R Woodhead]
    Re: Early Pay Telephone Exhibit at Richmond Airport [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: MCI Card for Germans Includes $15 Gift [Wolfgang R. Schulz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 12:58:31 PST
From: John R. Covert  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Threatening Phone Calls (Not Necessarily in Canada)


> If these harrasing telephone calls are considered so unimportant
> by telco and the police, perhaps one should forward the calls to them
> since they don't think it is a problem.

I once did just that.  As I forwarded the calls, I told the police
dispatcher that I was having trouble with repeated annoyance calls
from a bunch of kids.  I told them that I didn't expect them to take
messages for any legitimate calls, and that if anyone asked for me by
name to just tell them to call back a little later.

An hour later, I cancelled the call forwarding, after the kids had
been sufficiently scared off.  It solved the problem for good.

If you think that Caller ID will help with annoyance calls, remember
that it identifies NOT the person at the other end, and not even the
LOCATION at the other end, but rather the PHONE NUMBER at the other
end.

A friend of mine was sitting at home one evening and noticed that the
line status LED on one of her two-line phones was turning on and off,
although no one else was using the phone.  When she picked up the
phone, there was an obscene call in progress.  She called the police
from another line, and just as they pulled up to investigate, a car
parked at the curb drove away.  Not initially suspecting the driver of
the car, the police didn't follow him or even note his plate number,
but they found a trail of two conductor cable running up to the drop
going into her house, which the perv had spliced into in order to make
his obscene calls from a place where he couldn't have been traced.

So don't go shoot out the windows of the house with the phone number
that showed up on your display the last time you got an annoyance
call.

If Caller ID is available in your area, then Call Trace is, as well,
and you can use that when needed for a one-time charge instead of a
monthly fee.  And it displays blocked numbers as well, providing
time-stamped documentation that a call was made to your number,
documentation that is admissable as evidence in court, unlike any
information you would get from your Caller ID display.


john

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding / Transfer Device Needed
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 18:46:31 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


> I would like to have my calls forwarded to me to wherever I am at
> customer sites.

SBT has an ad in this Sunday's Herald extolling Remote Call
Forwarding.  As I read it, this is remotely programmable call
forwarding. I didn't read the whole pitch, but I think it is really
"Follow Me" forwarding.  I don't know if you can remotely 'push' calls
dialed to XXX to now appear at YYY, when you are at ZZZ. I suspect you
can only 'pull' calls to your present location.


[Moderator's Note: If it is the same Remote Call Forwarding we have
here, (and I suspect it is) then it is NOT remotely programmable. In
actuality, it is a line which terminates in a CO of your choice
somewhere, and calls to that number are automatically forwarded to the
phone number you specified when you ordered the service. You can NOT
change it from hour to hour or day to day. Telco will charge you for a
line (even though it terminates right in the CO and goes no-where, and
they will charge you at DDD rates for each call forwarded.  Maybe SWBT
has a new product as you describe it, but I don't think so.  PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Early Days of Telephony
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 19:14:50 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


Al L Varney discussed Kansas Independents.

My friend the telephone collector told me about being in and around
Lawrence, Kansas in the late 50's/early 60's. There was a full scale
telephone war going on between the Independents and Ma; who was
apparently trying to take over. There was full scale sabotage going
on, eventually by both sides. Poles chopped down, trunks cut, etc.
ISTM that part of that was that Ma claimed that Mom & Pop could not
provide quality service, and low and behold, they couldn't!!!

Before the shooting started, townfolk had one or the other LEC's, or
maybe both. But you could not call from Ma to Mom & Pop or vice versa.

One other piece of 'break your heart' trivia. Lee was driving by the
old telco's office, and saw a large pile of magneto phones.  They had
been pulled from service to be replaced with new-fangled things with
central battery and a DIAL! Lee was given all the old sets he could
carry, cuz "no one would EVER want old junk like that" the man said.
Well, Lee loaded up his car with as many as he could carry. Seeing how
at that time he drove a 1956 Cadillac high-top rescue ambulance, that
was quite a few.

But Lee was not much smarter then the rest of us. He gave or traded
them all away before they became desirable collector's items.  He's
still got the Caddy, however ;-}

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

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 00:53 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign


"Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]> writes:

> GTE here in the Northwest has "select your own 1+ carrier", but no
> 10XXX dialing.  I won't switch from AT&T because of that.

I think that most people, if faced with the prospect of having to
select not only a default carrier but the ONLY carrier, would select
AT&T. The "big outage" and all the tapdancing by the OCCs
notwithstanding, AT&T is still THE most reliable carrier and has the
most services available. AT&T is the one carrier, in my experience,
that can and will connect you to repair service of another LEC in
another area.  AT&T still operates its network as if it was the only
company providing the nation's long distance service.

But while I have cheers for AT&T, GTE gets my jeers. Leave it to GTE
to PARTIALLY implement FGD. There is no ambiguity about it: 10XXX
dialing is an intregal part of the Feature Group D specification. Most
of the people I know or work with use AT&T as PIC and have accounts
with other companies using 10XXX. A system that denys 10XXX should not
call itself "equal access".

> I'd really hate to be stuck on a busy traffic day when some
> undercapicitized carrier is out of lines and not be able to let Ma
> Bell handle the call.

Or the victim of a long distance company that uses Southern Pacific
Railroad right-of-ways such that every train accident shuts down the
service for miles around.


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

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security
Date: 25 Mar 91 09:34:00 GMT


800/347-8988 is the number to complain to Sprint about this; first
things first.

Thank you, Lauren, for posting it.

The Executive Analyst has had only TWO complaints?  Must be John
Higdon and me!

I'm sure Sprint's ability to, uh, count isn't in question, is it?  (:-/

Payphone ripoff problems in California?  Call 800/352-2201 M-F, 8-5


Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]

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

Date: 25-MAR-1991 04:33:45.73
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need ComKey 416 and Multiline Phone Information


I have a few ComKeys myself, and it works pretty simple:

You need to get a hold of something called a "91B Wiring Block", which
were (are?) manufactured by Western Electric. You may be able to get
these through AT&T parts, or through the AT&T catalog, as they still
sell (expensive) ComKey units. Perhaps companies like Graybar have
these as well.

In any event, once you get these blocks, it is pretty self
explanatory. All you do is connect your incoming phone lines to
modular sockets on the "91B" block, and you are set. Each block can
accomodate two lines. Both the red/green and yellow/black pairs are
used, so you would put "line 1" on the green/red pair, and "line 2" on
the yellow/back pair, and then "plug" this wire right into the "91B"
block. (I think this is called a RJ-14 type jack, but I can't remember
right now.) You can also re-wire the wires inside the "91B" block, if
you have some odd sort of configuration of lines coming in, ie, your
"Line 1" is yellow/black and you want it to be that way on the ComKey
as well.

If you want more than two lines, it becomes complicated. In order for
the ComKey to take four lines, you need a "different" "base/power
unit. I'm not too sure about this, but it seems that one of the
base/power units (the larger units) will power lines one and two,
while the other base/power unit powers lines three and four. I have
looked extensively at all the markings inside and outside of the power
units, and see no indication which would easily tell me which one is
which. There are movable blocks inside the unit (under the
DSS/intercom page buttons), but I dunno if they have anything to do
with selecting whether the unit runs L1/2 or L3/4. I found this out
via experimentation with the equipment I have, and there is perhaps a
much simpler way to connect all four lines. (Perhaps something like a
"91A" block, etc?).

In any event, assuming you have all the right equipment (ie, the
blocks, and two power units, one to run L1/2 and the other to run
L3/4), you may want to select the intercoms. To do this, open the tab
with the Bell System symbol on it, and underneath you will see four
switches and one, long, sliding switch, with numbers one to ten on it.
These numbers correspond to the DSS buttons, and if you select "2" on
the sliding switch, every time anyone presses DSS button two (leftmost
one on the bottom row), your speaker will go off. (The "tab" you are
supposed to remove may just say "ComKey" on it - I've seen ones which
do NOT have the Bell logo on it, for some odd reason.)

The other four switches are for lines one to four, and they will tell
your specific phone what line to ring on. I usually have only the main
phone ring on all four lines, and the rest are silent, so the main
phone gets 1-4 as "on", while all the other ones have 1-4 as "off".
You can also change these whenever you want, so if you want to
temporarily disable ringing on one line, just turn "off" the
corresponding switch.

And yeah, the cables are a pain. Almost like the 25-pair amphenol
cables on 1A2 systems. I think this was a hybrid system, between the
old 1A2 key phones, and the newer, electronic systems. I recall that a
few years after the ComKey came out, there was a similar system, but
without the amphenol. I can't recall the name right now, but I think
AT&T still sells those as well via its catalog.

But the 25-pair cables have their uses: I've managed to combine a
ComKey unit which had a burnt out speaker/amplifier card to work with
my 1A2 system by just cutting one wire. And, if I remember correctly,
the only reason I had to cut a wire on the ComKey was because I like
the red HOLD light on the 1A2's to be lighted to show that the power
is on, and this modification somehow messed up the ComKey. (I think
this can be done on each individual phone without sending power down
through the whole system, but I was lazy.)

I wouldn't suggest connecting a ComKey to a 1A2 unless you don't mind
blowing a few things out on it, since 1A2s can be wired slightly
differently from installation to installation, and I don't think they
were ever intended to be used as part of the same system with ComKeys.
So perhaps it is best not to experiment unless you don't care what
happens to the ComKey. (And use an unpowered/slave unit if you do try
this ... I've never tried to connect a ComKey power unit to a 1A2
system! (The 1A2s, of course, don't have any cards to blow out, at
least not in the phones themselves.)

Anyone have any ComKeys they want to get rid of? I'm looking for a
speakerphone unit, but AT&T wants to charge something like $400 for
this, which is a bit too expensive for me! I could also use a new
touch-tone pad and an amplifier card, but AT&T will not sell these to
me.

Hope this helps (and was essentially correct :)  ),


Doug

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

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu vs Motorola
Date: 25 Mar 91 09:35:11 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] writes:

>> That Fujitsu phone was developed with Japanese government money,
>> targeted to destroy the Micro-TAC and Motorola.  Please understand

> These facts (I'm assuming they ARE facts) would only serve to
> encourage me to buy the Japanese item.  If they're smart enough to
> figure out a way to design a competitor to the Micro-TAC that's so
> good that it puts an end to the the Micro-TAC, more power to them.

You are missing the point.  The complaint is that the Japanese
government closed it's market to the Micro Tac, and then subsidized
the creation of a competitor.  Moto is bitching that they didn't get a
fair shot -- that the Japanese government didn't let them enter the
market until the local boys had a chance to catch up and grab the
market share.  Even if the new Japanese phone makes the Micro-Tac look
like doo-doo, Moto should have gotten their year or two of being
"leader of the pack" before being deposed.

The Japanese government seems to be very adept at such protectionist
manuevers.  Perhaps it is because the best and the brightest from the
major universities go into the civil service instead of industry.


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

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Early Pay Telephone Exhibit at Richmond Airport
Date: 25 Mar 91 09:05:17 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (Robert M. Hamer) writes:

> manner.  Do not deposit money until told by the operator. / Gray Tel.
> Pay. Sta. Co., H'F'D, C.T., Patd. Feb 8, '98" (Anyone know what H'F'D
> is?  Could I just have read it wrong and it was M'F'D for "Manufactured"?)

Most likely H'F'D is a contraction of Hartford; thus, "Hartford, C.T."


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

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

From: "Wolfgang R. Schulz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Card for Germans Includes $15 Gift
Date: 25 Mar 91 21:12:54 GMT


[e-mail] (David E A Wilson) writes:

> As we in Australia have access to Call USA (0014 881 100) what are
> MCI's rates for such a credit card call from Australia to the USA? Is
> there any financial advantage over OTC's rates?

David:

Why not just call that toll free number and ask for the rate, so it
would be easy to compare.

 From Germany this is very clear: after the third minute you start
saving using the MCI Card towards the national PTT's direct dial
rates.

For DD we pay DM 0.23 (the message unit price), which is approximatly
fifteen cents, and for a call to the U.S.A. you get 4.42 seconds for a
unit.

MCI Call USA charges a $2 basic fee, $1.68 for the first minute and
$1.03 for each additional minute.

If you take your calculator, you will see that in the third minute
both charges are the same, for shorter calls, DD is cheaper, for
longer calls MCI becomes more and more cheaper. I bet it will be the
same in Australia.


Wolfgang R. Schulz, Hamburg, Germany   BTX (and phone): 0405521878
Bang:     ...unido!mcshh!wrs           UUCP: [e-mail]
Internet: [e-mail]           MCI:  241-2526


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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #239
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29624;
          26 Mar 91 2:20 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08563;
          26 Mar 91 0:38 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22962;
          25 Mar 91 23:34 CST
Date:     Mon, 25 Mar 91 22:29:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #240
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 25 Mar 91 22:29:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 240

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Some Realities About Repair of Damaged Aerial Phone Cables [D. Lesher]
    Re: Some Callers and Answering Machines [Bernard F. Collins]
    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [W. H. Sohl]
    Re: Questions About New Service Being Installed [Jim Rees]
    Train Derailment and Alternate Carriers [Michael Ho]
    Technological Solution to Caller ID [Christopher Owens]
    CLASS is Finally Coming to my Exchange [John Higdon]
    It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905 [David Leibold]
    Re: Urban Legend -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins! [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security [Bill Huttig]
    Information Needed on Broadband ISDN [Jim Niemann]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Realities About Repair of Damaged Aerial Phone Cables
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 19:33:26 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


One other OBT cable repair story comes to mind. Some years ago, Bell
had dug a large trench for several hundred feet not far from the
Cleveland Zoo. This trench contained both interoffice trunkage, and
intraoffice distribution. They had opened up and peeled back several
of the 600+ pair trunks, which were very old.

Well it got to be quitting time, so they left a few barricades and
went home. Sometime that night, some juveniles came along, saw the
kerosene pots {remember those, folks?} and kicked them into the
trench. They also threw in a few road flares.

Well you can guess the results. Virtually every pair was destroyed.
This included *tens* of thousands of pairs from a major tandom to the
CO's in the area. Of course, as Larry pointed out, old pulp cable is
NOT color-coded. In the words of a employee friend, "you'll see this
one on your bill, guys" as they worked for weeks to repair the damage.

I suspect that OBT does not now leave open trenches in less-desirable
neighborhoods unguarded at night.


[e-mail]    (305) 255-RTFM

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

From: "Bernard F. Collins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Callers and Answering Machines
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 14:35:43 GMT


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

> But why won't some people leave a message?  Don't they realize that
[Stuff deleted]
> wash the dog, wash our clothes (in that order), and shop.  Maybe these
> people who don't leave messages are just gamblers at heart and they
> want to take their chances catching their callee at a free moment.
> Maybe they don't realize that if they leave a message they might
> (probably will) get a call back, but if they don't leave a message
> they definitely WILL NOT get a call back - unless I get real curious
> and call a strange number back.

I confess.  I am one of those disturbed few who frequently hang up
without leaving a message on an answering machine.  I do not resent
the machines.  I own one myself.  There are however many situations in
which I prefer simply to hang up.  When I am calling just to chat with
a friend; or when I need a piece of information which I can readily
get elsewhere.  Many times I simply do not want to put another person
to the trouble of trying to reach me.

Answering machines are wonderful devices that in some measure restore
control to people who do not like to be at the beck and call of anyone
at any time.  That does not mean that those who reach a machine are
required by good manners to leave a message.  If I visited someone's
home in person, and he were not there, I very well might choose not to
leave a note on his door.  The freedom to take or not to take a call
is accompnied by the freedom to leave or not to leave a message.
There are very many real-life circumstances in which people like
myself do not find that the curiosity of the persons we are calling is
enough of a reason to leave a message.

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

From: "24460-W. H. Sohl(L145" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 15:07:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws
Reply-To: "24460-W. H. Sohl" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


Several days ago I wrote:

>> My view is that the cable "service" should be provided to a single
>> point within any home at a standard signal level and then any further
>> distribution within the home should be left to the homeowner.  Fears
>> of bad inside wiring being detrimental to other cable subscribers can
>> be alleviated by using some type of unidirectional broadband isolation
>> device as a standard cable interface (terminating module) for each
>> home.

Jeff Sicherman asked the following in response to my posting above:

>   Maybe you would also like to be charged for only the electrical or
> water connections to your home without regard to the volumes consumed.
> Or perhaps a rooming house should pay the same as a single-family
> home.

>   I know that the issues are not _exactly_ the same since the programs
> are not consumables but there are acquistion costs that do relate to
> the level of usage that affect profitability of a particular type of
> programming versus alternative ones. That's why some shows are
> pay-per-view, so the average watcher won't end up subsidizing some
> high-cost showings.

The issues aren't even close by my judgment.  First, as mentioned in
my original posting, cable companies in NJ do NOT charge for the
presence of an in-line VCR with your TV, so you already have the means
to "double-up" your volume consumed. Second, there are now TV sets
available with the capability to watch two or more channels at one
time, does that mean I (we) should be charged more for that type of
set.  Three, and perhaps the most important, is that I pay a basic
service fee each month that is totally irrespective of the use I get
from the cable channels.  The fee is the same if I watch TV seven days
a week or not at all.

The cable company puts togeather a basic cable offering to which I
subscribe.  It is not my concern as to how much that costs, because
the costs are born across all cable users as the basic fee.

A few more notes:

I do NOT have any premium service channels.  If one uses the "value or
volume" argument to justify the charges for a second or third TV set
charge, then I should have the option to buy a premium channel and
then watch it on a TV set separate from the "primary" set if I so
choose.  After all, I'm now paying a premium service charge in
addition to my basic charge.  I know of NO cable tariff that would
allow me to do this.


These comments and opinions are the mine alone and are not those
of my employer.

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Questions About New Service Being Installed
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 22:36:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)) writes:

>    I found out my new service will be serviced by a 1ESS switch.  Can
> anybody explain the difference between that and a 5ESS switch?

The 5ESS is the HAL-9000 of telephone switches, doing its work in
complete silence.  The one in our CO handles about a dozen prefixes,
and is half the size of the 1ESS next to it that only handles three
prefixes.  The 1ESS has relays in it, not to do the actual switching,
but to switch ringing voltage and the like on to the loop.  It makes a
lot of noise, although nothing like a panel office!

The 5 is "modern" and will do SS7 things like Caller*ID.  The 1 only
does the basics, like Call Waiting.  The 5 is digital, the 1 analog.
The 5 has no moving parts in the actual switching circuitry.

What I'd like to know is what are 2 and 3ESS?  What's the difference
between a 1 and a 1A (is it just the processor?  Does 1A run Unix?)
And what kind of hardware does a 4ESS have (I've never seen one)?

> ($42 seems unreasonable to me for one line when you consider it is a
> $15 hookup charge for electric and $14 for gas).

Most installations only require a table change at the CO, but some may
require actual field work (ask Patrick about the multiples on the
cables in his neighborhood some time).  The electric and gas companies
don't have to do anything except turn on the billing usually, and if
they do, they charge extra for it (they wanted $10k to bring 3-phase
into my garage for my IBM System/3).

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: Train Derailment and Alternate Carriers
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 05:49:20 GMT


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

> ... The media was
> quick to point out that customers could place calls through MCI or
> AT&T but did not give any instructions on how that might be done.

Alternate carriers got the same treatment back when AT&T's network
went kaplooey.  "Oh, MCI and Sprint still work, so figure out how to
get to them."

The big problem for the media is the proliferation of alternate
carriers.  They don't want to advertise for one without advertising
for all, including the various regional carriers.  They can get in
some ethical trouble for such free advertising.  (Yes, I realize
that's an idealized statement; please try to keep my mailbox
relatively clean of indignant replies. ;-) )

Plus, as we've seen, 10xxx doesn't work in all places just yet.


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: Mon, 25 Mar 91 09:50:54 CST
From: Christopher Owens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Technological Solution to Caller ID


The issue with Calling Line ID (CLID) is balancing the privacy rights
of one group (callers who don't want to give out their number) against
the privacy rights of another (callees who don't want to get anonymous
calls). What's getting lost in all the heat and smoke of this debate
is that there is a potential technological solution that appears to
balance these interests:

* Each telphone line would have an outgoing call default of either "ID
  released" or "ID blocked", with a per-call override.

* Each incoming call would be identified either
    1) with the calling line ID
    2) with "CLID blocked" if the caller is withholding the
       identification.
    3) with "CLID not available" if the identifying information is
       unavailable for technological reasons.

* Each incoming line could be programmed to accept or reject calls in
  Category 2.

Many private individuals, whose interest in peace and privacy
outweighs their interest in maximum accessibility, would chose to
block these calls.  Many businesses, who are interested in receiving
as many potential customer calls as possible, might choose to allow
them through.  Pizza places having a problem with pranksters probably
wouldn't.  John (Higdon, who's getting harrassed on his voice-mail
system) would probably want his voice-mail system to capture CLID, and
reject calls that originate with ID blocked.

This is not Buck Rogers stuff --- it's within the technological
capability of any system that can provides CLID.  It empowers the
individual to make his or her own decision about the privacy issues
surrounding CLID, and to pay the consequences of that decision
(missing calls vs.  getting harrassing calls; giving out one's number
vs. not having one's call go through).  John can stop the turkey from
harrassing him, but his solution doesn't affect me: I won't be forced
to pay the price of getting on the auto-dial telemarketing hit-list of
any company I call for price/product information.

I've been trying to push this line of reasoning for a while; I'd like
to encourage people to refine it and correct its problems.  I suspect
the only folks who won't like it are the telephone companies, who are
opposed to any form of CLID blocking because it reduces the value of
CLID services they sell to businesses that use the lists of numbers to
build marketing databases.  Also, some special treatment of E911 and
related cases needs to be worked out.


Christopher Owens                [e-mail]
Department of Computer Science   1100 East 58th Street
The University of Chicago        Chicago, IL 60637


[Moderator's Note: I don't know of any cases where telcos will offer
blocking by default, but a few, including our own Centel here in
Chicago are talking about a blocking overide feature on a per call
basis.  In the ruling expected this summer from the Illinois Commerce
Commission, I suspect the rule will be to allow (per call) blocking for
everyone, and default blocking only to selected organizations upon
request.   It is still uncertain here how it will be configured.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 12:17 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: CLASS Is Finally Coming to My Exchange


I just got some dates from Pac*Bell. My CO (the last of the original
Alexander Graham Bell prototypes) will be upgraded in September of
this year, and CLASS will be available in October. This is the first
time anyone has mentioned a time frame. I am told that this will be
the first offering of CLASS in California.

Contel will also begin offering CLASS features in Gilroy (a farming
town 30 miles south of San Jose, which is an overgrown farming town)
by the end of the year. Next year, it will offer these features in its
High Desert areas.

Of course, all of this will be after the big PUC public debates so
what we finally get will be the Pasteurized and homogenized and highly
diluted versions of Caller ID, etc. But at least it will be something.


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

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1991 12:44:30


Bell Canada has just announced that the new area code to be formed in
splitting 416 will be 905 ... perhaps inferior to another choice like
210 in some respects, but that's the word out in the media as of
today.

The split will see areas in 416 outside Toronto change to 905 starting
in the fall of '93. Mandatory dialing should be complete in early '94.

More details and discussion on this later, or from other correspondents.

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

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 08:53:46 EST
From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Urban Legend -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins!
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


    It is possibly a true story ... since FL did have a test of CLID
in 1985 in the ORLANDO area. During the test they allowed free per
call blocking. I hope they do when we get CLID.

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security
Date: 24 Mar 91 18:28:45 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


     MCI offers account information via their 800 number also ...
depending on which region you call into depends on if it requires the
number only or number and zip code.


[Moderator's Note: Oh really? Would you please post the number we
should call to invade our MCI-using neighbor's privacy? Thanks.   PAT]

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

From: Jim Niemann <edsr![e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed on Broadband ISDN
Organization: EDS Research, Dallas, TX
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1991 21:47:57 GMT


What research is being done in broadband ISDN?  Is it possible to
purchase a prototype switch that supports it?

Where should I look for more info?

Thanks,

Jimmy Niemann   EDS Research   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #240
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01895;
          26 Mar 91 3:24 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09440;
          26 Mar 91 1:42 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08563;
          26 Mar 91 0:38 CST
Date:     Mon, 25 Mar 91 23:52:02 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #241
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 25 Mar 91 23:51:48 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 241

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Seeking Recommendations for Call-Routing Hardware/Software [M. Carlock]
    Looking For Vendors of 802.4 <-> 802.3 Modems [Malcolm Carlock]
    Panasonic Phone Surge Arrestor Needed [Bruce D. Nelson]
    Telephone Headset Information Wanted [Al Richer]
    Information Wanted on International Videoconferencing [Michel Jacquemin]
    Information Wanted on Revenue Accounting Codes [Carl Wright]
    Revenue Accounting Office Numbers Needed [A. Alan Toscano]
    An Alternative to Circular Hunt [Bill Huttig]
    Re: More on Selective Ringing [David Lesher]
    Vengence of a Payphone [Derek Billingsley]
    Re: Urban Legend?  -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins! [Bill Vermillion]
    Re: Remote Call Forwarding / Transfer Device Needed [A..E. Mossberg]
    Re: Can You Disable Call-Waiting AFTER the Call Starts? [Toby Nixon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Malcolm Carlock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeking Recommendations for Call-Routing Hardware/Software
Date: 25 Mar 91 22:06:47 GMT
Reply-To: Malcolm Carlock <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Nevada, Reno  Campus Computing Services


We're examining the idea of creating a call-routing setup here, which
would handle 300-400 calls per day and route to about ten numbers.  The
functionality would be similar to the usual thing you get when calling
large companies' support lines: "Welcome to XXXXX.  For software
support, press 1; For hardware support, press 2;" etc.

We don't want anything fancier (or more expensive) than is necessary
to do this task, but it's necessary that it work dependably.  Anyone
have any recommendations for vendors of this sort of thing, preferred
configurations, etc?

Please reply via email and I will post to the net.

Thanks in advance.


Malcolm L. Carlock   Internet:  [e-mail]
UUCP:  unr!malc      BITNET:    malc@equinox

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

From: Malcolm Carlock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For Vendors of 802.4 <-> 802.3 Modems
Date: 26 Mar 91 00:11:17 GMT
Reply-To: Malcolm Carlock <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Nevada, Reno  Campus Computing Services


I'm seeking names (and if possible, recommendations) of vendors of
boxes which act as modems between 802.3 (ethernet) and a broadband
802.4 (token bus) network.

At least some vendors appear to offer a bridge/filter function in
their boxes of this type.  I'm particularly interested in finding a
vendor whose equipment comes in both filtering and non-filtering
flavors, though all information will certainly be welcome.

Please respond via email and I will summarize to the net.

Thanks,


Malcolm L. Carlock  Internet:  [e-mail]
UUCP:  unr!malc     BITNET:    malc@equinox

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: "Bruce D. Nelson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Panasonic Phone Surge Arrestor Needed
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 17:14:29 GMT


I have a Panasonic phone which uses a surge arrestor which looks like
a frosted neon lamp with the number 351 on it. The surge arrestor
seems to have become leaky and causing a hum on the phone. Can anyone
tell me where I might purchase these surge arrestors?


Bruce Nelson                            | Phone: [phone]
Rochester Distributed Computer Services | Internet: [e-mail]
Eastman Kodak Company                   |
Rochester, NY 14653-5221                |

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

From: [e-mail] (Al Richer)
Subject: Telephone Headset Information Wanted
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Al Richer)
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 12:59:06 GMT


Hi folks...

 Having been a "lurker" on comp.dcom.telecom for a while, I
immediately knew where to come for information on anything
telecom-related. This is one that I'm sure other folk have run into,
but I've never seen anything published here on it.

 I have a telecom headset, manufactured by a California company who
flat-out refused to give me any information on it. It consists of an
electrostatic microphone, a magnetic earpiece and an amplifier box
connecting the two to an RJ-11 handset plug. The amplifier of the set
seems to derive power from the handset line, but in what fashion I'm
not terribly sure. There seems to be a bridge rectifier, as well as
some analog IC circuitry in the box to provide variable amplification
to the earpiece, as well as DC bias for the mike.

 My question is this:

 I want to adapt this little darling for use with a portable
transciever. Could anyone give me some idea of what voltage is being
provided, and on which pins of the RJ11?? From there I can puzzle out
the various connections. My main concern is that I want to avoid
damaging the internal circuitry of the amplifier box, as all of the
parts are either unmarked or have nonsandard markings.

 Thanks in advance.

 N.B.: Yes, I have checked the Telecom Archives. No joy.


Alan J. Richer              Mail:  [e-mail]
Interleaf, Inc.             All std. disclaimers apply
9 Hillside Ave.                  Your mileage may vary

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

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 16:41:59 EST
From: Michel Jacquemin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on International Videoconferencing


I remember reading recently in a newspaper in Belgium that a link had
been made that allowed "videoconferencing" between the US and Belgium
(going through the UK).  They said it was using ISDN.  I called my
local telephone company's (SNET) customer service; they said they'd
never heard about "videoconferencing".

So here's a question: is there any company in the US that offers an
overseas "videoconference" service?


Michel Jacquemin ([e-mail])

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on Revenue Accounting Codes
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1991 16:05:47 GMT


Can anyone help me find a source of the RAO (regional accounting
office) codes for all NPA-NXXs?

Bellcore provides it at a price which we can't handle. This seems like
data which would be public domain. The codes are used to determine
which "billing office" gets a credit card charged call.


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

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

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 18:59 GMT
From: "A. Alan Toscano" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Revenue Accounting Office Numbers Needed


Revenue Accounting Offices (RAOs) across the United States have
numbers assigned to them.  As I recall from a discussion here some
time ago, they begin with number 001 in the Northeast, and run up
through somewhere in the 200s in the West.  Does anyone know the last
(highest value) number used?  Better yet, does anyone have a list of
RAOs which could be posted to the TELECOM Archives?


A. Alan Toscano              Voice:  [phone]     MCI Mail:  ATOSCANO
<[e-mail]>     Telex:  6975956AAT UW       CIS:       73300,217

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: An Alternative to Circular Hunt
Date: 24 Mar 91 18:28:45 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


     It might be cheaper to get Forward on Busy for each line. In
Southern Bell's area in Florida it is only $1 per month/line. There is
also forward on no answer. I think it costs the same.

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on Selective Ringing
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 20:46:40 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


Donald and others {in email} have mentioned various types of tuned
ringers. I've never seen one that was tunable by a cap, but have no
reason to think that they do not exist. So I stand enlightened.

However, I want to add more noise to the circuit here :-}. Lee told me
that the usual 'across the line' ringer was NOT frequency-selective.
It cost more money to make the exotic ones that were tuned. The garden
variety ones will work on either 20 or 30 hz, and in fact a lot
farther then that. For some reason {revenge maybe - he has more, and
better, stuff in his house than the Independent does in its Strowger
office next door}. Lee was being fed 55-some hz ringing on his
single-party line. He had a hard time getting standard ringers to work
THAT far up.

Sub-Cycles do come in both 20 and 30 hz models. The 30 hz design is
much cheaper, and is what you see in old 500 series KTU power
supplies.  I, however, insist on the real thing, and have 20 hz here.
[Besides, that's what I found at the hamfest for $5.00;-]

Lee never identified the the term "ferroresonant" with tuned ringers,
but I guess that is a correct description. It's worth nothing that a
few years ago North Supply listed replacement ringers for 500 sets in
four different schemes. Donald named three terms. I recall:

    20, 30, 40, 50, hz    [decimatic??]
    22, 33, 44, 55, 66 hz
    16, 25? 35.5? etc  hz

But I suppose it is worth looking to see if they are still there.

He is also correct about Bell not using tuned ringers. They prefer
grounding one side of the pair, and thus adding lots of noise ;-}. I
cannot recall if the 500 set was 'gonged' or not, but guess it must
not have been. It was clearly a licensed copy, then.

As for that nine volt supply, I have NO idea what its function was.  I
just recall Lee joking about adding thousands of battery snaps along
the bus bars. There was also a 'special' 48v-->48v @1000 amp machine
that was needed to provide isolated battery/ground in some CO. I also
recall a similar sized 48v-->55?v beast that provided equalization
voltage for the battery plant.


[e-mail]   (305) 255-RTFM

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

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 22:43:23 AST
From: DBILLINGSLEY <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vengence of a Payphone


I was in Boston for my spring break and had to make a few calls from
payphones - something I already regret .. however I have been a reader
of this newsgroup for sometime so only looked for plain and safe
looking payphones (The ones with the notice on the bottom saying long
distance is services by AT&T.)

However there were times when I had no choice.  Some phones looked
like they were out of a star trek episode as they had lots of buttons
(Though none seemed to do anything) but no notice.

What happens if I get huge horrible bills on my next statement? Or
will I be another victim?


Thank-you,

Derek


[Moderator's Note: Even using AT&T does not guarentee the phone is not
a ripoff otherwise. More than the LD carrier, what you want to look
for is the trademark of the local telco (Bell or otherwise) on the
phone itself. And yes, you might well be just another victim. Tell us
about it when your bill arrives.    PAT]

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

From: Bill Vermillion <bilver![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Urban Legend?  -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins!
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 15:32:00 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nancy J
> Airey) writes:

>> The story goes that a woman in Florida with "caller ID" on her phone
>> was receiving obscene phone calls.  She reported the phone number to
>> the police and the caller was charged.
>> The caller sued her for invasion of privacy and won.

> Probably not in Florida -- a Southern Bell Customer Service person
> told me that CallerID wasn't available in Florida (yet) because of
> current state laws.  An easy way to disprove the story is to verify my
> information (left as an exercise to the reader -- I don't know who to
> ask for *guaranteed* accurate information, but I'm sure some of you do. :)

However Call Tracing has been available in Southern Bell switches in
metro Orlando for several years, and United makes it available on
April 1.

Call Tracing stores the callers number at the phone company and they
will turn that number over to the police (or other law enforcement
agencies) for proscecution if the called person wants that done.  The
number will not be given the the called person.

United is also implelementing for the first time in this area
call-back, call-block and a couple of other minor things.


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

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

From: "a.e.mossberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Remote Call Forwarding / Transfer Device Needed
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 04:24:12 GMT
Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science


In <[e-mail]> the Moderator writes (in response to
an article by David Lesher):

> [Moderator's Note: If it is the same Remote Call Forwarding we have
> here, (and I suspect it is) then it is NOT remotely programmable. In
> actuality, it is a line which terminates in a CO of your choice
> somewhere, and calls to that number are automatically forwarded to the
> phone number you specified when you ordered the service. You can NOT
> change it from hour to hour or day to day. Telco will charge you for a
> line (even though it terminates right in the CO and goes no-where, and
> they will charge you at DDD rates for each call forwarded.  Maybe SWBT
> has a new product as you describe it, but I don't think so.  PAT]

No, I'm afraid you're wrong, unless the SB ads are lying. The ads on
the TV specifically claim that "wherever you are you can forward your
calls to" so I suspect that David is right, that you can call in and
get your number "pulled" to where you're calling from.

I believe that the charge was something like $7.50 per month,
presumably in addition to the regular charge for call forwarding
($4.50 month?)


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well, I think that is wonderful. I'm surprised they
beat Illinois Bell to it.  IBT thought about this for awhile, deemed
it to be 'problematic' and put it on the back burner.  Now that SWBT
has it going, maybe the other Bell telcos will follow close behind, as
they usually do whenever one starts a new innovation.   PAT]

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can You Disable Call-Waiting AFTER the Call Starts?
Date: 25 Mar 91 23:26:48 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, halcyon!ralphs@sumax.
seattleu.edu (Ralph Sims) writes:

> Right!  S9=20 and S10=20 should keep the modems online even with a
> two-second drop in carrier.  NOTE: the caveat is that BOTH modems need
> to be set up in this manner!  Dragging the settings out a bit might be
> necessary to do the three +'s, etc. to get the modem back to command
> status.  Ghads!  This stuff can be a Black Art!

You're right, it can be a black art -- more than you know.  In fact,
you don't quite understand S9 and S10 correctly!

S9 specifies how long the carrier must be present (either initially,
or on recovery after a dropout) before it is recognized by the modem.
S10 specifies how long the modem can tolerate carrier to not be
present before it hangs up.  The measurement of S10 is dependent on S9
 -- i.e., if the carrier goes away, it must come back for at least the
time specified in S9 BEFORE S10 expires, or the modem hangs up.  In
your example, the modem wouldn't tolerate a two second dropout; in fact,
it would ALWAYS HANG UP on ANY dropout.  The maximum dropout which can
be tolerated is the _difference_ between S9 and S10.  If you want the
modem to be able to tolerate a dropout of two seconds, you could, for
example, set S9=6 and S10=26.

Also, putting the modem into command state with a "+++" does NOT cause
carrier to drop. When the modem is in online command state, it is
still sending carrier (mark idle).  So, there's no need to adjust
S9/S10.  But as I pointed out in an earlier post, there's no way to
dial once carrier is present anyway, so the point is moot.


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 #241
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03616;
          26 Mar 91 4:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12786;
          26 Mar 91 2:47 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09440;
          26 Mar 91 1:43 CST
Date:     Tue, 26 Mar 91 1:05:46 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #242
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Mar 91 01:05:36 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 242

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phone Hookup for American PC in Scotland [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Questions About New Service Being Installed [Bryan Richardson]
    Re: MCI Card for Germans Includes $15 Gift [John R. Covert]
    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Heath Roberts]
    Calling Card With No Surcharge (was: MCI Around Town) [Bill Huttig]
    Is There a Selective Ringing Blocker? [Michael P. Deignan]
    Telephone Company Refusing to Supply Cable for Multiple Lines [L. Lippman]
    Re: Information Needed on Broadband ISDN [Heath Roberts]
    Administrivia: Caller-ID Articles in Digest [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Hookup for American PC in Scotland
Date: 26 Mar 91 03:20:20 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: Worried Mothers  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 218, Message 6 of 12

> A friend of mine will be heading for Scotland next month and wants
> to take a laptop pc w/modem.  What type of hookup will he need
> to connect his modem to the phone system there?

    This is one of those questions asked here so often I am
surprised the modem, FAX and phone manufacturers don't put it in their
manuals.

    First of all, Europe - yes, even Scotland - uses CCITT modem
standards.  Here in the US we use BELL mostly with CCITT V32 etc.
becoming more popular. So if your friend wants to log into local
systems, he may need to switch his modem over. If he is calling back
to the US. No problem.

    Now in many parts of the U.K. Touch Tone dialing is available,
so that can be tested with a test dial. If not, pulse will work fine.

    Now the mechanical stuff:

    For the international, works anywhere solution, you will need
a modular cord with spade lugs on the end. Telephone equipment stores,
including AT&T phones stores (The Death Star Store), carry these. You
plug the modular part in the modem or phone and the spade lugs screw
down to your local terminal block. On British Telecom Jacks, that
would be terminals 2 and 5.

    In the U.K. you can bring in a modular cord and cut the plug
off one end. Take it to an "Electrical shop" where they will terminate
the spare end of your modular cord with a British Telecom style jack
plug. Tell the man in the shop that the two center wires in your Yank
phone line are the ones he wants.

Yes, why hasn't the world adopted the wonderful AT&T modular jack? It
is pretty nifty, reliable and cheap. Some countries have phone jacks
that look like they can handle 20A at 220V.

Here is the document on Brit Jacks:


               British Telecom Auxiliary Jack Wiring

        British phones have 3 wires. There are two wires A & B (Tip &
Ring) coming into a house. There is no protector. In the primary jack
in the house is a 2 uF capacitor. On the end of this cap is the third
wire. The AC ringing signal is fed to the phone on this wire and its
DC counterpart. See diagram:


                  ----| |------O (3)
                  |
                  |
    (A) O----------------------O (2)



    (B) O----------------------O (5)

        Note: The Numbers in the diagram are the numbers engraved on
the jack terminals. If the phone rings continuously, reverse 2 and 5.
The ringer is fed by AC current on pins 3 and 5.

        BT  consider the A terminal to be ground. B is measured as 45
to 50 volts above ground.

        Wiring Colour Codes:
        The standard inside wire is classic "3 pair". A jack is wired
as follows:

        Pin #               Wire colour

        2                   Blue/White
        3                   Orange/White
        4                   White/Orange
        5                   White/Blue


                                END


Julian Macassey, n6are  [e-mail]  ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

From: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About New Service Being Installed
Date: 26 Mar 91 05:03:49 GMT
Reply-To: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Purdue University


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim
Rees) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 240, Message 4 of 11

> What I'd like to know is what are 2 and 3ESS?  What's the difference
> between a 1 and a 1A (is it just the processor?  Does 1A run Unix?)
> And what kind of hardware does a 4ESS have (I've never seen one)?

I can't address 2 and 3ESS, but as a part of the 4 ESS software
development organization, I can address the last question.  The 4 ESS
currently uses the same processor (the 1A) as the 1A ESS switch, but
the 4E uses a digital switching fabric while the 1A is analog.  In a
live office, the 4E sounds similar to a 5E -- very little actual noise
 -- although it looks rather different (there are no doors on most of
the frames).


Bryan Richardson     [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University
Disclaimer:  Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions.

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

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 21:15:38 PST
From: "John R. Covert  26-Mar-1991 0003" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Card for Germans Includes $15 Gift


Two observations on this:

With the per-minute rate that MCI charges at a little over a dollar a
minute and the Bundespost's rate at a little over twice that, anyone
in Germany who occasionally calls the U.S. should get one of these
cards.  The way you would use it would be to direct dial to see if the
person you want to talk to is there and available for more than three
minutes (something you can probably do in about three or four DM 0.23
units / 13-17 seconds) and then call back via MCI Call USA.  This is
how I use AT&T's USA Direct service when I'm travelling overseas.

But issuing MCI cards to German nationals is likely to upset the
Deutsche Bundespost.  The CCITT Recommendations on international call
charging mention that unequal rates in opposite directions are
undesirable, and actually imply that the higher rate of the two is the
preferable one!  The DBP could increase its charges for terminating
traffic in order to retaliate for this effort by MCI to let Germans
bypass the high German telephone rates which are, in effect, a tax,
subsidizing other government services run by the Post Office.

AT&T, the last I checked, would only issue cards to people living
overseas if they were U.S. citizens, probably precisely in order to
avoid annoying the telephone administrations of foreign governments
with which they want to do business.


john

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

From: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws
Organization: NCSU CATT Prog
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1991 06:14:00 GMT


>>> My view is that the cable "service" should be provided to a single
>>> point within any home at a standard signal level and then any further
>>> distribution within the home should be left to the homeowner.  Fears
>>> of bad inside wiring being detrimental to other cable subscribers can
>>> be alleviated by using some type of unidirectional broadband isolation
>>> device as a standard cable interface (terminating module) for each
>>> home.

This isn't a very good argument ... telephone signals _can_ be billed
as measured service. Often they're not, but the more resource-
intensive calls (long distance) always are. Long distance is the
service that costs the most to provide.

Electrical, water, and gas are almost always billed by unit actually
used, instead of a flat rate. They're easily measurable, and no one
would pay a flat rate -- it's too expensive. Also doesn't provide an
incentive to be efficient in energy/water use.

Cable utility, on the other hand, comes from the number of hours one
can watch. With one television, this is always 24 hours per day
(assuming no service interruptions), whether you have a VCR or not.
Even if you watch and tape shows for twelve hours a day, and then
watch the shows you taped, you can only watch twenty four hours of
program materials per day. Unless you have two televisions ... then
you can watch more. (yes, I realize that you _could_ have a TV and VCR
with cable, and a TV and VCR without, and tape shows then move to the
other TV, but this is a little ridiculous.)

For those who use the most system resources (premium channels),
there's an extra charge. So billing per outlet is, overall, a fair way
to charge for cable service. Unlike a telephone line, where you're
limited to one conversation per line, no matter how many instruments,
you could connect additional TV's and gain more utility were cable
services connected the way telephones are.

The ideal solution is to have everyone pay based on the number of
hours they "consume" and the relative cost to the supplier (home
shopping network is much cheaper than HBO for the cable company to
provide). I suspect that this will happen once the technology becomes
available cheaply enough to be practical. It will definitely be a
capability of FiberWorld (NT's vision of telecommunications in the
year 2000 and beyond), if that system is ever widely implemented.


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

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Card With no Surcharge (was: MCI Around Town)
Date: 26 Mar 91 00:28:45 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


    Below is a list of carriers that offer no surcharged calling card
calls:

    ITT/Metromedia is now going under Metromedia Communications(or
something like that ... dropped the ITT part). I think their 950-0488
rates are higher than 1+ ... also their 950-1011(?) rate is different.

    ATC in Florida offers no surcharge local calling card through several of
their divisions:

  SouthTel (Last purchase still operation under that name). 800 940 1862
  MicroTel (using ATC name) 800 226 1234
  Telus (using ATC name) 800 330 0000

Microtel had a big fiber installation and had the best quality.  Each
card has different features.

SouthTel has a universal 950 number without surcharge in FL and GA.

Telus has verious systems with a mix of 950 and local numbers and the
card is not valid from all locations. There are also 800 access from
those locations at a surcharge.

Microtel restrics access to you local switch which is reachable via
local or 950 unless you talk them into letting you access other areas.
800 access is avilable at a surcharge.

They all offer a variation of Ring America/Access America at .10/min
(first hour is $7.50) SouthTel allows this rate on their calling card.

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

From: "Michael P. Deignan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is There a Selective Ringing Blocker?
Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI  02917
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1991 00:48:11 GMT


Okay, we've all heard of those nice devices which allow you to split a
Selective Ringing line into a fax-line, modem-line, etc., by the
addition of a little device obtainable from Hello Direct or other
telephone equipment suppliers.

But, here is a one which I haven't seen: A Selective Ring blocker.

For example, say I have Selective Ringing, and use it for the
following:

    Normal:        Voice Line
    Two Short:     Fax line

Now, with one of those little gems from Hello Direct, I can
successfully split the line so my fax will pick up when I get two
short rings.

However, in both cases, regardless of which line the call is destined
for, my "normal" line will ring - somewhat of a pain-in-the-you-know-
what if someone in Singapore is sending me a fax at two in the
morning, when I really don't want to hear the "normal" line ring, even
two short rings.

Is there a device which will "block" the normal line from ringing when
someone calls in on one of the alternate "selective" numbers? This
way, emergency client phone calls can get "thru", but the occassional
fax-at-2-am will not cause the phone to ring, awakening the household?


Michael P. Deignan     Domain: [e-mail]
UUCP: ..!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd   Telebit: [phone]

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

Subject: Telephone Company Refusing to Supply Cable for Multiple Lines
Date: 26 Mar 91 00:46:42 EST (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> Right now, my ten lines
> come in on individual drops, reminiscent of an alleyway in some slum.
> My friends all have managed to get Pac*Bell to at least install cable
> drops to THEIR houses.

    I hope John Higdon does not take offense at the following
speculation.

    I know for a fact (based upon a couple of specific incidents)
that telephone company security personnel will order that no cable or
multiple drop be furnished to any subscriber who has multiple lines
and who is suspected of being a "security risk" with respect to
unlawful eavesdropping or toll fraud.  The purpose of such an order is
to prevent such a "security risk" from having ready access to any
spare pairs entering distribution facilities on the street.  The
concern is that such a "knowledgeable" person on their own could
connect spare pairs to other subscriber lines.

    I know of a particular instance in a BOC telephone company
where such a "security risk" resided in an apartment building which
had a partially utilized 25-pair cable in the basement.  Telephone
company security ordered that a cable crew open an aerial splice and
physically disconnect *every* spare pair entering the apartment
building.  This meant that any time an additional pair was needed for
a subscriber in the building, a cable crew had to again open the
aerial splice and connect the pair at the street.  Not very convenient
for installation-repair personnel, but security evidently slept better
at night. :-) I cannot say that I disagree with such a practice,
though.

    Also, from a tariff standpoint, the telephone company is under
no obligation to provide cable or multiple drop in lieu of individual
drop wires.  Therefore, this is an arbitrary decision on the part of
the telephone company with no practicable basis for appeal.


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

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

From: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed on Broadband ISDN
Organization: NCSU CATT Prog
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1991 06:21:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> edsr![e-mail] (Jim
Niemann) writes:

> What research is being done in broadband ISDN?  Is it possible to
> purchase a prototype switch that supports it?

By broadband ISDN, I assume you're referring to primary rate access.
Of course there's research into it, but that consists mainly of
developing applications that can make use of ISDN without being
illegal under MFJ.

What kind/size of switch were you looking for? If you want a real
switch (either CO or PBX), you can call 1-800-NORTHERN (yes, there are
one too many digits ...) and ask for information on the DMS-10/
DMS-100/SL-100.


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

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

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 8:42:31 EST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Caller-ID Articles in Digest


Dennis Rears, Moderator of the telecom-priv list has asked me to point
out that from time to time, he will be automatically reprinting
articles in telecom-priv which originally appeared here in the TELECOM
Digest in order to maintain some consistency in the reply thread of
messages there. I'll be printing mostly news and technical stuff on
Caller-ID here, with an occassional social-issues commentary.  For the
most part, replies to articles about Caller-ID which first appear here
should be sent to telecom-priv for extended discussion.  When Dennis
reprints the item, he will NOT be automatically contacting the
original author.  For more information on the telecom-priv mailing
list write Dennis at [e-mail].  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #242
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27579;
          27 Mar 91 0:59 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10288;
          26 Mar 91 23:05 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01590;
          26 Mar 91 22:01 CST
Date:     Tue, 26 Mar 91 21:23:34 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #243
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Mar 91 21:23:08 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 243

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Information Needed on Broadband ISDN [W. H. Sohl]
    Re: Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security [Mark Fulk]
    Re: Bell of PA Answer Call Standardization [Bob Yazz]
    Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905 [Carl Moore]
    Re: Telephone Company Refusing to Supply Cable for Multiple Line [J Higdon]
    Re: Two Line Answering Machines [Rich Zellich]
    Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Questions About New Service Being Installed [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Some Callers and Answering Machines [Dan Jacobson]
    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Roger Fajman]
    Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign [Peter da Silva]
    Re: The Order of Repair [Dell H. Ellison]
    Re: Phone Hookup for American PC in Scotland [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Info Wanted on International Videoconferencing [Sandy Kyrish]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "24460-W. H. Sohl(L145" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 15:22:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Information Needed on Broadband ISDN
Reply-To: "24460-W. H. Sohl" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In article <[e-mail]> edsr![e-mail] (Jim
Niemann) writes:

> What research is being done in broadband ISDN?  Is it possible to
> purchase a prototype switch that supports it?

Bellcore (Bell Communications Research, Inc) is making plans for an
industry forum on Broadband ISDN to be hosted by US West on May 22 &
23.  For additional information on registration, etc. contact:

William Rubin, BISDN Product Manager (908-758-2167)
331 Newman Springs Road (Room 2X-421)
Red Bank, NJ 07701

or

Alan Tedesco, Dist. Mgr, BISDN Systems Engineering (908-758-5066)
Same address as above except room # 1H-258

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
ncsu.edu (Heath Roberts) writes:

> By broadband ISDN, I assume you're referring to primary rate access.

Broadband ISDN is a digital "pipe" significantly higher in bandwidth
than "primary rate" ISDN.

Briefly, there are three types of ISDN access:

Basic Rate: two B channels of 64 Kb each and one 16 Kb D channel used
for signaling and also capable of packet data transmission.

Primary Rate: a 1.544 megabit (DS-1 rate) access arrangement that can
be configured in different ways, but in it's most common form consists
of 23 B channels of 64 Kb each and one D channel, also at 64 Kb for
signaling.

Broadband ISDN: A digital rate significantly greater than Primary.

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

From: Mark Fulk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1991 17:01:18 GMT


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

> 800/347-8988 is the number to complain to Sprint about this; first
> things first.

> The Executive Analyst has had only TWO complaints?  Must be John
> Higdon and me!

> I'm sure Sprint's ability to, uh, count isn't in question, is it?  (:-/

I just spoke to Gena Fulmer at the above number.  She admits to having
heard quite a few complaints, and indicated that they would likely be
acted on.  We had a brief, but very nice, conversation about privacy
concerns.  I supplied her with the following scenario, which she
agreed constituted a significant privacy invasion:

My boss suspects me of wanting to go elsewhere.  Before the start of
the hiring season, he starts checking my Sprint balance every night.
A rapid increase in long-distance phone calls contributes to his
suspicions.


Mark Fulk

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell of PA Answer Call Standardization
Date: 26 Mar 91 10:33:31 GMT


[e-mail] (George A. Theall) writes:

>   Does anyone know what standard Bell of PA is referring to? Is there
> really a committee somewhere weighing such matters as to whether, say,
> one should press <4> or <7> to delete a message?  [as a voice mail standard]

Dialing 0 should get a human, preferably a competent one and
immediately, though no machine can guarantee that.

I posted the above opinion before and would be really interested if an
Actual Committee shared my view.  I think standardization would
benefit voice mail users.

But I have a New And Improved ritual for getting a human on voice mail
systems that seems to work even more often than pushing "0" -- do it a
bunch of times.  I speculate that some of these systems have an "Oh,
he's hopelessly confused" counter that I endeavor to exceed.

Is this a superstition or is it true, voice-mail installers?


Payphone ripoff problems in California?  Call Pacific Bell at 800/352-2201
Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]         They take complaints M-F, 8-5

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 9:41:12 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905


Is 905 (the newly-announced code for area to split from 416) to
include the area bordering on 705?  The bordering on 705 would make
(as Woody pointed out in an old message) 706, the other former pseudo
area code for parts of Mexico, a poor choice.  Someone else's old note
pointed out that when a new area code was being selected for the
Oakland (California) area, 909 was a poor choice because it looked a
little too much like neighboring area code 707. (Later, we heard of
510 being selected for Oakland and 909 being selected for Riverside
and San Bernardino counties in southern California.)

Did you notice that 301 has bordered 302 for as long as there have
been area codes?  (These are the codes for Maryland and Delaware
respectively.)  Maybe that was why eastern Maryland was picked to get
area code 410, so that 301 and 302 will no longer touch.  Also, 301,
which (before 410 split) covers all of Maryland; touches one exchange
area of area 412 in Pennsylvania; the Maryland portion touching area
412 will stay in 301.

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 10:48 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Telephone Company Refusing to Supply Cable for Multiple Lines


Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]> writes:

>     Also, from a tariff standpoint, the telephone company is under
> no obligation to provide cable or multiple drop in lieu of individual
> drop wires.  Therefore, this is an arbitrary decision on the part of
> the telephone company with no practicable basis for appeal.

In my case, the drops were added one at a time over a twenty-five year
period. When my friends moved into their houses, they ordered many
lines at one time and got cable installed on the spot. As a result, I
am not TOO paranoid that telco considers me a "security risk".
Although when four lines did go in at once the installer promised to
clean up the whole mess with cable and then never came back.

But I let the repair department lie in its own bed. None of the
protectors are marked and when a repair person appears, I let him/her
laboriously open each one, ID the number, and move on to the next.
Each one mumbles about how it is a mess and should be cleaned up.
Nothing ever happens.


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

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 15:30:55 CST
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two Line Answering Machines


Go down to Radio Schlock and buy a two-line answering machine adapter.
It will allow the machine to pick up on whichever line of a pair rings
first, and will ignore the second if they both receive calls at the
same time.

It cheerfully switches between lines as calls come in on either of
them, and can also be used with a phone if you are willing to call out
on whichever line \received/ the last call.

I think it runs about $20, but it may be a little higher or lower;
it's been a while since I bought mine (and that was on sale, anyway)
so I don't remember.  The little box works fine, and causes no problem
with loss of ringer voltage (as did, unfortunately, the other RS box
that cuts off the answering machine when any extension is picked up).

Cheers,

Rich

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 17:14 EST
From: Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue


Several posters have referred to some modern residential telephones,
manufactured by AT&T and other companies, as "lightweight".

Northern Telecom's Harmony telephone set, which Bell Canada and some
other companies rent but do not sell, is a modern electronic telephone
set.  The working parts and plastic shell do not weigh very much, and
apparently Northern Telecom's market research with prototypes of the
phone showed that consumers equated low weight with low quality.

And *that's* why there are lead weights in a Harmony telephone.
People who want a heavy telephone will find that manufacturers will
address that demand, but perhaps in an unexpected way.


Nigel Allen   [e-mail]

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About New Service Being Installed
Date: 26 Mar 91 21:59:56 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jim Rees) writes...

> The 1ESS has relays in it, not to do the actual switching,
> but to switch ringing voltage and the like on to the loop.  It makes a
> lot of noise, although nothing like a panel office!

The 1ESS (and the 1A, which uses a less antiquated processor) uses
reed relays to do the actual switching.  They're vacuum-sealed, so
they're quieter than the old ones.  I suspect that the 1 can do Caller
ID too, though Im not sure.

> What I'd like to know is what are 2 and 3ESS?  What's the difference
> between a 1 and a 1A (is it just the processor?  Does 1A run Unix?)
> And what kind of hardware does a 4ESS have (I've never seen one)?

The 2BESS is a "suburban" office, built in the '70s to early '80s,
using (I think) reed relays like a 1A.  It is basically a scaled down
version of the 1A, with a different processor.  The 3ESS is a very
small analog office, of which very few were built (ca. 1980).

The 1 uses an antique CPU with ferrite sheet EPROMs and mag cores.
The 1A goes to semiconductor memory.

As someone else noted, the 4ESS is a different beast, a big digital
toll switch.


Fred R. Goldstein              Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA
[e-mail]   voice: [phone]
 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let
 alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 14:51:31 CST
From: Daniel Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Callers and Answering Machines [no "Unsightly Residue"]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA


On 25 Mar 91 14:35:43 GMT, [e-mail] (Bernard F. Collins)
said:

> The freedom to take or not to take a call is accompnied by
> the freedom to leave or not to leave a message.

With [a certain extra-large phone company... OK, AT&T]'s AUDIX system,
I now can allow callers to leave no "unsightly residue" of their
aborted attempt to call me.  My message:

"You have reached Dan Jacobson.  To leave no message, on your touch
tone phone press **9."


Disclaimer: this system appeared on my desk one day and I have no
comparison to other leading brands to give you, etc.

[e-mail]  Naperville IL USA  [phone]

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91  19:25:57 EST
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws


> Cable utility, on the other hand, comes from the number of hours one
> can watch. With one television, this is always 24 hours per day
> (assuming no service interruptions), whether you have a VCR or not.

Well, our cable system here charges by the TV too.  Trouble with this
argument is that, while we have more than two TVs, there are only two
of us living in the house (not counting the cats, who don't watch much
TV at all :-).  Since the TVs are in different rooms, it is quite
impossible for us to watch more than two at a time, but we are billed
for all.

We have only one converter box, as all the TVs but one are cable ready
and we have no premium channels (so no unscrambling is necessary).
Under those conditions, the converter boxes just get in the way (and
they charge for remote controls for them too -- even if you supply
your own programmable unit).

The cable company installed the inside wiring for free (they will not
connect to your wiring) and is now in the process of recovering the
cost of that few hours of work forvever.

The cable company just announced that the basic service is being
divided into three tiers.  Initially, the total for all three tiers is
the same as before, but I'm sure the price increases won't be long in
coming (there have already been two in one year).  Of course, many of
the channels we like (old movies, CNN) are in the upper tiers.  The
lowest tier gets you primarily the local broadcast stations and the
community service stations.

I've never understood the logic of granting an exclusive franchise and
deregulating prices at the same time.  Of course, we don't have to
have cable TV, but that's no reason for allowing a monopoly without
price controls.  It seems to me that competition should have been the
quid pro quo for deregulating prices.  I'll bet that the telephone
companies wish they could have gotten the deal that the cable
companies did.

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1991 01:16:13 GMT


[e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:

> I won't switch from AT&T because of that.  I'd really
> hate to be stuck on a busy traffic day when some undercapicitized
> carrier is out of lines and not be able to let Ma Bell handle the
> call.  Call me a relic of the past, when there was just one company. :-)

Who said I switched from AT&T? AT&T is still my 1+ carrier ... it's
just that most of my long-distance calls are from the office and I use
my FONcard for those. (And, yes, I occasionally use 10333 when I
remember it, and it gets charged to my FONcard account. SPRint is my
secondary carrier).


[e-mail])

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

From: "Dell H. Ellison" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Order of Repair
Date: 26 Mar 91 15:52:28 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


> [Moderator's Note: Likewise, at my house, we do not have cable. The
> service in Chicago stinks, and anyway, with 12 over the air channels
> why should I bother paying for more grief?   PAT]

Yes.  Why bother when we get so many channels over the air?

And it sure will be great when they have fiber optic cable installed
to every home and then we can receive video through our 'phone lines'.
(I don't know how soon that will be.)

I wonder what happened to that field trial of exactly that down in
Cerritos, California.  Anybody know?


Dell Ellison

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Hookup for American PC in Scotland
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1991 01:19:07 GMT


One problem I have with US-style phone jacks is that little plastic
spring that keeps the plug in the socket is always breaking off. I've
bought a crimping tool just so I can replace the buggers without
throwing out twenty feet of perfectly good cord.


([e-mail])

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 14:10 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Info Wanted on International Videoconferencing


AT&T and US Sprint's The Meeting Channel will both be able to provide
ad hoc international videoconferencing links.  The Meeting Channel is
in Atlanta, at 800-241-8470.  I don't have a number for AT&T
international transmission.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #243
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02317;
          27 Mar 91 2:50 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24711;
          27 Mar 91 1:11 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13565;
          27 Mar 91 0:06 CST
Date:     Tue, 26 Mar 91 23:04:14 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #244
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Mar 91 23:04:07 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 244

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Urban Legend? -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins! [Floyd Vest]
    Caller ID Hearings in California [Robert Swenson]
    I Can't Wait For Caller ID to Start in Chicago! [Randy Borow]
    Re: Cuban Telephone Service [Martin McCormick]
    Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu / Motorola [R. Oliver]
    Re: Hidgon an Expert on 2600 Hz? [Rop Gonggrijp]
    Re: RS-485 Information Wanted: URGENT [Rick Farris]
    What Hardware Supports Ringmate? [Bob Frankston]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta
Date: 27 Mar 91 02:06:13 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> In article <[e-mail]> Robert Jacobson <cyberoid@
> milton.u.washington.edu> writes:

> > The "alleged horrors" which Bill Berbenich has not yet experienced as
> > a result of one month of Caller ID have to do with duration and
> > penetration...

> > [Moderator's Note: What about in places like New Jersey, where
> > Caller*ID has been a reality now for about a year? Maybe one or more
> > of the 'veterans' of Caller*ID will write on the topic of abuses -- if
> > there are any -- now that this new technology has had a chance to get
> > established.   PAT]

New Jersey Bell has offered Caller*ID for about three years.  I'm not
sure how many people have the display devices, but most people have
heard of the service.  They advertise it on TV!

The press has reported several times on the significant drop in the
number of harassment or obscene call complaints received by
authorities.  Does this mean that individual subscribers are taking
matters into their own hands?  Does it mean that would-be prank
callers are deciding not to call?  I don't know.  I once used it to
call back a kid who bothered me early in the morning, and haven't been
bothered since.

Abuses?  We get about the same number of telemarketing calls we used
to.  We don't get calls from merchants we called, unless we gave them
our number.  I have yet to see a retail store with a Caller*ID display
unit in use.  They seem to appeal mostly to residence subscribers.
The advertising from NJ Bell shows the service being used by
individuals at home.

I called someone at home from a customer's premises, and left my
office number as the call-back message.  He called my customer and
asked for me, apparently by looking at his Caller*ID display unit.
Since I wasn't there when he called, it only delayed him, and bothered
my customer.  Abuse?  I wouldn't call it that, would you?  The
customer knows me, and told the caller that I had been there, but that
I had left.

As a user of Caller*ID for about two years, I have found it helpful.
As one who calls others who use it, I have not found it troublesome in
any way.  Horrors?  Not in New Jersey!


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, 26 Mar 1991 01:16 CST
From: Floyd Vest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Urban Legend? -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins!


[23 Mar 91 21:16:42 GMT] [e-mail]
(William Degnan) wrote:

> From: [e-mail]
>> The story goes that a woman in Florida with "caller ID" on her

> Well, it is unlikely it was Florida. I don't believe it has been
> implemented there.

The South Central Bell {Bell Notes} (phone bill newsletter insert)
reported about three or four years ago that "entended custom calling"
[read CLASS] services were being test marketed in a "central Florida"
community.  About a year-and-a-half ago they also reported that
residential ISDN (they didn't call it that) was being test marketed a
"central Florida" community.  Why can't they test market thing like
that here?  Anyone know where this community is and what's being test
marketed now?


Floyd Vest <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Manager, Administrative Systems--Auburn University, Alabama USA
Voice: [phone]  BBS: [phone]  FIDO: 1:3613/3

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1991 13:19:21 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Caller ID Hearings in California


 From my local paper:

The California PUC will hold public hearings Wed, March 27, at 2pm and
at 7pm at the CPUC Auditorium, State Office Building, 505 Van Ness
Ave, San Francisco, and

Thursday March 28 at 2pm and at 7pm at the Employment Development
Department Building, 722 Capitol Mall, Auditorium Room 1098,
Sacramento.

Formal hearings will begin June 24 in San Francisco.

Mail comments:

Public Advisor's Office, California Public Utilities Commission, 505
Van Ness Ave, Room 5304, San Francisco, Calif.  94102

Proposed features:

Caller ID        $5.00 Install,     $6.50 month
Repeat Dialing       5.00 install,     3.50 month
Call Block      5.00         3.50
Call Trace     10.00         10.00 per use
Priority Ringing  5.00         4.00
Select Call       5.00         3.50
 Forwarding

 Also planned is a per-call blocking feature which requires a three
digit code before placing each call.

 Caller ID blocking on a per-line basis will NOT be provided.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue Mar 26 16:02:09 CST 1991
Subject: I Can't Wait For Caller ID to Start in Chicago!


I had a brief but interesting chat with my Illinois Bell rep a few
days ago regards Caller ID. Specifically, I had asked her: when she
expected it to become available, will it have any type of blocking,
and what's the status of the ICC filing regards CLID.

According to her, IBT intends to file for the CLID without any forms
of blocking. No surprise there. However, she went on to explain that
Illinois Bell is "strongly against" any form of blocking and as such,
will make all attempts to implement CLID without blocking regardless
of what the public AND the Illinois Commerce Commission say. Hmmmmmm.
Sounds like they could be setting themselves up for a messy battle
here in the Land of Lincoln.

Personally, I am eager for CLID to begin -- and with no blocking
whatsoever.  Why? I have been getting tons of annoying, gross,
disgusting phone calls. And yes, I HAVE thought of getting my number
changed gratis; however, because of the business I run, and because so
many [legitimate] folks have my number (meaning I can't change it, to
tell you the truth), I'm stuck. Well, I guess that's to be expected
for a number which ends in "6969" (seriously!) :-)

BTW, I had a trap put on my line last autumn because of all the fun
calls (oh, the perverts out there! And all guys!! Yech!!!). Result? I
nailed a few folks: basically, two numbers which had repeated calls to
my number. Several calls came from a LAW firm in Evanston, others from
a residence in Riverside, the town next door to mine. Turns out that
after I pieced together several of the messages which were stupidly
left on my voice mailbox, the SAME chap who called from the Riverside
house called from the law firm in Evanston! Enough on this, though. If
anyone wants to find out the rest of this ongoing and *fun* story,
e-mail me -- unless, of course, Pat wants me to elaborate.


Randy Borow   AT&T Communications   Rolling Meadows, IL.


[Moderator's Note: Yes, certainly tell the outcome of the matter.
Without making any comment whatsoever on the sexual orientation of the
person(s) who made the calls, like yourself, I find calls of that sort
to be annoying at the least and very disturbing and sick as a worst
case scenario when they are directed to someone who has not invited
such calls. I've had my numbers for years, and in the past when
incidents of this sort occurred, service reps have said they would
change my number ... which I have NO INTENTION of doing, and I told
them so. I find it more worthwhile and productive to catch the SOB's
and sue them, or refer it to the prosecutor for criminal charges.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 17:34:27 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cuban Telephone Service

     That was an interesting comment about Radio Rebelde being on the
AM broadcast band.  I have been hearing it regularly in north central
Oklahoma for four or five years.  As radio stations go, it isn't
technically too bad unless you count telephone remote broadcasts.  You
may hear it quite clearly during the night time hours on 5.025MHZ.
There is another frequency below the 80-meter ham band, but it doesn't
make it nearly as well.

     The programming is fast-paced with lots of electronically
synthesized music and even an occasional Western pop tune, (I wonder
if they're paying ASCAP or BMI for the privilege?)

     Another domestic Spanish broadcasting system which used to be on
the air daily, but doesn't show up much, these days, is La Radio
National De Chile.  They used to have a whapper of a signal on
15.140MHZ with local weather, sports, and, best of all, advertising.
One could hear ads for computer stores, auto dealerships, and the
local telephone company, whose name escapes me.

     In the mid 80's, Santiago had seven-digit phone numbers, but
it seemed to be common to read them as one digit followed by
three groups of two as in 2-36-66-66.

     There used to be a telephone company ad extolling the virtues of
the company which had a pulsating tone as its background.  It sounded
for all the world like a busy signal.

  The ads would also tell telephone customers when rates were lowest
just like here.


Martin McCormick    WB5AGZ
Oklahoma State University Computer Center
Stillwater, OK

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

From: "Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu vs Motorola
Organization: Rabbit Software Corp.
Date: 27 Mar 91 00:48:01 GMT


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> Craig Ibbotson <motcid![e-mail]> writes:

>> Call me a blind patriot (and possibly a blind Motorola employee) but
>> if the two of these portables come up even (as was suggested), I would
>> have to think people in the U.S. would opt for the phone that is made
>> in America by American workers for an American company.

> I must disagree most strenuously with the apparent
> statement in the quoted paragraph. Being made in America is NOT a
> reason to buy anything. One should buy on the basis of need and
> fulfillment. If one's needs are fulfilled by a product and the price
> is right, it should be purchased. To buy product just because it is
> "American" possibly rewards a company for building inferior wares.
> (Definitely not the case with Motorola.)

First off, Craig said only that he suggested going with the American
phone *IF* it came up even technically and price-wise.  Thus one is
not rewarding a company for building inferior wares.  One is using
"American made" to decide a tie.  Motorola products are good in large
part because Motorola is now using Total Quality techniques that the
Japanese learned from Demming (who was originally ignored in the
U.S.).

Second, [asbestos on, and please don't everyone start a news war, at
least not in this group] I seriously believe that the current
recession we're in (I don't know about the West Coast, but it's quite
evident on the East Coast) is a derivative or our trade imbalance with
the Japanese.  There are many reasons for this, ranging from simply
better/cheaper Japanese products (especially in the past) to unfair
Japanese trade practices to incompetent public officials in the U.S.
Our government has not only allowed unfair practices to occur, but has
further worsened the situation by propping up the economy by selling
Treasury paper to the Japanese.  The U.S. deficit looms large because
the U.S. government is doing things with a huge Visa card that an
individual would never be allowed to do.  They'd be bankrupt and in
court by now.

[adding more layers of asbestos] I personally don't want my children
or grandchildren flipping burgers for a living.  Let's keep some
viable companies and jobs in the U.S. by providing quality products
and services and buying American whenever reasonable.


Robert Oliver  Rabbit Software Corp.    215 993-1152
7 Great Valley Parkway East     [e-mail]
Malvern, PA  19355        ...!uunet!cbmvax!hutch!robert


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for your comments, and to avoid the flame
war you mention, we probably should close this topic. Thanks to all
who have provided input.   PAT]

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

From: Rop Gonggrijp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hidgon an Expert on 2600 Hz?
Date: 26 Mar 91 18:01:17 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic


Our wonderful Moderator, in reply to a rather silly message wrote:

> [Moderator's Note: And what about you Steve? Are you familiar with the
> process also?  Do you use it a lot at your place?  :)  For those not
> in on the joke, 2600 hz was long used as a fraud tool by phreaks to
> override the billing equipment and make calls for free. If you want to
> know *how*, write each other -- NOT me! I have enough problems this
> century, and I won't answer nor will I print any letters on the
> subject.   PAT]

Why not print any letters that say how the system works?  Sure,
telecommunications fraud is a federal crime, but since all the LD
carriers say "the hole is fixed" I see nothing against a little bit of
nostalgia. Isn't it time to ignore the crazyness that Americans call
law-enforcement and just LEARN !


Rop Gonggrijp ([e-mail]) is also editor of  Hack-Tic (hack/phreak mag.)
Postbus 22953    (in DUTCH)   1100 DL  AMSTERDAM   Tel: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: You may call American law-enforcement 'crazyness',
but I call it a very real concern on the Internet today. You think I
should jeopardize my patron (eecs.nwu.edu) and the thousands of sites
around the USA which graciously receive and pass along the Digest
and/or comp.dcom.telecom just to teach you a thing or two?  The hell
you say! If its all the same to you, I'll continue to blow my nose
with a silk handkerchief.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rick Farris)
Subject: Re: RS-485 Information Wanted: URGENT
Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 91 18:39:14 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Donald E. Kimberlin) writes:

> If you don't really want to build the interface, some
> manufacturers have been making RS-232 (V.24/28) to RS-485
> adapters since late 1984.  The one I know of is ARK
> Electronic Products of Melbourne, FL, since absorbed into
> AT&T/Paradyne of Largo, FL.

Even better, *Inmac* carries in-line RS-232 <--> RS-485 converters,
and will ship today with delivery tomorrow.

Inmac charges full list price on everything they sell, but if you call
them today they will ship today, *and they ship on open account on the
first call with no credit checks or other hassles.*  While expensive, I
have found nothing at Inmac that wasn't of the highest quality.  I'm
particularly fond of their T-switches.

I call Inmac at 1-800-547-5444.

As to the actual packet protocol over RS-485, I have written drivers
and would be happy to answer specific questions.


Rick Farris  RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014  voice [phone]
[e-mail]     ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris      serenity bbs 259-7757

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 18:11 GMT
From: Bob Frankston <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Hardware Supports Ringmate?


Just saw an ad for Ringmate (distinctive ringing) by NET.  Looks
tempting but they claim it doesn't work on lines that hunt though it
does support call forwarding.  Does anyone know more about this?

While on the subject of distinctive ringing, what equipment supports
it?  In particular are there Fax/modem/phone switches?  Are there any
modem that report "RING n" instead of simply "RING"?

Of course, this is a prelude to what I hope will be available in ISDN,
namely an ability to pass part of the address (phone number) to the
subscriber. I already use this facility with email to get Telecom
Digest delivered directly to a separate mailbox by using MCI's MTA
protocol.  In the phone network I could then address a particular
phone, modem, fax machine or other service.

For now, distinctive ringing would provide a small subset of this
capability.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #244
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05978;
          27 Mar 91 4:02 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19099;
          27 Mar 91 2:15 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24711;
          27 Mar 91 1:11 CST
Date:     Wed, 27 Mar 91 0:09:15 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #245
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Mar 91 00:09:02 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 245

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecommunications: The Transmission of Information [Donald Kimberlin]
    Cellular Growth Stats [Mark Earle]
    Cellular System Improvements in Texas [Mark Earle]
    Even More on Selective Ringing [David Lesher]
    ROLM 35 Features and Sharing Phones [Tom Perrine]
    I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works [Timothy Newsham]
    Conversion of TV Transmission Standards [Morten Steffensen]
    New Hotel Ripoff [David G. Cantor]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 04:44 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecommunications: The Transmission of Information


        Numerous posts in the Digest are from people puzzled by a wide
variety of what seems to be the "secret lore" of telecommunications.
And, not all the people who seem puzzled are neophytes.  Some are even
graduate Electrical Engineers who confess that despite all their
formal education, they have a problem fitting their knowledge into the
framework "the phone company" seems to operate in.  Among the self
educated, or life-experienced, the major gap seems to be transmission
technology. And, of course, today's digital methods make understanding
of transmission matters an absolute must.

        There have been books over the years, but the "fog factor" in
the classic books is enormous.  It's not that the writers were bad
people; neither were they incompetent.  Their largest problem was most
likely trained into them ... that of trying to be exactly correct and
make no error of accuracy in describing systems.  This is intrinsic to
learning to be a trained technologist.  But, explaining everything of
telecommunications technology with complete accuracy in simple, short
sentences would make for a book longer than you want to read.

        Today, I received a new book (1991 copyright) that really
impressed me; one I can recommend to the puzzled "outsider."  Robert
L. "Bob" Dayton, its author, is a name known to many as a long-term
"mouthpiece" for AT&T's marketing departments.  He takes no credit for
this in the book.  In fact, there's no comment attached to him nor any
biography in the book ... just his name alone as the author.  But, for
those who have read his material over the years, he's very
recognizable.

        Bob's book focuses on taking extreme care to minimize the
math, and use simple mechanical analogies and examples as much as
possible.  He succeeds in doing so in large measure.  You'll see
examples like a bean jar with an input hopper and bean gate at the
top, an output chute with a bean gate run by another clock, and a bean
overflow in case the two clocks drift apart.  What's the operation?  A
"bean buffer," of course ... and a great explanation of a bit or
character buffer as used in electronics.  In a whole, short chapter
(only eleven fast-reading pages), you'll build a "FUNMO" -- Bob's
homemade acronym for "FUNdamental MOdem."  In those eleven short
pages, Bob even finds a way to show how Phase-Shift and Quadrature AM
modems do their job, and why.  That's a topic most so-called "datacomm
books" just avoid trying to explain. Right after that, he has you
building a "HYPOMUX," or "HYPOthetical MUX."  And, he gives similar
simple explanation of the functional parts of a digital multiplexer.

        Bob makes no bones that there are times when he cuts corners
in order to simplify.  He makes no claim for writing an engineering
text.  But, he succeeds, as I read it, beautifully in being 90 percent
or more accurate while reducing the "fog factor" to near invisibility.

        This first edition does have some typos ... I found a severe
one concerning the overall net loss of a four-wire data circuit, and
in an anecdotal line about changes in "the phone business" since the
Bell breakup, he's relating that in the monopoly era, a Telco employee
could get a billing complaint from anyone who found out where he
worked, saying, "However, working at the phone company never solicited
complaints." I'm sure that sentence was supposed to say "... never
solicited compliments." In the context, it makes no sense otherwise.

And, even as broad a mind as Bob's can't avoid some of the "good old
System" and its viewpoint.  There's a decided lack of notice taken
that the ultimate digital systems of today had roots going back to
telegraphy.  Instead, there's but passing mention that the telegraph
existed first, but no mention that anything of significance descended
from it.  In one statement, he makes light of use of the terms
"marking" and "spacing" for binary 1 and 0, and the use of bipolar
signaling as simply " a leftover from telegraph days."  In fact,
telegraph engineers used polar signaling to get longer reach, just as
RS-232 does.  In the following paragraph, he then describes AMI
(Alternate Mark Inversion) in T-1 span lines in terms that make it
sound like the telephone people discovered all the good reasons for
having bipolar signals on line.

        Despite any editorial or technical imperfections, or even the
(quite minor) Bell bias one can find, I regard Bob's work as one of
real value to the puzzled neophyte in telecommunications ... even
entertaining and illustrative to writers and teachers about "the
business."

        So, I really mean it when I say, "You should read THIS book:"


            Telecommunications (The Transmission of Information)
         Dayton, Robert L., McGraw-Hill, 1991, 184 pp., case bound
                             ISBN 0-07-016189-5
                       (My book club's price: $27.95)


        I really think you'll be glad you got this one!


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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 20:13:48 CST
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Growth Stats


 From an insert with my CMT billing (Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems):

The first cellular system in the US was activated on Oco]tober 13, 1983.

There are currently 306 Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMA's) markets
operating. These MSA's represent 75% of the population.

The industry literally exploded over the past five years increasing
from 203,600 subscribers in 1985 to 4.4 million subscriber as of June
30, 1990.

Nationwide, cellular is growing at approximately 143,200 new subscribers
each month.

Cumulatively, $5.2 billion have been invested by cellular carriers.

There are over 4,768 cell sites and almost 19,000 employees in the
booming cellular industry.

The national average monthly airtime bill for a cellular customer is
approximately $130.

There are a growing number of foreign cellular systems that are compatable
with U.S. Cellular technology. They include

Canada, Mexico, Aregentina, Australia, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Brunei,
Caymen Islands, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Egypt,
Guatemala, Hong Kong, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, South Korea, Malaysia,
New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore,
Taiwan, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela, Virgiin Islands, and Zaire.


[e-mail] (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5]
My BBS: (512)-855-7564       Opus 1:160/50.0
CI$ 73117,351   Packet: WA2MCT @ KA5LZG.TX.NA.USA

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 20:20:03 CST
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular System Improvements in Texas


SWB subscribers in Corpus Christi, San Antonio, and Austin have a new
feature to play with; automated hand-off.

No extra codes. If driving from CC to SA, and you're talking, the call
is handed off without being dropped. Yes, I tried it, it does seem to
work.

Likewise, SA  <--> AUS calls.

The 'gotcha' is the billing. It is based on where you start. So for
me, to talk going north (since my service is based in Corpus) it's
good, if I talk a lot to one person while driving. BUT, as soon as I
hang up (say, I've driven from CC to SA talking continously) the roam
light then comes on, and any subsequent calls are at the (reasonable)
roam rate. It won't hand off across SA, i.e., Corpus-Austin.

If I were to start my call in SA, driving south, even though I hit the
Corpus sites, the call would continue to be billed at the ROAM rate!
So being aware of home area and approximate expected hand off location
could be important to save bucks going south.

No real opinion, it works fine, and beats being cut off in the middle
of a call. Just have to be aware of the direction of travel to
minimize roam costs.

Oh-Follow Me Roaming is not affected by this arrangement, it says.
Unverified by me. I don't use FMR, since in one day I could be in a
lot of places -- and don't normally need incoming calls while out. If
necessary the few folks who know my approximate schedule can call the
roam ports.


[e-mail] (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5]
My BBS: (512)-855-7564       Opus 1:160/50.0
CI$ 73117,351   Packet: WA2MCT @ KA5LZG.TX.NA.USA

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Even More on Selective Ringing
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 18:08:54 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


{likely more than you even wanted to know;-}

Well, I dug out a ten + year old North Supply book, and here's what I
found. There were lots choices in ringers, all basically with this
scheme:

Untuned:
    Straight Line    5900 ohms
    Straight Line    1000/2650 ohms

Tuned:
    Harmonic:     16.66 hz
            25.00
            33.33
            50.00
            66.66

    Decimonic:    20.00
            30.00
            40.00
            50.00
            60.00

    Synchromonic:    30.00
            42.00
            54.00
            66.00
{whew..}

A few thoughts/questions: Who used what scheme? I sure would not want
to be the poor guy with the 60 hz assignment - I'd expect a problem
with falsing. There's no mention of 'tuning' these with different
caps. There was a different listing that did enumerate capacitors of
different values, but it was not clear that one could retune a ringer;
rather it appeared that ringer X needed cap x, Y needed y etc. But I'm
likely reading between the lines too much.

So there were {at least} the following selective ringing methods:

    Bell 2 party {ring to ground, tip to ground}
    Bell 4 party {above, plus superimposed DC block/pass}
    Harmonic
    Decimonic
    Synchromonic
    3 longs and a short [Hey, that's us!]


[e-mail]  (305) 255-RTFM

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

From: Tom Perrine <tots!tots.Logicon.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: ROLM 35 Features and Sharing Phones
Date: 27 Mar 91 00:37:29 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


I have just found out that we will be getting a new PBX to replace our
existing Dimension (tin cans would be an improvement!).

I have a few questions about our new system (which is about two months
away).

What I know is:

    We are getting a "ROLM 35", which includes voice mail.

    There will be ONE extension in each (regular) office, even if
    that office is shared by two people.

    The "standard" phone has 10 programmable buttons, which may
    each activate a "feature" or a speed dial.

    There will be DID for each extension.

    "They" had not even considered the problem of two people
    sharing a single extension and its interaction with the voice
    mail!

Now for my questions:

    How should (can?) the system be set up to allow individual
    voice mail, even though two people share a single instrument?

    Can we setup two numbers to ring the same phone, with Call
    Forwarding BY/DA rolling over to the "proper" voice mail?

    I know that this is a digital PBX, but to avoid sharing an
    instrument, can I keep my own "real-Bell, solid as a rock
    Western Electric 2500 set" and somehow attach it to this PBX?

Obviously, everyone should have their own instrument and extension,
but apparently those who count the beans have decided that this would
be too expensive (since we are buying 250 sets). What are the
alternatives, other than money?

Thanks,

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]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 15:18:35 hst
From: Timothy Newsham <[e-mail]>
Subject: I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works


Once upon a time a door-to-door MCI salewoman came'a rappin on our
door.  I invited her in and sat humbly as she pitched the glory of
switching to MCI to me.  Alot of the information was exaggerated and
overblown -- little did she know that I was a telecom enthusiast and saw
right through her.  I chuckled inside.

I had already been a subscriber to US Sprint and AT&T at one time or
another so to complete my experience with all three of the big LD
players, I submitted.  The fact that I had an AT&T Calling Card and a
US Sprint FON card, but not an MCI Calling Card also influenced my
decision since I wanted to complete my collection (through talking to
the MCI rep I discovered that only 1+ MCI customers could get an MCI
Calling Card).

After three months with MCI, I decided to switch back to AT&T since I
had been dialing 10288+ on all my LD calls to get my calls on AT&T's
Reach Out America (and AT&T said that if I switched to another LD
carrier, I wouldn't be able to use my Reach Out plan -- they were
wrong.  Sometimes I wonder if they're reps have ever heard of equal
access).

So about a year passes by after I switched from MCI back to AT&T.  I
pull out the ole' MCI Calling Card that was supposed to be cancelled
nine months previous when I switched subscribers.  I try it.  It still
works.

On top of that, I am no longer living at the same address that MCI was
billing my MCI account to -- so this MCI Calling Card has a billing
address that I am no longer living at.  Nor is the forwarding from my
old address to my new address in effect any longer.

So what happens to the bill I could possibly accumulate on this card?
I'd imagine that MCI would cancel the card ... but it's several months
later and the card is STILL working.  I suppose MCI is waiting for me
to accumalate a few hundred bucks worth of calls on it, and then
they'll come hunting for me.

Any thoughts or experiences from other TELECOM Digest readers on this?

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

From: morten steffensen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Conversion of TV Transmission Standards
Date: 26 Mar 91 09:28:21 GMT
Organization: CERN, European Laboratory for Particle Physics


I don't know much about this but ...

My friend has brought a television and a video with her from England
into Geneva, Switzerland. These are only capable of receiving the
British transmission standard: GB-I (PAL). Now in Geneva she would
like to be able to receive the Swiss and the French television (or at
least one of them). In Switzerland the standard is CCIR (PAL-SECAM)
and in France it is FR-L (SECAM).

The TV is a Toshiba 258T7B and the video is a Toshiba V-309B.

My question: Does there exists a commercial "plug-in-and-play"
converter box between these different signals.  What would be the best
for her to do?  Re-export the TV and the video?

Thanks in advance,

[e-mail]

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

Subject: New Hotel Ripoff
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 09:45:12
From: "David G. Cantor" <[e-mail]>


I was just a guest at the Del Mar Hilton Hotel (in Del Mar,
California).  The telepone in the room had printed on it, quite
clearly, "Local calls 50 cents" and I placed a call to a number in La
Jolla, California, which is immediately adjacent to Del Mar and which
is a local call from Del Mar (according to PacTel, which provides
local telephone service in the area and which provided the telephone
directory in my hotel room).  My bill contained a $4.86 charge for
this call.  I objected and the clerk replied that it wasn't a local
call.  After it became clear that I was familiar with the area, etc.,
she stated that "Yes, it is a local call from the [PacTel] payphone in
the lobby, but not from our system"! . . .


David G. Cantor    Department of Mathematics   University of California
Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555     Internet:  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #245
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04490;
          28 Mar 91 5:51 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05037;
          28 Mar 91 4:07 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02847;
          28 Mar 91 2:56 CST
Date:     Thu, 28 Mar 91 2:04:21 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #246
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Mar 91 02:04:08 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 246

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Caller ID Hearings in California [Malcolm Slaney]
    Re: Front Door to Apartment Phone Service [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones [John Higdon]
    Re: I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works [Michael Schuster]
    Re: Questions About New Service Being Installed [Al L. Varney]
    Re: Technological Solution to Caller ID [Barton F. Bruce]
    Ground Start vs Loop Start: How to Convert? [Zarko Draganic]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Malcolm Slaney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Hearings in California
Date: 27 Mar 91 05:28:37 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA


In article <[e-mail]> Robert_Swenson.OSBU_North@
xerox.com:

> Proposed features:

> Caller ID            $5.00 install,     $6.50 month
> Repeat Dialing      5.00 install,      3.50 month

Just how are these rates determined?  My local phone bill is only
$12.00 a month (for POTS).  I realize that all these new features will
help subsidize POTS but how do they decide how much profit to make?
Certainly the PUCs don't just let the phone companies make a marketing
decision and charge what the market will allow.

Or, do they?


Malcolm

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Front Door to Apartment Phone Service
Date: 26 Mar 91 13:51:17 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:

> Prior to divestiture, Illinois Bell (and perhaps other telcos) offered
> a ... service which allowed for calls between the front door in an
> apartment building lobby and the individual apartments

> Then came divestiture, and in His Wisdom, the Judge ruled that
> Enterphone was just the sort of service telcos should NOT be allowed
> to offer.

Patrick intimates that this was (another) flawed decision by His
Wisdom.  On the contrary, I agree that telephone companies should not
be involved in this type of service.  There is no reason to involve
your telco in the unlocking of the front door to your apartment
building.  This is ridiculous.  This is clearly an application where
on-premise equipment makes much more sense.

Besides, it was hardly just making use of some features of existing
switching equipment.  Rather, the whole thing was a huge kludge.

> One disadvantage to this system was that the pairs coming to the
> building had to be expressly dedicated

> In the central office itself, there were jumpers between the Enterphone
> device and the frames, and these had to be tagged with warnings not to
> swap them out

> Another disadvantage was that if something went wrong en-route
> to the building; then this caused the apartment building front door
> to go out of service

And then there was the cost:

> So, a fifty unit apartment building would pay about $115 - $120 per
> month for the service.

Not to mention that initial installation had to be on the order of
several (or more) hundred dollars along with a Basic Termination
Charge.

> the 'common-equipment' which had previously been located in the
> central office, renting for $50 per month started showing up in the
> basement of apartment buildings ... at somewhere around $2000.

Sorry, but that sounds like a much better deal.

> The service functions the same as the old Enterphone ... there is
> no longer a charge for each apartment line. Nor is there a charge
> for the lobby phone or the circuit and relay to open the front door,
> since these things now belong to the apartment building itself.

As it should be.  Let the telcos concentrate on providing better
interconnection between me and the world.  I'll handle the front door,
thank you.

Keep up the good work, Judge!


[Moderator's Note: I must agree with you I think the sytem works much
better as CPE than it did under the old arrangement, although the old
arrangement was better for a small landlord who could not afford the
initial cash outlay. IBT allowed the installation costs for Enterphone
to be spread over twelve months if desired.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Mar 91 23:06 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones


Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]> writes:

> And *that's* why there are lead weights in a Harmony telephone.
> People who want a heavy telephone will find that manufacturers will
> address that demand, but perhaps in an unexpected way.

ITT's 2500-style phones are about as close as you can get now to the
phones of yore. But time marches on and the components used for these
otherwise excellent instruments just do not weigh what the old ones
did. Capacitors are little plastic things rather than big
lead-enclosed clunkers. The high-impact plactics now can be made
thinner (and stronger, even so) and nothing weighed as much as
bakelite. Today's more powerful permanent magnets weigh a fraction of
the old Alnico things. Networks are "solid state" rather than being
based on a big induction coil. Even the TT pads are one-chip affairs
as opposed to those that used adjustable coils.

Add all this up and you have a telephone that weighs significantly
less than its older counterpart. ITT does not see fit to install
weights, but I can assure everyone that the instruments are every bit
as durable and work just as well as some of the antiques I have around
here. They even have standard mechanical ringers -- a rarity these
days!


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

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

From: Michael Schuster <panix![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 12:05:00 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY


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

> I had already been a subscriber to US Sprint and AT&T at one time or
> another so to complete my experience with all three of the big LD
> players, I submitted.  The fact that I had an AT&T Calling Card and a
> US Sprint FON card, but not an MCI Calling Card also influenced my
> decision since I wanted to complete my collection (through talking to
> the MCI rep I discovered that only 1+ MCI customers could get an MCI
> Calling Card).

For what it's worth, I've had an MCI card since long before 1+ dialing
came to my area. My primary carrier is, and always has been, AT&T.  I
still use the MCI card regularly and there is no billing confusion.


Mike Schuster                                      |    CIS: 70346,1745
NY Public Access UNIX:  ...cmcl2!panix!schuster    |    MCI Mail, GENIE:
The Portal (R) System:  [e-mail]    |           MSCHUSTER

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

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 02:01:46 CST
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About New Service Being Installed
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


Well, this will be brief, since it's from memory; I've rearranged the
previous discussion order somewhat.  If you really MUST have more
info., read the back issues of the Bell System Technical Journals.  At
least one issue was devoted to each switch.

First, the obligatory note:  ESS(tm) is a trademark of AT&T and
5ESS(tm) is a registered trademark of AT&T.  The proper names are:
 1 ESS Switch     1A ESS Switch    4 ESS Switch   5ESS Switch
but I will use the obvious abbreviations below.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Fred R. Goldstein) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Jim Rees) writes...

>> The 1ESS has relays in it, not to do the actual switching,
>> but to switch ringing voltage and the like on to the loop.  It makes a
>> lot of noise, although nothing like a panel office!

> The 1ESS (and the 1A, which uses a less antiquated processor) uses
> reed relays to do the actual switching.  They're vacuum-sealed, so
> they're quieter than the old ones.  I suspect that the 1 can do Caller
> ID too, though Im not sure.
> The 1 uses an antique CPU with ferrite sheet EPROMs and mag cores.

   The No. 1 ESS Switch indeed uses sealed relays for the switching
fabric, but "reed relays" ???  Nope.  The actual T/R path is through
magnetic-latching relays, surrounded with some metal and a coil.
Pulse the coil one way, the contacts close and REMEMBER to stay
closed.  Pulse the other way, the contacts open and REMEMBER to stay
that way.  No current is used to maintain either position.  They are
the size of a Christmas tree bulb and make little noise.  The
traffic-dependent noise you hear is the "wire-spring" relays that
exist in the remainder of the switch, primarily in the Trunk/Junctor
circuits.

   The 1E "CPU" consists of about 10 feet of circuits in a standard
seven foot high "bay", arranged across from it's "mate" CPU.  The CPUs
run in lock- step, comparing results of every instruction.  The memory
is separate; for programs high office data, "EPROM" memory is formed
from ferrite spots stuck to 6X12(?) inch sheets of aluminum.  Typical
office might have 40 feet of such memory, duplicated.  Temporary
(writable) memory is usually mag cores (32K by 23 bits + 1 parity per
two foot bay).  Program memory words are 37 bits wide, with an added 8
bits for Hamming-code parity (I believe automatic single-bit error
correction is in the hardware).  Architecture could be called "early
RISC, messy" -- most instructions are one cycle or 5.5 microseconds.
Capacity is roughly 35K lines.

>> What's the difference between a 1 and a 1A (is it just the processor?
>> Does 1A run Unix?)

> The 1A goes to semiconductor memory.

   No. 1A ESS Switches use the same switching fabric as 1E.  The circa
1973 processor is two CPUs in a six-foot wide frame, running in
lock-step.  Program and temporary memory are on separate busses, but
look identical.  Most modern version of memory puts 14 256K-by-14-bit
units in a three-foot bay -- max of two bays per office allows at most
four Mwords (12 Mbytes).  Instruction set vaguely resembles an
orthoganal version of 1E, with a typical instruction (24 or 48 bits
wide) taking .7 milliseconds.  Many shift/rotate/mask/insert options
could be used, without added time, due to a complete 48-bit "barrel"
shifter.  For comparison, "clock speed" is 20 MHz; even though memory
bus is 20 feet long, 700 nanoseconds can do a 48-bit read or 24-bit
write.  An overlapping dual-parity scheme is used on each memory word.
Disk backup is used, with about 10 Mwords available.  Original disk
drives used 26(?) inch platters, with 100 fixed heads on each side,
thus no seek overhead.  Existing switches handle 90K lines.  No fans
in either 1E or 1A equipment, just ambient cooling.

   UNIX (also tm) grew up about the same time as 1A, but really !!!
You don't switch 300K calls per hour on a non-MMU machine with UNIX.
The OS is really a task dispenser with routines voluntarily giving up
control every two or three milliseconds (sort of like Multi-Finder,
no?).  Much polling and processing takes place on a timed interrupt
level, forced every five milliseconds.  No other interrupts occur
normally.

>> What I'd like to know is what are 2 and 3ESS?

> The 2BESS is a "suburban" office, built in the '70s to early '80s,
> using (I think) reed relays like a 1A.  It is basically a scaled down
> version of the 1A, with a different processor.

   No. 2 ESS existed in 1968, so it's really scaled down from 1E.
Every- thing was redesigned from the ground up, so there is
essentially no shared circuitry with 1E.  The processor was "strange".
A 22 bit instruction word with one "long" 21 bit instruction or two
10-bit instructions; the remaining bit was = 1 only on words where
transfers of control were expected to arrive.  A bit-twiddlers toy.
10K lines??  (The processor was also used to drive the "Automatic
Intercept System" [AIS], the one that says "The number you have
reached, nyen-nyen-one-pause-six-six-six-six has been changed.  The
new ...".  This was my first project with AT&T.)

   No. 2B ESS Switch was just a re-worked version of the No. 3 ESS
processor with mico-code interpreting the original 2E instructions
(but faster than the original hardware).  I believe it gave a 50%+
increase in capacity.

> The 3ESS is a very small analog office, of which very few were built
> (ca. 1980).

   Don't know numbers, but there were quite a few in more "rural"
areas.  The "3A" processor -- no relation to the "3B" line -- was
small and fast.  I believe this was the first to use mico-code;
1E/1A/4E/2E don't.  Don't know much else, except a whole office could
fit in a semi-trailer (with MDF!) for emergency use.  Several were
tested on the trailer, shipped and then slid into place with attached
air pallets.

>> And what kind of hardware does a 4ESS have (I've never seen one)?

> As someone else noted, the 4ESS is a different beast, a big digital
> toll switch.

   Well, actually a Tandem switch, but BIG anyway.  Same processor as
1A, with a totally digital switch.  These are rated at 100K Trunks,
600K+ calls/hour.

  There was also (past tense, I believe) the No. 101 ESS switch, an
early PBX.  This used a processor from another project, with a unique
PAM fabric (pulse amplitude modulation).  Essentially, every
line/trunk had an appearance on a single wire, with a different
combination connected at an 8KHz rate.  This allowed noise-less
switching and many connections to a single line/trunk without loading
problems.  This same fabric was used in AIS, to allow many people to
listen to "six" at the same time.  "Six" was a single trunk connected
to a repeating .5 second recording.  Adjusting the volume on those
trunks was boring!!

Oh, oh, another long article.  Maybe I'll do 5ESS later, Pat.  In
closing, I've had the pleasure of programming all of these switches
except the No. 3 ESS switch.  They all had something worth learning as
far as designing to a particular goal.  In most cases, the capacity of
the switch drove the design.


Al Varney, AT&T, Lisle, IL

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Technological Solution to Caller ID
Date: 27 Mar 91 02:55:47 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Christopher Owens) writes:

> I've been trying to push this line of reasoning for a while; I'd like
> to encourage people to refine it and correct its problems.  I suspect

Ideally, one should be able to set the mode and latch it whenever you
choose. There would be a default for newly installed lines, and you
could the flip/flop it as needed. There would be a simpler per call
method of giving id or blocking id regardless of the current default.

Ideally there would be a test code that would prattle back ALL current
settings in case one forgets or needs to verify them.

There should be NO additional charge for mode flipping or status
inquirys.  The ONLY paying folk should be those that RECEIVE the
caller ID.

If the telcos think they are going to rip folks off $5 here and $5
there for each feature, they will get what they deserve as the
alternate dialtone providers arrive. Teleport has 2 #5ess machines in
NYC, and should have one here in Boston by the end of the year. It may
be a DMS100, but I think they will pick the 5ess. Just think! A phone
company that will give you answer supervision!

For businesses, there would need to be an optional blocking of the
permanent mode flipping, and the business would then have to select
the default mode. Per call selection would still work.

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

From: Zarko Draganic <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ground Start vs Loop Start: How to Convert?
Date: 26 Mar 91 20:42:08 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA


Does anyone know of a simple circuit or a device you can buy that will
convert between loop start and ground start? I'm using an answering
device that doesn't realize when the caller hung up on one type of
line, and on the other, senses disconnect immediately. Is the problem
even related to loop/ground start?


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #246
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13099;
          28 Mar 91 15:19 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05037;
          28 Mar 91 4:14 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02847;
          28 Mar 91 2:56 CST
Date:     Thu, 28 Mar 91 2:50:36 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #247
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Mar 91 02:50:23 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 247

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More on Frequency-Selective Ringing [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: More on Frequency-Selective Ringing [Larry Lippman]
    Direct Dial to Sopron, Hungary [Richard Budd]
    Bell of PA's Guardian Service [Brendan Kehoe]
    How Many Walkmans? [Martin McCormick]
    Telecom Equipment Wanted [Derek Billingsley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 12:29 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on Frequency-Selective Ringing



        David Lesher <[e-mail]> carries on a thread
that's been of interest to me for some decades now..that of just *who*
used *what* selective ringing methods on multiparty lines.  At the
time and place of my arrival into the wonderment of "the phone
company's way," all the methods he laid out for us were
well-established.  But, if you asked anyone reachable the why, who and
wherefore, any answer you got was that *theirs* was the "standard
way."  (Sound like today, datacomm sports fans?)

        The best I've ever been able to sort out was that Bell had
apparently developed along a line using 'divided ringing') (that is,
ringing from one wire or the other to ground) for two-party or "super-
imposed ringing" (adding polarity-sensing to the divided ringing) for
four parties on one line.  And, the Bell numbering scheme identifying
these never got, to my knowledge beyond four different letters. All
these range with 20 Hertz.  Meantime, non-Bell telcos seemed to adopt
W. W. Dean's frequency-selective ringing, and did so in the several
variations -- Harmonic, Decimonic or Synchromonic -- and even some
combinations of these in cases I observed, to make their basic
complement more than the four or five the basic complements listed.

        (Here, I can add for David's interest that in the plant of GTE
of Florida, the basic set seemed to be the "harmonic" set, but had 54
Hertz instead of 50, as well as 20 Hertz instead of 25 ... just to
show how confusing it was.  Perhaps this was an answer to the
"falsing" suspicions David has.  Needless, to say, you could often
hear your ringer click or buzz when another party's frequency sailed
down the line, anyway!

  GTE Florida's heritage came from having once been the Peninsular
Telephone Company of Florida, which bragged it had "the first"
Strowger-supplied automatic exchange, located in St. Petersburg.  That
may have been "the first" *they* knew about.  But, its frequency-
selective ringing may have started the plan in that company.  And,
those Strowger switches in their oak-framed glass cases were still
ka-chunking away into the early 1960's!)

        Unanswered to my satisfaction is that Bell employees many
times over the years told me that "Bell companies had 8-party service,
too," but they were always evasive about *how* 8 parties could be rung
with only 20 Hertz.  And, I personally did some work replacing WECo
350/355 CDO's in rural Mississippi last year, to hear these stories
proliferated.  Yet, the old CDO's there had no evidence of ever having
had anything but 20 Hertz ringing generators.

        So, my question to this forum, where someone certainly knows,
is *how* did Bell accomplish 8- party ringing if they used only one
frequency?  Or, is it one of those bits of lore that had some truth
someplace where perhaps Bell had acquired an Independent using
frequency-selective ringing ... and then got the story embellished
with retelling and retelling?

        So far, I never met anyone who could tell me just *how* Bell
did eight-party with WECo-built appratus. (No weasel stories now,
about apparatus WECo bought, resold and installed in some places.  I
know they'd do that if they had to!)

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

Subject: Re: More on Frequency-Selective Ringing
Date: 28 Mar 91 00:38:16 EST (Thu)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> Donald and others {in email} have mentioned various types of tuned
> ringers. I've never seen one that was tunable by a cap, but have no
> reason to think that they do not exist. So I stand enlightened.

    It's been many years since I have seen a frequency-selective
ringer, but the style I remember was mechanically resonant.  The arm
(which swings back and forth between each electromagnet pole) attached
to the clapper had a weight mounted at the end near the clapper.  Each
of the harmonic frequencies required a different weight and a
different flat spring which controlled the swing tension.

    There were actually two sets of frequencies that were called
"harmonic" ringing.  The original used the frequencies: 16-2/3,
33-1/3, 50, and 66-2/3 Hz.  Since this scheme was sometimes prone to
bell tapping caused by, um, harmonics :-), an alternate set of
frequencies was established that was pretty close, but eliminated this
problem: 30, 42, 54 and 66 Hz.  This alternate set of frequencies was
called synchromonic.

    It is interesting to note that many ringing power plants which
supplied harmonic ringing used different voltages for each ringing
frequency, with voltages ranging for about 90 volts RMS at 16 Hz to
170 volts RMS at 66 Hz.  The reason for the higher voltages at higher
frequencies was to compensate for insertion loss of the telephone
cable at higher frequencies.  Transformers were used not only for
isolation, but to permit such voltage variations.

    One of the earliest methods of creating ringing voltage was
not through an AC generator, but used a "pole-changer" which reversed
polarity of the CO battery at the required frequency.  Pole-changers
were operated by motors, or by a mechanically resonant electromagnet
not unlike that of an old automotive radio "vibrator".  Pole-changers
of necessity required a transformer for output isolation.

    Early AC power line operated ringing power plants for PBX use
also employed pole-changers instead of the ferroresonant methods which
would later become popular.

> He is also correct about Bell not using tuned ringers. They prefer
> grounding one side of the pair, and thus adding lots of noise ;-}. I
> cannot recall if the 500 set was 'gonged' or not, but guess it must
> not have been. It was clearly a licensed copy, then.

    Grounding one side of the line is not as bad as it may seem if
the telephone set utilized a cold cathode electron tube as both a DC
polarity switch and as an isolator.  Using such an electron tube, the
ringer was effectively removed from ground during any periods of
talking.

    The most common cold cathode tube was the WECo 426A, which was
painted black and had three wires (one to ground, one to tip or ring,
and one to the ringer).  For longer loops where there was a
possibility of bell tapping, the WECo 425A was used; this tube had
four wires (one to ground, one to tip, one to ring, and one to the
ringer).

    The [late, great] Bell System philosophy was dead set against
frequency-selective ringing.  Using polarity-dependent superimposed
ringing, four unique parties could be signaled.  Eight-party lines
used coded ringing, and could be dialed directly since there were SxS
connectors arranged for automatic coded ringing selection.

    I have never seen automatic ringing selection for more than an
eight-party line.  While I have seen sixteen-party lines, they were
always terminated on a DSA or toll board using a manual subscriber
line circuit - so the operator originated and completed all calls.

> As for that nine volt supply, I have NO idea what its function was.  I
> just recall Lee joking about adding thousands of battery snaps along
> the bus bars.

    Sounds like an end-cell charger to me.  While no longer common
for a variety of reasons, end-cells were additional batteries that
could be switched in series with a 24-cell string to boost voltage and
thereby compensate for reduced voltage when the cells were discharging
due to AC power failure.  Since end-cells could not be floated as part
of the main -48 volt battery string, they were usually charged using a
separate end-cell charger.  Four end-cells were typical for large
battery plants (> 1,000 amperes), so nine volts is about right for an
end-cell charger.  End-cells were switched in and out of circuit using
a special switch which actually shorted them through a low resistance
during the switching action; this was necessary to prevent even the
slightest circuit open while the end-cells were placed in or out of
the battery feed.

    End-cells are no longer common for several reasons which
include, but are not limited to: (1) the advent of ESS has
substantially reduced -48 volt power requirements, so humongous
battery plants are no longer necessary; (2) almost all major CO's
today have auxiliary generators capable of supplying the entire office
load, thereby minimizing the discharge time of the battery plant; and
(3) many large CO's that were going ESS migrated toward smaller
distributed battery plants on more than one floor, rather than one
large building plant.

> I also recall a similar sized 48v--> 55?v beast that provided
> equalization voltage for the battery plant.

    Most float chargers could well supply 55 volts for
equalization purposes.  For "problem" cells requiring a boost charge
to effect overall equalization, a portable single cell charger was
often employed.  The battery string was not interrupted, with the
single cell charge merely being connected across the problem cell.

    Speaking of batteries and nostalgia, any old-timers remember
liquid countercells?  They contained stainless steel plates, which
were immersed in a solution of potassium hydroxide, with a layer of
mineral oil being used to prevent evaporation.  While working for a
telephone company one summer while in college, I had the "pleasure" of
replacing the electrolyte in some large countercells.  I somehow
managed to spill some electrolyte unnoticed in my shoe, with the
result a few hours later that I had a disintegrated shoe and a
partially disintegrated foot (which did eventually heel, er, heal)!
Unfortunately, alkalai burns often go unnoticed for a much longer time
than acid or other burns.

    Liquid countercells were eventually replaced with silicon
rectifier diode stacks that were selected for the required voltage
drop.


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: Thu, 28 Mar 91 00:09:23 EST
From: KLUB000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Direct Dial to Sopron, Hungary


A couple weeks ago a business student from Sopron, a city in western
Hungary, managed to reach my answering machine at work and speak with
my father at home.  Zoltan is learning English because he wants to
study at an American university and can therefore communicate with the
household.  (Lucky for him, most of my friends from overseas speak
German or talk like Boris Badenov from the Rocky and Bullwinkle
cartoon series :-} ) My father reported that Zoltan's voice came over
the telephone quite clearly ("he sounded like he was only a few feet
away.")  I confirmed the clarity of his voice myself listening to him
on the answering machine at work.

Telephone connections from Hungary into the United States are made by
AT&T, a fact I discovered through personal experience in Budapest.  A
special prefix is dialed that tells the Hungarian telephone system
that the caller wants place a call to the US and the Hungarian PTT
switches the line to AT&T.  No human intervention is involved, it's
all automatic.

I called Zoltan back since he had already tried me twice and God only
knows how much it costs to call America from Sopron (read expensive).
MCI is the long-distance carrier for our telephone at home.  This
time, we had difficulty hearing each other over the telephone line.
Several times he and I had to repeat sentences to make each other
understood.  Zoltan actually asked how when he called the USA the line
was so crisp and clear and now when I called back I sounded so faint
and with so much static.  It appears I may have to score one for AT&T
for long-distance calls to Eastern Europe.

BTW I just saw the telephone bill for the call; it was less than $10.95
for 11 minutes to Hungary, or less than $1.00 a minute.  As an
experiment I may try calling Kosice, Czechoslovakia later this week.


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

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

From: Brendan Kehoe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell of PA's Guardian Service
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 14:14:37 GMT
Organization: Widener CS Dept


   Bell of Pennsylvania's Guardian Service ($2/mo for basic jack
repair) has always struck me as being a blatant attempt to take
advantage of people who just aren't aware of certain information.  The
commercials show Mr. Normal running a book case into a wall jack,
while his wife talks to the camera about the service. She looks back
disdainfully, as if to say, "See what I mean?"

    For $2, only when it actually happens, they could install a new
jack for themselves (even Mr. Normal, the astonishingly slow witted
middle-American). I have to wonder what was said in the early
meetings, when some upstart said, "Well, why not give them a pamphlet
telling them how to do it themselves? Good PR!"

     Something akin to, "No WAY, this is $20 million in revenue in one
year alone!", I would guess.

[As a quick side note, a local television news team discovered that if
the cause for trouble is your phone, and not the line or the jack,
customers will get whacked $56 [$40 for the visit, $16 for 15 minutes
of lineman time] for the service call. No where in the ad does it
mention this.]


Brendan Kehoe - Widener Sun Network Manager
[e-mail]   Widener University in Chester, PA

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 00:32:52 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: How Many Walkmansz?


     While a 9-volt 500A supply is a pretty big beast, it wouldn't
really be that difficult to come up with that kind of voltage.  If you
have a 12-volt center-tapped transformer, you will get 6 volts RMS
each side of center.  If rectifier diodes are connected back-to-back
and their other ends connected to the two outside ends of the center
tap, you have a center-tapped full-wave rectifier configuration.  If
you now put a capacitor between the center tap lead and the junction
of the diodes, you have a filtered full-wave DC supply.  This voltage
will be 1.414 or the square root of two times the RMS voltage.  For a
6-volt RMS output, this means that your DC will be at the peak voltage
or 6*1.414 or close to 9 volts.  Such an arrangement has some 120hz
ripple in it, but it's close enough for government work.

     I wonder if they used electrolitic rectifiers back then to handle
that kind of current?


Martin McCormick  Oklahoma State University Computer Center
Stillwater, OK   WB5AGZ

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 15:17:57 AST
From: DBILLINGSLEY <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Equipment Wanted


This is a bit of an unusual request, but this is the list to say it
on...

I am a third year electrical engineering student at the University of
New Brunswick.  I have been messing around with telecom equipment (you
know, taking apart phones, building DTMF decoders, ad infinitum) and
was wondering if anyone has any old equipment not in use anymore that
you would like to sell ... I worked at the telephone company last year
and learned quite a bit about how the phone system operated (Things
like how calls were routed, how ANI worked, principles behind SS7) and
would like to venture into some more equipment.

I guess I'm an undergrad with a wierd hobby.

Thanks a bunch,

Derek Billingsley

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #247
******************************






ISSUES 248 AND 249 GOT REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 248 FOLLOWS 249.






Received: from dsinc.dsi.com by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15085;
          30 Mar 91 3:31 EST
Received: by dsinc.dsi.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.39)
    id <[e-mail]>; Sat, 30 Mar 91 00:06 EST
Date:     Fri, 29 Mar 91 23:06:59 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #249
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 Mar 91 00:22:29 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 249

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copywritable [Wash. Post via B. Berbenich]
    Important Supreme Court Copyright Case [Joe Konstan]
    New Privacy Newsgroup Being Started [John Gilmore via Peter M. Weiss]
    Directory Assistance Question [Tim Irvin]
    Taking an Agressive Stance With Harassing Callers [Randy Borow]
    Caller-ID RS-232 Interface Needed [George Sipe]
    Request For In-Line Speed Dialer Information [Joe Konstan]
    Another One! 900 Scam To Watch For [Ken Jongsma]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bill Berbenich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copywritable
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 15:31:50 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Court Rules Phone Books Unprotected; Justices: Copyright Law Doesn't Apply
By Ruth Marcus
Washington Post Staff Writer

    In a case closely watched by the fast-growing database publishing
industry, the Supreme Court yesterday ruled unanimously that there is
no copyright protection for telephone directory white pages.

    The dispute before the court involved a publishing company, Feist
Publications Inc., that specializes in area-wide telephone
directories. Feist asked the Rural Telephone Service Co., which
operates in northwest Kansas, to purchase the right to use its local
listings in compiling its broader regional directory.

    Rural refused, but Feist used the information anyway, copying at
least 1,309 names, towns and telephone numbers of Rural subscribers.
Rural then filed a copyright infringement suit.

    A basic principle of copyright law is that facts themselves cannot
be copyrighted because they are not "original works of authorship."
However, compilations of facts can be copyrighted, under the 1976
copyright law, if they are "selected, coordinated or arranged in such
a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work
of authorship."

    In an opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the court said
telephone directories - which do nothing more than list subscribers in
alphabetical order - do not meet that test. "It is not only
unoriginal, it is practically inevitable," O'Connor said of this
arrangement. "This time-honored tradition does not possess the minimal
creative spark required by the Copyright Act and the Constitution."

    O'Connor said a number of lower courts were wrong when they
decided compilations or other works were entitled to copyright
protection by a "sweat of the brow" test in which the amount of effort
that went into gathering the data is taken into account.

    Originality, not effort, is the "touchstone of copyright
protection," she said, noting that copyright "is not a tool by which a
compilation author may keep others from using the facts or data he or
she has collected."

    Justice Harry A. Blackmun concurred in the ruling but did not join
O'Connor's opinion.

    The database publishing industry - companies such as financial
information systems, publishers of demographics statistics and credit
reporting services - had been concerned that the court would adopt a
definition of what constitutes a compilation that could strip
databases of copyright protection.

    O'Connor assuaged some of those fears yesterday when she noted
that "the vast majority" of compilations would probably pass the test,
unlike the "garden-variety white pages directory, devoid of even the
slightest trace of creativity."

    Steven J. Metalitz of the Information Industry Association, which
filed a brief in the case expressing the concerns of database
publishers, said the court was "right to find white pages on the far
end of a spectrum and to indicate that the vast majority of the things
in that spectrum were included in copyright.  That, we think, would
include the vast majority of database collections."

    But he said database publishers were concerned about the "thin"
protection O'Connor accorded to databases made of factual information.
He pointed, for example, to a case now before the federal appeals
court in San Francisco involving a commercial real estate publisher
who simply took the information that had been gathered by a competing
directory and rearranged it.

    "Nothing can be harder in some cases than really compiling this
information in a way that's useful and nothing can be easier than
taking that information and reorganizing it. A computer can do that in
seconds."


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


[Moderator's Note: I think we are witnessing the end of an era of
accurate, reliable telephone directories from the Bell telcos.
Obviously from this point forward instead of maintaining a detailed
and highly technical directory bureau, all telco needs to do is copy
some other directory and put their name on the cover each year.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 18:46:28 PST
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Important Supreme Court Copyright Case


The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that phone book listings are not
creative works and that the factual contents are not protected by
copyright.  Specifically, anyone else can reproduce the alphabetical
listing right from the phone book!

Copyright lawyers expect that the decision will apply to all
compilations of facts -- the facts themselves can be freely reprinted
but a creative compilation may be copyrighted.  The court held that
alphabetical order is not a creative compilation.


Joe Konstan

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 28 Mar 1991 09:26:30 EST
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Privacy Newsgroup Being Started


Thought that you'd be interested.

Peter pmw1@psuvm or @psuvm.psu.edu


  From: [e-mail] (John Gilmore)
  Newsgroups: alt.privacy
  Subject: New newsgroup alt.privacy
  Date: 28 Mar 91 01:09:04 GMT
  Organization: Cygnus Support, Palo Alto


A new organization is being created today at the Conference on
Computers, Freedom, and Privacy.  The US Privacy Council will attempt
to build a consensus on privacy needs, means, and ends, and will push
to educate the industry, legislatures, and citizens about privacy
issues.

I am creating this newsgroup to provide a means for Usenet and
Internet users to communicate on this topic.  There will probably be
gateways to other conferencing systems.  Further information will be
posted after the organizing meeting of the Privacy Coucil this
evening.

The newsgroup is not limited to US Privacy Council discussions, but
can serve as a forum for all (US and international) privacy-related
discussions.  There are lots of issues and questions in the privacy
movement, especially regarding the balancing of rights among the right
to free speech and publication, and the right to control the
dissemination of information about oneself.  I hope that this
newsgroup can act as a forum for better understanding of these issues
among all parties.


John Gilmore {sun,uunet,pyramid}!hoptoad!gnu   [e-mail] [e-mail]
 ..{amdahl|decwrl|octopus|pyramid|ucbvax}!avsd!childers@tycho

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

From: Tim Irvin <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Directory Assistance Question
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 12:08:19 -0500


Here's one that been bugging me for a while.

Why aren't the local telephone numbers for DA standardized?  It seems
strange to me that each place I have lived, you have to dial a
different number for Local DA.

In Asheville, NC we dialed the well known 411.  The number I grew up
thinking was the number for DA everywhere -- wrong.

In Knoxville, TN it was 1-411.  At first I thought the one was
prepended to remind callers that there is a charge now a days, but as
luck would have it this proved wrong, since TN PUC doesn't allow SCB
to charge for Local DA.

And finally in NH the magic number is 1-555-1212, which makes a
certain amount of sense, since in the above two examples 1-555-1212
got you to the same place as the alternate number.

The differences between 1-555-1212 and 1-411 in TN was (1) 1-411
was free for an unlimited number of calls, 1-555-1212 was billable,
(2) 1-411 made you listen to the folowing recorded message before
getting to a live person:

   "To help hold down the cost of your telephone service please
    check the number in your telephone directory.  If you've
    already checked and can't find the number, please stay on the
    line and an operator will assist you."

Whew ... rather obnoxious after awhile to listen to this each time,
but I guess that's the point -- as long as it is free they will make
us wait.  Also, not too amazing I still remember it word-for-word
(well almost at least) after waiting through it as many times as I
did.  Actually, it is sort of a ritual now in the area to say it
out-loud as you are waiting -- make for an interesting office
environment.

Anyway, back to the point -- does anyone know why this wasn't made a
standard number long ago (at least during the monopoly days, when such
things were easier to accomplish)?  I would think that at least
Asheville, NC and Knoxville, TN would be the same since they are both
BELLSouth locations.


Tim Irvin

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Mar 27 10:13:05 CST 1991
Subject: Taking an Agressive Stance With Harassing Callers


Well, I just got off the phone with one of the officers of the North
Riverside Police Dept. (my "little" hometown). This policewoman has
been really helpful in assisting me with my nuisance calls. She's to
get back to me later today when I get home, so I'll let all you
readers out there know what's up within the next day or so. Seems like
the officer has stuff to tell me.

I did want to relate a similar experience I had while a student at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign years ago. I was receiving
similar annoying calls, some threats, etc. As Pat put it, I had NO
INTENTION of changing my number. I probably wouldn't mind if I had
just got the number and hadn't told it to anyone yet. Nevertheless,
why should I have to be put through all this trouble when it's some
other [expletive deleted] who's causing this? So, not one to give up
or shrug things off, I pursued matters and had a trap put on my line.
Illinois Bell a week later told me the trap was quite successful: five
people were nailed (which, though it sounds low, is a good catch).

They released the information to an Urbana police investigator who
dropped by my apartment and showed me the results. Four of the five
people I didn't know. The remaining person I did: he was (at that
time) the best friend of one of MY friends at school. This guy didn't
like me; after this, I didn't like him. So, I instructed the
investigator to proceed and prosecute.

The policeman contacted me a few days later, explaining how he dropped
by this scum's house (his name was Jim) and revealed what's been going
on. The investigator told me he showed up in uniform, in his squad
car. He said they usually do it this way to get across to the people
that they are serious about this "crap" as he put it. (Probably cuz
there ain't much to do police-wise in hick towns like Champaign-
Urbana.)

Well, to make a long story short, they arrested the guy, and I got to
go down to the station to sign the complaint. I purposely took my
time, because they kept him in a cell for a few hours until I could
come down to the station. I smiled a satisfactory smile as I went to
sign the papers, knowing that it was I who indeed had the last
"laugh."

The outcome? He pleaded guilty and was given some really meaningless
and trivial community service, probation, and a nice fine (I think it
was around a couple hundred bucks, but I honestly can't remember). I
was pleased. After all, the evidence was so obvious and irrefutable.

BTW, it was revealed that the reason this guy had been bugging me was
because he "cared for" my friend so much. Huh? My friend was 25, this
guy was 50ish! I think he was of a "different persuasion," shall I
say. Geez, I sure picked a winner down there on campus. (You should
have seen the judge's reaction to this!)


Randy Borow             AT&T Communications             Rolling Meadows, IL.

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

From: George Sipe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID RS-232 Interface Needed
Date: 28 Mar 91 20:57:42 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology -- Professional Services


(This may have been discussed before but...)

I'm interested in Caller ID for my home, but would want an RS-232
interface to it.  A really stupid (and cheap) interface would be great
 -- something that has no memory and simply sends the information out
the serial port (or into the bit bucket if nothing is connected or
paying it attention).

I called the number listed by BellSouth for their products and found
they have no such thing.  They suggested I try Colonial Data
Technology -- who also didn't have any such product.

Can anybody give me any pointers?  ANY RS-232 Caller ID interface
would be of interest since I've found none so far.  Thanks.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 18:50:25 PST
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request For In-Line Speed Dialer Information


I remember reading about some of the Demon Dialers of yesteryear and I
was wondering what is still available today.  Specifically, I'd like:

1.  Something that can take relatively long speed dial codes from any
phone on the line (e.g., *MOM, *BOB, ...) and dial out the appropriate
number.

2.  Redial until not busy and then ring me back would be nice, but not
essential.

3.  I can live with hard-to-reprogram systems and systems that only
handle tones but I need to be able to install this in an apartment
(can't attack the wiring in the walls).

4.  It would be nice to have features to automatically handle prefixes
and calling card numbers, but having each speed dial number handle up
to 32 digits (with pauses) would be fine too.

I've checked local places with no luck.  Any ideas?


Joe Konstan

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

Subject: Another One! 900 Scam to Watch For
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 10:21:25 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


About three or four months ago, I received one of those postcards
saying that I had won a contest and could claim my prize simply by
calling this particular 900 number. I don't recall the charge, but it
seems that buried in the fine print it said $10 per call. Also in the
fine print it said that I could mail in my claim at no charge.

Not expecting to hear from this company, I mailed in the card. Today I
received a letter from Gift Hot Line (Irving, TX) outlining my $300
prize!

Well now, you didn't *really* think they were going to send me $300,
did you?

What they actually sent was a "certificate" stating I could order the
following merchandise:

        Description            Price     "Discount"     Pay

   Magnavox 19" Stereo TV      319.95       50.00       269.95
   Sylvania 2 Head VCR         249.95       50.00       199.95
   Magnavox Stereo Set         299.95       40.00       259.95
   Visions Cookware             99.95       20.00        79.95
   French Cookware              69.95       20.00        49.95
   Regal 2000 Cookware         129.95       30.00        99.95
   Hudson Baker Luggage         99.95       40.00        59.95
   Singer Sewing Machine       179.95       40.00       139.95
   Plastic Food Storage Set     29.95       10.00        19.95
                                          =======      =======
                                           300.00      1179.55

So, to claim my $300 prize, all I need to do is spend about $1200!
Actually, considerably more than $1200, since they want from $7-$20
per item for shipping. Even with the "discount", a quick look at a
catalog store ad reveals that most of this stuff is about 30%
overpriced.

I wonder how many calls they took in and how many people actually
ordered any of this junk.


Ken Jongsma                [e-mail]
Smiths Industries          [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan     ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #249
******************************










Received: from dsinc.dsi.com by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15223;
          30 Mar 91 3:39 EST
Received: by dsinc.dsi.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.39)
    id <[e-mail]>; Fri, 29 Mar 91 23:12 EST
Date:     Fri, 29 Mar 91 22:13:13 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #248
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 28 Mar 91 08:08:48 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 248

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Help Needed With Ancient Answering Machine [Thomas Farmer]
    Re: Two Line Answering Machines  [Tim Irvin]
    Looking for Suggestions for Remote Host to Internet Connection [L. Hower]
    Voice and Data on the Same Line [Alan Millar]
    Our Landlord Has a Charge-a-Phone [John Alsop]
    Maestro Phones and Caller*ID [Darrell Broughton]
    MCI Telephone Records Produced in NY Trial [Dennis Ritchie]
    "Secure" Cordless Phone Manufacturers [James Zurlo]
    ISDN Tariff Question [Dick Jackson]
    Call Forwarding-Remote Variable [John Boteler]
    CEMF Cells Ruined in Electrolyte Spill [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Anyone Remember the "Tele-Trainer"? [Kent Borg]
    Re: Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security [Jonathan White]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Sleeping Beagle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Needed With Ancient Answering Machine
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 15:51:46 NZD
Organization: Orb Systems Unlimited, NZ


I have just received an old answering machine which I was hoping to
get going. It's a Doro 320, made in Japan and given clearance by the
FCC.

My only problem is that the inputs appear to be seven and ten pin DIN
style sockets. Because it is plugged into mains power, I don't want to
just experiment with a phone until the machine detects a ringing
sound.

The ten pin socket is on the back, while the seven pin is on the side.
Does this sound familiar to anyone?

If you could mail me with information about the machine, I would
appreciate it.

(How old is it? They didn't believe in IC's when they made it ...)


   Sleeping Beagle (aka Thomas Farmer)  [e-mail]
   The Kennels                          Ph. [phone] (voice)
   25 Awarua St, Ngaio, Wellington, New Zealand.

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

From: Tim Irvin <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Two Line Answering Machines
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 10:20:46 -0500


In TELECOM Digest V11 #243, Rich Zellich writes:

> Go down to Radio Schlock and buy a two-line answering machine adapter.
> It will allow the machine to pick up on whichever line of a pair rings
> first, and will ignore the second if they both receive calls at the
> same time.

> It cheerfully switches between lines as calls come in on either of
> them, and can also be used with a phone if you are willing to call out
> on whichever line \received/ the last call.

> I think it runs about $20, but it may be a little higher or lower;
> it's been a while since I bought mine (and that was on sale, anyway)
> so I don't remember.  The little box works fine, and causes no problem
> with loss of ringer voltage (as did, unfortunately, the other RS box
> that cuts off the answering machine when any extension is picked up).

I bought one of these for my father once.  He lived in a town with an
old crossbar switch.  It worked like a champ.  But then one day
Southern Bell decided to put in a new switch (actually the town had
been screaming for one since we were the only people in the area who
couldn't get Call Waiting, et al.)  Anyway, as soon as the new switch
came, the answering machine adapter stopped working.  It appeared to
get stuck between the two lines and both lines would go off-hook.  So,
I swiped the box from my dad and am using it here, it works great on
my current switch.

Actually, I never did like the new switch they put in my fathers area.
It always gave to feel of some cheap made in Taiwan product.  Some of
the things I didn't like about it were:

- The dial tone didn't sound quite right, can't really describe it,
but just not quite right.

- The dial tone wouldn't break until after the first tone was
finished, i.e. you take your finger off the button.

- A caller would hear one complete ring cycle, before the phones in
the house would start to ring, so we got many people hanging up
before we could get to the phone.

I have no idea what type of switch it was, or who made it.  I just
know that it gave the impression of being a bargain basement piece of
equipment.  Which actually didn't surprise me since there were only a
couple of businesses serviced by this switch, and the rest was
residential, it obviously was a money loser for SBT.


Tim Irvin

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

From: Linn Hower <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking for Suggestions for Remote Host to Internet Connection
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 16:35:59 GMT


  I am looking for suggestions as to how to connect a remote host to
the internet.  This remote host might be a PC running a TCP/IP/X11
package or a full fledged workstation.  The connecting line would most
likely be a phone line, either voice grade, or a dedicated higher
speed line.

  Any ideas, suggestions, or comments are appreciated (or suggestions
for approiate nesgroups to query).


  Linn Hower    [e-mail]        Phone: [phone]
at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Voice and Data on the Same Line
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 09:29:45 PST


Recently someone asked about concurrent voice and data on the same
line.  I do not have any experience with such products, but I did see
something in a catalog that sounds like it may fit.

The "RAD Data Communications Catalog" has a product called the LDV-2
Data over Voice Multiplexer, which says it will do synch or asynch,
full or half duplex at up to 9600bps.  It bills itself as
"Simultaneous data and voice over existing telephone line".  It is
unclear whether this is dialup, two or four wire leased line, or what.
It does say it has a limit of 9km (5 miles).

The phone numbers on the catalog are [phone] for New Jersey and
[phone] for California.


Alan Millar     [e-mail]

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

From: John Alsop <seachg![e-mail]>
Subject: Our Landlord Has a Charge-a-Phone
Reply-To: John Alsop <seachg![e-mail]>
Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 17:29:34 GMT


I just spent a week's vacation in Florida.  The house we rented had a
"Charge-a-Phone" instead of an ordinary telephone. It looked pretty
much like a normal phone set, but had various labels with instructions
for use, etc.

The fine print on the phone said that all long distance charges made
from the phone would be rated by a company called ITI (in Dallas I
think).

It also said "Dial *1 to get 10288 access".

Was this the home version of a COCOT?

(I didn't get to actually use it as it was broken, and the house
rental agency had it replaced with a regular phone).


John Alsop

Sea Change Corporation
6695 Millcreek Drive, Unit 8
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 5R8
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
UUCP: ...!uunet!attcan!seachg!jalsop

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Maestro Phones and Caller*ID
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: 27 Mar 91 13:55:17 CST


Some time ago, someone posted a complaint about the Maestro phone and
Caller*ID. Apparently, the Maestro only recorded the incoming call
number if the call was not answered. Not bad, except that if one has
an answering machine, they do not get the numbers for the people who
leave or don't leave messages.

Anyway, the latest catalog from Bell Atlantic has the Maestro phone
and it specifically has a feature to record ALL incoming calls or JUST
those that aren't answered.

It must be a new feature.


Darrell Broughton

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 02:33:32 EST
Subject: MCI Telephone Records Produced in NY Trial


There's a notorious trial going on now in suburban New York, often
called the `Fatal Attraction' case from its resemblance to a certain
movie plot.  Man A, married to woman B, had an an affair with woman C;
B was shot and killed, and C is being tried for murder.  All the
evidence is circumstantial.

There is reason to believe that C bought a pistol at Ray's Sport Shop
(oddly, just down route 22 from me in New Jersey); though the weapon
has not been found, a recovered bullet corresponds with its type.

Here's the Telecom connection. The prosecutor has summoned MCI, who
brought records showing a telephone call from C to Ray's a day or so
before before the weapon was purchased.

C denies making the call.  Moreover, she presented in evidence a paper
MCI bill for the period, which not only fails to show the call to
Ray's, but also shows a call to her mother at a time which, she
argues, would make it impossible for her to be at the murder scene.
MCI says it has no record of the call to C's mother.

The prosecution objected to the introduction of the paper MCI bill,
but the judge allowed it in evidence.  So the jury has (among other
things) to evaluate the trustworthiness of the MCI records as produced
from their tapes, vs. the piece of paper produced by the defendant.


Dennis Ritchie

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

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 16:53:30 -0500 (EST)
From: James Zurlo <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Secure" Cordless Phone Manufacturers


Does anyone have information on manufacturers/prices of "secure"
cordless phones?  By "secure" I mean cordless phones with some sort of
scrambling between the handset and the base unit.  Also could you
comment on the type of scrambling used and how easy/difficult for an
unwanted listener to unscramble it?

Thanks,

Jim   [e-mail]

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

From: Dick Jackson <riacs!rutgers!ttidcc.tti.com![e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Tariff Question
Date: 27 Mar 91 16:20:45 GMT
Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica


I would appreciate it if someone with the information would be willing
to post a summary of the so-far published tariffs for RBOC/LEC BRI
services, especially for single lines (as opposed to Centrex).


Dick Jackson

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

Subject: Call Forwarding-Remote Variable
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 3:50:01 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


Lu, down in Florida, called the other day to announce to me that the
remotely variable call forwarding service recently described here is
available.

It was tested here in Washington D.C. about two years ago. The test
system had a poorly synthesized computer generated voice which would
prompt you through the process of identifying the subscribing
telephone number, verifying your identity with a passcode, prompting
for the new destination number, usw.

The for-profit system now online in Florida has the now-familiar CLASS
female prompt voice ("your Call Block service is neeooow aaawwnn...").
As soon as I can get a demo of it, I'll pass along all the details.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: CEMF Cells Ruined in Electrolyte Spill
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1991 12:40:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Larry Lippman <kitty!larry@
uunet.uu.net> writes:

>    Speaking of batteries and nostalgia, any old-timers remember
> liquid countercells?  They contained stainless steel plates, which
> were immersed in a solution of potassium hydroxide, with a layer of
> mineral oil being used to prevent evaporation.  While working for a
> telephone company one summer while in college, I had the "pleasure" of
> replacing the electrolyte in some large countercells.  I somehow
> managed to spill some electrolyte unnoticed in my shoe, with the
> result a few hours later that I had a disintegrated shoe and a
> partially disintegrated foot (which did eventually heel, er, heal)!
> Unfortunately, alkalai burns often go unnoticed for a much longer time
> than acid or other burns.

I think the worst experience I ever had was walking around a corner,
while doing station checks, and discovering that a cell in the top
tier (of three) of a +130 volt plant had cracked about 1/3 of the way
up the side, and spilled all 2/3's of the electrolyte down onto the
batteries below, and onto *my* CEMF cells on the bottom tier.

There was a circle, or half circle really, of acid about a 1/4" deep
on the floor going out from the wall for about ten feet.  The wall was
peeling, the floor tile was peeling, the paint on the battery rack was
peeling ...

And the CEMF cells, which were ones that I maintained, had acid in
them and were boiling and foaming and looking very strange.

Oh what a job that was.


Floyd L. Davidson  |  [e-mail]   |  Alascom, Inc. pays me
Salcha, AK 99714   |    Univ. of Alaska      |  but not for opinions.

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

From: Kent Borg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Anyone Remember the "Tele-Trainer"?
Date: 27 Mar 91 22:16:40 GMT
Organization: Camex Inc., Boston MA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim
Greenlee) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail]
> (Larry Lippman) writes:

>>    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.

> Indeed - I remember someone bringing a Teletrainer to my first-grade
> class one day (this was in the mid-60's - I don't remember it being
> referred to as a Teletrainer, but the setup was just as Larry
> described). There was a small box that was controlled by the
> "operator", and two telephones that were used by the "caller" and
> "callee" (I don't think either of the phones had dials).

Yes, I remember it too.  I remember which end of the school we were in
that day, but am not sure the grade.  First grade sounds plausable.

Our's had dials, this would have been around 1966.  I was under the
impression at the time that you needed to dial seven digits, even the
correct ones.  Thinking back on it now, knowing what I do about demos,
I tend to think that that was not true.

I can't recount any experiances using it with because other kids got
called on -- I was never the teacher's pet.

I do remember at the time understanding that operators do not decide
who gets busy signals.  I think I thought the idea strange and asked
about it, was told that operators don't really do that.  I then
criticized the accuracy of the lesson, saying that it was inaccurate.

In retrospect, I understand better and better why I was never the pet.


Kent Borg         internet: [e-mail]   AOL: kent borg
                  H:[phone]  W:[phone]

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

From: jonathan white <acf5![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security
Date: 28 Mar 91 00:45:44 GMT
Organization: New York University


[e-mail] (Bob Yazz) writes:

> The Executive Analyst has had only TWO complaints?  Must be John
> Higdon and me!

I think that the count is a bit off. I also complained and recieved,
in yesterday's mail, a letter from Ms Richter explaining what Lauren
outlined in the earlier posting. While I can't be sure, the signature
in the letter that I recieved looks like a photo copy (feel free to
interpret that any way you like).


jonathan    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #248
******************************
^A




ISSUES 248 AND 249 WERE REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 249 IS BEFORE 248.
ISSUE 250 COMES NEXT.






Received: from dsinc.dsi.com by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15848;
          30 Mar 91 4:09 EST
Received: by dsinc.dsi.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.39)
    id <[e-mail]>; Sat, 30 Mar 91 00:57 EST
Date:     Fri, 29 Mar 91 23:58:10 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #250
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 Mar 91 02:13:22 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 250

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905 [Tony Harminc]
    Re: Urban Legend -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins! [Tony Harminc]
    Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign [[e-mail]]
    Re: Information Needed on Broadband ISDN [Amit Bhargava]
    Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta [Tom Gray]
    Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta [Gordon D. Woods]
    Re: I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works [Randy Borow]
    Re: I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works [Jonathan Whitcomb]
    Re: I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works [Steve Thornton]
    Re: What Hardware Supports Ringmate? [Tim Irvin]
    Re: What Hardware Supports Ringmate? [Bob Frankston]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 00:12:27 GMT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905


In TELECOM Digest V#11 Issue 243 Carl Moore writes:

> Is 905 (the newly-announced code for area to split from 416) to
> include the area bordering on 705?  The bordering on 705 would make
> (as Woody pointed out in an old message) 706, the other former pseudo
> area code for parts of Mexico, a poor choice.  ....

Yes -- 905 will border on 705.  Not a great choice.  Then again 410
would not have been good next to 416.

Last time I looked in a California phone book (February) 905 was still
listed as a valid way to reach Mexico city for those without what in
the USA is quaintly called IDDD (International Direct Distance
Dialing).

Oh yes -- whatever happened to 903 ?  This used to be for Northwest
Mexico.

Finally, what is the current plan when the N10 codes are gone ?  The
old plan called for CO (NNX) codes to be used for area codes, starting
with 260.  Is that still in the works ?  That would require 10 digit
dialing everywhere in North America (or timeout nonsense).

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 00:37:11 GMT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Urban Legend? -- Caller IDentified Sues and Wins!


In TELECOM Digest V#11 Issue 244 Floyd Vest writes:

> [read CLASS] services were being test marketed in a "central Florida"
> community. Anyone know where this community is and what's being test
> marketed now?

The residential ISDN trial was in Heathrow, Florida (not to be
confused with the more famous airport of the same name).

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1991 11:10:08
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T's Dream-On Ad Campaign


"John Higdon" <[e-mail]> writes:

> I think that most people, if faced with the prospect of having to
> select not only a default carrier but the ONLY carrier, would select
> AT&T.

> AT&T is still THE most reliable carrier and has the most services
> available.

I have to differ with you here. My experiences may not be representative

of everyone's, but I have used MCI exclusively for four years now
(after having tried out AT&T and US Sprint) and would not want any
other company as my 'only carrier'.


[e-mail]

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

From: amit bhargava <codex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed on Broadband ISDN
Date: 29 Mar 91 00:48:58 GMT
Organization: Codex Corp., Canton MA


edsr![e-mail] (Jim Niemann) writes:

> What research is being done in broadband ISDN?  Is it possible to
> purchase a prototype switch that supports it?

If you are interested in research related information on Broadband
ISDN, I recently edited a collection of papers on the subject and that
has been published by Artech House Inc. of Norwood, MA. The title of
the publication is "Integrated Broadband Networks," order number
425474, and the toll free number of Artech house is 1-800-225-9977
ext. 4002.

I'd be happy to provide anyone who needs more information (such as
contents of the book etc.) by email. Please send me mail at the
address given below.

Also, if you're interested in standardization efforts in the United
States for Broadband ISDN, the standards body dealing with it is the
ANSI T1S1.5 comittee.


Amit Bhargava   codex![e-mail]

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta
Date: 29 Mar 91 14:31:09 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]>  cyberoid@milton.u.
washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes:

> The "alleged horrors" which Bill Berbenich has not yet experienced as
> a result of one month of Caller ID have to do with duration and
> penetration.  The telcos commonly pass off one month tests of small

> wait a couple years when a few tens of millions of more people are
> forced into Caller ID and the files have started being built up.  Then
> let's see if the horrors happen, Bill.

Well, we have had Caller ID here in Ottawa for over a year now. There
are no reports of any horrors. Even the scandal a day radio and TV
programs are silent on this.

I personally have Caller ID and Call Barring. Caller ID really helps.
I can determine who is calling befroe I answer the telephone.  This
allows me to prepare my greeting. I know this may sound trivial but it
really helps a lot. You can greet a friend in a friendly manner while
calls from unknown numbers can be greeted formally. No more occurances
of waiting for a call from a friend and then being presented with a
carpet cleaning call as a surprise.

Call blocking allows at least some freedom from telemarketers.  This
service is a godsend. I look forward to the day of smart telephones
which can bar an unlimited amount of numbers. Then we will be truely
free of crank sales calls.  Even a telephone which had a time of day
feature to allow calls from friends during meal times but bar all
others.  The rest of the time let everybody through. Caller ID and
CLASS serivice give me control over my own telephone.  It allows me to
decide wheteher to permit someone into my home.  Would you ever think
of dropping in on a friend during meal times? Most peopple would
consider this the height of rudeness. How many of your meals have been
interupted by a sales call? Plenty of mine have but not so many now
that I have Call Barring.


Tom Gray

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 00:41:14 GMT
From: Gordon D Woods <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail].
com (Dave Levenson):

> The press has reported several times on the significant drop in the
> number of harassment or obscene call complaints received by
> authorities.  Does this mean that individual subscribers are taking
> matters into their own hands?  Does it mean that would-be prank
> callers are deciding not to call?  I don't know.  I once used it to
> call back a kid who bothered me early in the morning, and haven't been
> bothered since.

I wonder if the reduction in complaints is actually due to the
simultaneous introduction of CALL TRACE and CALLER*ID in NJ. With CALL
TRACE you get a major advertised advantage of CALLER*ID with none of
the disadvantages. You don't even have to subscribe to CALLER*ID; just
enter *76 (I think. It's advertised) and the prankster's number is
recorded for the police. Only the police know the caller's number. I
think the prank callers have quickly learned this and reduced their
calling.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Mar 29 00:01:55 GMT 1991
Subject: Re: I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works


After reading Tim Newsham's account of his old MCI card still working
after he switched carriers then moved, I was reminded of an odd
sitaution which I experienced with my cellular carrier.

I purchased my mobile phone in August of '89. I chose AT&T as the LD
carrier [sorry, Mr. Higdon :-) :-)], without any hesitation. After
all, I work for the company. Anyway, in November of that year, we went
through the famous 312 split to 708. Since my beeper, home, etc.
numbers are 708, and since I live in 708-land, I decided to take
Cellular One's offer of quick, free switching to a 708 cellular number
from my 312 number. Everything else -- the LD carrier, the cellular
services and features, etc. would remain the same.

There were no problems in this regard. Everything went fine. However,
a couple months after I had my number switched to 708 (in January of
'90, BTW), I was still getting bills in from AT&T for my OLD cellular
number. No big deal, since I had a credit balance of 15c (wow!). Now,
I KNOW I have been making LD calls on my present cellular number, and
I KNOW AT&T is the carrier (the 700 thing confirms such). The
"problem"? I ain't been getting amy bills for all my current LD usage
on my cell phone.  This has been going on for fourteen months.
Imagine, *free* LD calling.  Hmmmm...

Mr. Newsham, I'm in the same boat you are. The statue of limitations
according to the current tariff laws is 24 months (two years), so, if
MCI doesn't get you within two years from your calls, you're off the
hook. Same thing for me. I'll admit, though, that it's tempting to use
my cell phone's call forwarding to forward it to, say, a certain #,
then call my cell number and automatically and FREE of charge reach my
LD callee. Might take a wee bit of effort to constantly reforward my
cell phone everytime I want to make such a long-distance call (and
cancel forwarding after completing such call), but it seems nice. Why
don't I do it, then? Because working for the company, I have seen the
poor, greedy fools who think they've gotten away with mounting up huge
bills -- only to get nailed when they think they're scott-free.
Besides, it's wrong.

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

From: Jonathan Whitcomb <aurs01![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works
Date: 29 Mar 91 00:35:33 GMT
Reply-To: Jonathan Whitcomb <aurw34![e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC


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

> So what happens to the bill I could possibly accumulate on this card?
> I'd imagine that MCI would cancel the card ... but it's several months
> later and the card is STILL working.  I suppose MCI is waiting for me
> to accumulate a few hundred bucks worth of calls on it, and then
> they'll come hunting for me.

Perhaps you saw my posting a few weeks back.  I cancelled my account
with Sprint after leaving my FON card with my roommates, expecting
them to take over the account.  They never did, and four months later
I get a bill at my new address for charges made *after* I cancelled.
After several phone calls and threats from collection agencies, they
dropped the charges, but I think you will want to think twice before
you use the card.  I think I got off because it was clear I hadn't
made the calls.  I would think they would keep after you, considering
you did make the calls.

I wouldn't feel too safe about having moved.  Unless you changed your
name and social security number, they will find you.
(Ve have Vays...). :^)


Jonathan Whitcomb                    UUCP: <[e-mail]>
Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh, NC                    Delphi: JBWHIT

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 00:53:10 GMT
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works


On Tue, 26 Mar 91 15:18:35 hst, Timothy Newsham <newsham@wiliki.
eng.hawaii.edu> said:

> Any thoughts or experiences from other TELECOM Digest readers on this?

Yeah. I had quite the opposite experience with my Sprint FONcard this
summer. I went on a solo bicycle tour, and I wanted to report back to
friends each evening that no, I was still not dead. I had had Sprint
for about two years, but I had never used my FONcard until then.

The first night I called from the motel I was in, and got a "not a
valid card number" message. I called the 1-800 number on the back of
the card and (after waiting on hold for about thirty minutes, my brain
turning to steam) I was informed that "oh yes, we always cancel any
card that isn't used for six months". No, he didn't know why. No, he
couldn't reactivate the card. Yes, he could issue me a new card, but
he couldn't reveal the number over the phone, obviously, so I would
have to wait until it arrived in the mail (that's a help). He was able
to connect my call for me "just this time" so I could report in, and
bill it to my account. Of course, as he started to do this, he
accidentally broke the connection. I had to call the 1-800 number
again, wait another fifteen minutes, and then persuade a new operator
that "Bill" had agreed to do this highly irregular service for me.
Total elapsed time from lifting the handset to dropping it back in the
cradle, for a two minute call: 70 minutes.

The new card was waiting for me when I got home two weeks later, but
the first thing I did was kill my Sprint service. I spent a h--- of a
lot of money on phone calls on that trip, counting the long distance
rigamarole, and the add-on charges that hotels feel entitled to slap
on.  Why is it that the only "service" that functions perfectly with
these telephone companies is the billing?


Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / [phone]
[e-mail] / [e-mail]

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

From: Tim Irvin <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What Hardware Supports Ringmate?
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 14:10:58


In TELECOM Digest V11 #244, Bob Frankston writes:

> Just saw an ad for Ringmate (distinctive ringing) by NET.  Looks
> tempting but they claim it doesn't work on lines that hunt though it
> does support call forwarding.  Does anyone know more about this?

Ringmate is compatible with Call Forwarding.  Actually there are two
flavors you can have set-up (at least in NET and SCB areas).  The
first choice is when your forward your calls, both the Main and RM
numbers will be forwarded.  The other flavor is that only the Main
number gets forwarded, while the RM number rings as usual.  This is
set-up when you order (either RM or Call Forwarding) and cannot be
changed on-the-fly.

Actually, I would prefer an additional option: Forward the RM number
but allow the Main number to ring through.  Since I only give my RM
number to people I know.  I would not mind paying occational LD
charges for them to reach me, and the rest of the world would simply
fall through to my answering machine.  Obviously the work around is to
list my RM number, unlist my main number and give main # to friends.
However, Main-listed/RM-unlisted is free, while Main-unlisted/RM-
listed is charged as an unlisted line.

Something else about RM compatibility:

In BELLSouth land they have a service called "Single-Line Prestige"
which includes: Call Hold (flash-*9), Call Transfer (flash, number,
hang-up), and Call Pick-up (#3 [must be another "S-L P" phone in the
same residence]), plus regular Custom Calling Features with some
slight modifications (like Call Waiting is flash-*9 -- which allows
you to xfer the call your on before picking up the incoming one).
Anyway, I had this service, until SCB came out with Ringmate
(Ringmaster there).  Well I called to order and everything seemed fine
until two days later I got a call from a Rep.  She said that I had to
choose between RM and S-LP because they were incompatible
technologies.  Oh well, S-LP out, RM in.  I asked if she thought they
would ever be compatible - in hindsight kind of a pointless question
to ask.  Anyway she had no clue, but would let her bosses know I
wanted both.  S-LP doesn't appear to be available in NET land so I
guess the point is moot for me now.


Tim Irvin

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 00:38 GMT
From: Bob Frankston <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Hardware Supports Ringmate?


I realize that Ringmate works with forwarding (yes, selective
forwarding would be much nicer).  The problem is with hunting -- I've
got two numbers and when the first is busy the second rings.  One
alternative would be to forward on busy -- how does forwarding compare
with hunting in terms of capabilities and other tradeoffs?  (Hunting
is free, but I think I've also got forwarding).

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #250
******************************