Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss251-300

Internet Message Format | 1991-04-22 | 865KB

Received: from dsinc.dsi.com by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15990;
          30 Mar 91 4:15 EST
Received: by dsinc.dsi.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.39)
    id <[e-mail]>; Sat, 30 Mar 91 00:59 EST
Date:     Fri, 29 Mar 91 23:59:58 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #251
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 Mar 91 20:35:40 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 251

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Conversion of TV Transmission Standards [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Conversion of TV Transmission Standards [Brian Crawford]
    Re: Conversion of TV Transmission Standards [Wolfgang R. Schulz]
    Re: The Early Days of Telephony [Kent Borg]
    Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy [Carl Moore]
    Re: MCI Around-Town Disappearing [Jonathan White]
    Re: Questions About New Service Being Installed [Raymond C. Jender]
    Re: New Hotel Ripoff [John Higdon]
    Re: New Hotel Ripoff [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Questions About AT&T Credit Card Calls [Kath Mullholand]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Conversion of TV Transmission Standards
Date: 28 Mar 91 02:32:51 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (morten steffensen) writes:

> My question: Does there exist 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?

There are international VCR's that do what you want.  The Akihabara in
Tokyo is lousy with them, as they are a big hit with tourists.  These
VCRs can play PAL, SECAM and NTSC VHS tapes, and also have tuners that
can pick up all the formats.  They have an internal converter and, I
THINK, can drive a PAL, SECAM or NTSC tv or monitor.

One I saw recently has a front panel bevel with a map of the world on
it, with lots of little flags.  You just press the flag of the country
you are in to reconfigure the VCR.


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

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Conversion of TV Transmission Standards
Date: 27 Mar 91 13:58:39 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(morten steffensen) writes:

> 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?

Simple answer: No, unless you have a BIG FAT checkbook to purchase
this device.

This subject has been beaten to death over on rec.video.


Brian Crawford            INTERNET (current):   [e-mail]
PO Box 804                         (permanent): [e-mail]
Tempe, Arizona  85280     FidoNet:              1:114/15.12
USA                       Amateur:              KL7JDQ

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

From: "Wolfgang R. Schulz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Conversion of TV Transmission Standards
Date: 28 Mar 91 14:42:27 GMT


[e-mail] (morten steffensen) writes:

> 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).

> 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?

Although I think that this matter is permanently discussed in
rec.video, I wish to point out, that really the British gear is rather
useless in the Swiss/French continental corner. Two major handicaps
are the reason:

a. The PAL standard and the FRENCH version of SECAM will only work
in one set (VCR or TV) when they are specially designed for it, mostly
because SECAM video is beeing broadcast NEGATIVE, while PAL is POSITIVE
(compare with a slide, you get almost the same negative results when
looking at them).

b. The audio/ video separation in a TV channel is different. So a
tuner made for the UK can only "listen" to British audio. CCIR has a
different separation and French TV another even.

c. UK equipment usually only has a tuner for UHF frequencies, while
on the continent you get the most channels on VHF.

Really, re-export it, and get something locally that is designed for
reception in that area. All dealers there will have sets which do well
on both systems.

Happy holidays!


Wolfgang R. Schulz, Hamburg, Germany ***BTX (and phone): 0405521878
Bang:     ...unido!mcshh!wrs      ***        UUCP: [e-mail]
Internet: [e-mail]      ***        MCI:  241-2526

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

From: Kent Borg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Early Days of Telephony
Date: 27 Mar 91 22:25:19 GMT
Organization: Camex Inc., Boston MA


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

> 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!

I never knew.  I always had to ask what she meant.  I had assumed that
they knew where I was calling from (you mean I could have lied and
gotten away with it? -- never occured to me), yet I had just dialed
the number I wanted, so why would she ask that?


Kent Borg          internet: [e-mail]   AOL: kent borg
                        H: [phone]  W: [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 15:46:32 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Great US Telephone Conspiracy


A case where law enforcement agencies used long distance phone records
was a few years ago in Delaware when a couple was killed and their
baby kidnapped.  Detectives looked over phone records, expanded their
search to include the slain couple's relatives, and found a long
distance call from the Houston area (using Harrington 302-398 prefix)
to a parent of one of the slain couple (this was on the Hartly 302-492
exchange).  Even though the prefixes are in the same county, this was
a toll call (probably became local recently when Diamond State was
ordered to set up "county-wide" local calling); had such call been
local, the phone company probably would not have been able to help
(according to newspaper article at the time).  As it was, however,
this discovery put detectives on the road to recovering the baby and
making arrests in the case.

And in a different matter: Yes, I have also read that overheard credit
card numbers are a common source of phone fraud.  Touchtone pay phones
make it possible to punch in the credit card number instead of having
to recite it to a human operator.  (Here I do not intend to discuss
such things as: COCOT disabling keypad; putting rotary dial back in
place of touchtone in drug-infested areas; etc.)

John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> Except for collect calls, which are becoming increasingly rare, all
> long distance calls are ticketed to an account that can be used to
> identify a caller -- even if that caller uses a coin phone.

"Cash" calls also?

A call billed to a third number does not necessarily point to you; but
notice that it leaves a lot of clues: the phones called from and to,
and the number the call is charged to.  Several years ago, I believe
at least in the Wilmington (Del.) newspaper, phone company security
pointed out that third-party fraud could be eliminated by getting rid
of third-party billing, but that a lot of people want such billing;
therefore, there are strict verification rules in use of such billing.

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

From: jonathan white <acf5![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Around-Town Disappearing
Date: 28 Mar 91 00:30:24 GMT
Organization: New York University


[e-mail] (David Lesher) writes:

> 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.

You might want to try ITT/Metromedia. They have no surcharge on
calling card calls no matter where you call from. I've been using mine
for about six months now and have no complaints.


Jonathan       [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 00:23:09 EST
From: Raymond C Jender <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About New Service Being Installed
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)) writes:

> 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 2 and 3ESS are smaller rural type switches. Sorry, I don't know
much more then that without researching.

The 1 and 1A differ in the processor used. The 1E uses an analog
processor. The 1A Processor is digital.  Both 1E and 1A use the same
network, thus when a 1E is being retrofitted to 1A, only the processor
is swapped out.  That the reason that the calls sound exactly the same
on both switches, they only complete quicker.  No, the 1A does not run
Unix, or any other popular brand of OS. It uses it's own proprietary
and unique assembly language.

The 4E uses the 1A processor. It's network is digital.  It can be used
as either a Toll or Tandem switch.  I guess you can say there was a
completely digital switch being used back in, oh, when did the first
4E cut over, 1975-78 time frame?

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 02:12 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: New Hotel Ripoff


"David G. Cantor" <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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"!

When you step over the threshold of a motel or hotel, you are subject
to its tender mercies. It controls the horizontal and the vertical. It
can make the image a soft blur or sharpen it ... oops, sorry. Wrong
program. But you get the idea. It can charge whatever it likes.

A visitor from out of the area stayed at a Day's Inn in Santa Clara.
For those not familiar with the area, Santa Clara is completely
encompassed by the "San Jose 2" calling area. It includes all of Santa
Clara, San Jose, Sunnyvale, Campbell, Los Gatos, Mountain View and Los
Altos (in 415), Milpitas, and Cupertino as local. But the sign on the
telephone indicated that anything outside of Santa Clara was "long
distance".

So a perfectly local call to my house from the lobby pay phone ended
up being a rather costly "long distance" call from the room. Remember,
you pay dearly for that convenient telephone in your room.


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

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Hotel Ripoff
Date: 28 Mar 91 22:15:12 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> I was just a guest at the Del Mar Hilton Hotel (in Del Mar,

> clearly, "Local calls 50 cents" and I placed a call to a number in La

> My bill contained a $4.86 charge for  this call.  I objected and the clerk

If enough folks on the net were interested to see if the Hilton Hotels
have some chain policy, they could EACH call Hilton's 1.800.445.8667
number and ask. It might be reasonable to also ask if the Del Mar
property is Hilton owned or privately owned, and if privately owned,
'Are they supposed to be conforming to chain policies that prevent one
property from giving the rest of the chain a bad reputation?'.

It is always wise to do as much travel planning ahead of time as
possible, and this little call may simplify future decisions.

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Date: 29 Mar 91 08:23:25 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (Bill Berbenich) writes:

> Court Rules Phone Books Unprotected; Justices: Copyright Law Doesn't
> Apply [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]

I think you are wrong.  How do you think a local directory is
assembled by the phone company?  They have their subscriber's names
and addresses on their billing computers; dump the names, addresses
and phone numbers into a file, sort them, massage them a little, and
send the results to a postscript typsetter; voila, instant
white-pages.  I'd be shocked if the phone companies did it any other
way!

Since the telcos have the customers, and assign the numbers, and need
to have the details in order to run their businesses, there is no
reason for their directories to be innacurate.

I do have some qualms about the court decision, however.  The phone
company does spend money to create the entries in the white pages, and
it seems to me that rival directory companies are getting a free ride
on the back of Ma Bell.  Also, who is going to define what an
"original work" is?  There are a lot of complicated privacy issues
here.

It would be nice if it were the case that each subscriber "owned" his
telephone number, and had the right to decide how it was distributed.
That would force the whole industry to get real when it comes to a
wide variety of privacy issues; alas, it will never happen.


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


[Moderator's Note: Well, the court decision was just another in the
series of 'dump on Ma Bell' decisions for which the federal judiciary
is well-known. Of course telco spends a great deal of time and money
to verify their directories and insure accuracy. Most of the other
fly-by-night one shot directory publishers make no attempt to verify
anything. They just copy from telco. This can be easily proven as
Illinois Bell has done a couple times: IBT puts 'ringers' in their
directories; that is, here and there a totally made-up entry which
does not exist. This disproves any claims of 'carefully researched and
compiled' directories by other publishers. When a competitor's
directory comes out (or a new Haines Criss-Cross book) IBT checks it
out looking for their 'ringers'.  If they find any (ringers), the
competitor gets sued for copyright violation. At least they did in the
past. I guess now telco gets to do the work for the other publishers
for free.  If *I* had anything to do with telco directory compilation
and distribution, my response to the Supreme Court would be to abolish
phone directories entirely. That would wipe out the leeches in the
directory-publishing industry overnight and prevent any futher theft
of my work, whether the Supreme Court liked it or not.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1991 13:58:52 EST
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About AT&T Credit Card Calls


We have tested the new AT&T "scrambled" number cards (that do not
mimic an area code/phone number combination) and have found that our
Baby Bell (NYNEX) will not accept the card.

If this is so, it is only right, since NYNEX also does not accept MCI
Sprint, or other common carrier credit cards (not ot mention Visa,
etc.)

We are recommending to our faculty that they only get an AT&T card if
they are travelling overseas and need to call back here.  We encourage
Baby Bell cards because they are going to be much more flexible as
time goes on.


Kath Mullholand          UNH, Durham, NH

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #251
******************************






ISSUES 252 AND 253 GOT REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 252 ARRIVED
AFTER 253 IN THIS ARCHIVES. ALSO NOTE DUE TO PROBLEMS WITH MAILER AT
EECS.NWU.EDU  ISSUES BEGINNING AT 248 AND FORWARD WERE SENT FROM THE
BACKUP SITE DSINC.DSI.COM FOR SEVERAL ISSUES.






Received: from dsinc.dsi.com by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16213;
          30 Mar 91 4:33 EST
Received: by dsinc.dsi.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.39)
    id <[e-mail]>; Sat, 30 Mar 91 03:04 EST
Apparently-To: <[e-mail]>
Received: from spool.mu.edu by spool.mu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
    id AA09876; Fri, 29 Mar 91 23:45:13 CST
Date:     Sat, 30 Mar 91 1:54:37 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #253
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 Mar 91 01:52:59 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 253

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MCI Telephone Records Produced in NY Trial [Eduardo Krell]
    Re: I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works [Wm Randolph Franklin]
    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [W. H. Sohl]
    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Daniel Guilderson]
    Re: Request For In-Line Speed Dialer Information [Steve Pershing]
    Re: MCI Card for Germans Includes $15 Gift [Wolfgang R. Schulz]
    Re: More on Frequency-Selective Ringing [Jim Rees]
    Re: More on Frequnecy-Selective Ringing [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: MCI Around Town Followup [Joe Konstan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MCI Telephone Records Produced in NY Trial
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 23:05:04 EST


The latest twist in that case is that an MCI executive called by the
prosecution testified he didn't believe the MCI statement the defense
presented was genuine since at that time all MCI statements had a
special legend printed (something like "Communications for the next
100 years") and the statement shown by the defense didn't have it.


Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell  Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works
Date: 29 Mar 91 15:20:19 GMT
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL


[e-mail] (Timothy Newsham) writes:

> 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).

Not true. I have an MCI card and NO phone (the phone in my apartment
is under someone else's name and is not MCI.)

> 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.
> So what happens to the bill I could possibly accumulate on this card?

MCI simply reports you to a credit collection agency if you don't
answer their mail after a reasonable few months. Then the collection
agency comes after you.


Scott Hinckley   Internet:[e-mail]
UUCP:...!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott
DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not|[phone]
represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management|  BTN:461-2073

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

From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 29 Mar 91 22:16:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Timothy Newsham) mentions that MCI kept his card valid after he
cancelled it and moved.

This is also true of credit cards.  I've had MC/Visa card reps
absolutely refuse to cancel card numbers that I didn't want to renew.
They call it a convenience in case I change my mind six months later.
I call it their forlorn hope that I will accidently use it and then
they can hit me for the annual fee.  The only solution is probably to
report the number stolen.


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

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

From: W. H. Sohl <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 91 05:26:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws
Reply-To: W. H. Sohl <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

> 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 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.

While pricing for all three tiers is NOW the same as the basic package
was before, IF they break out the pricing and you then need to
subscribe to each tier separately, you can bet that that will lead to
the scambling of the channels in tiers two and three.  Once that is
done, you are then forced to use a cable company converter box for
each separate TV to descramble tiers two and three.

If that happens, the remote control functionality of your existing
cable ready TV sets becomes useless for those channels that are
scrambled, thus forcing you to opt for the cable company's remote
control features at additional cost.

> 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.

Here in NJ, the cable company is granted a franchise, but that is not
an exclusive monopoly franchise.  The economic reality, however, is
that no other cable company is likely to want to expend the capital
costs associated with cableing an already cabled area on a competitive
basis.

The deregulation of cable as I recall was done by federal action, so I
don't know what, if any, local concerns were addressed during the
discussion of the legislation before it became law.

These are my personnel viewpoints, and not my employer's.


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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 23:34:05 -0500
From: Daniel Guilderson  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws


> 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 doubt the cable companies would ever submit to this "solution"
because they are operating on fixed costs.  It doesn't matter if you
aren't watching TV during the month of March, they still have to
maintain a working connection to your residence.  By the same token,
it doesn't cost them anything more if you have 100 TV sets hooked up
as opposed to one.  For a broadcast type service such as cable
television, the amount charged to customers should be based on the
cost to make and maintain the physical connection.

It's different for phone companies because some calls take up more
resources than others.  Which makes me wonder about how a computer
network could be billed.  I figure a TCP/IP (or some kind of ISO based
protocol) network would be a highly desirable thing for a lot of
people.  I don't think it's good enough to limit it to SLIP because
then the only time your connected to the network is when you call it
up.  I would want something that's always connected.  I figure the
fairest way to bill this kind of network would be to only charge for
packets that originate from your node.  What do you think?


Daniel Guilderson   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Request For In-Line Speed Dialer Information
From: Steve Pershing <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 11:59:54 PST
Organization: Questor - Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC::[phone]


[e-mail] (Joe Konstan) writes:

> I remember reading about some of the Demon Dialers of yesteryear and I
> was wondering what is still available today.  Specifically, I'd like:

Zoom Telephonics in the Boston, Ma. area are still in business.  They
made probably the best "Demon dialler".

I don't have the telephone number, but you should be able to find them
through area 617 information.


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

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

From: Wolfgang R. Schulz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Card for Germans Includes $15 Gift
Date: 30 Mar 91 00:27:48 GMT


Since MCI offers "Call USA" from Germany too now (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 Signup's
until March 31st 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        ***


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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: More on Frequency-Selective Ringing
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 17:40:43 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, kitty![e-mail]
(Larry Lippman) writes:

>     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 don't know what our old (Bell System) switch was before it was
replaced with a 1A some time in the late '70s, but it had ringback on
491x.  Different values of 'x' would give eight different coded rings
plus continuous ring.  I miss this feature.  Our current switch
doesn't even have a ringback number that I can find (I've tried all
the test prefixes, and located all kinds of tones, battery,
terminated-no-battery, and so on, but no ringback).

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 05:06 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on Frequency-Selective Ringing


Larry Lippman, as always, brings us those bits of telephone lore that
help put pieces together. In his reply <Digest v11,iss247> he explains
that Bell's way to ring more than four parties was to add coded
ringing to divided ringing. (I probably misled the group by not adding
to remarks about using "ground" as one side of the ringing circuit --
that the "ground" was through a cold-cathode diode vacuum tube in the
protector outside the house.)

As to frequency-selective ringers, I came along late in the territory
of an Independent that seemed to have bought its equipment from
wherever there was some that week.  You could go into one house and
find and Automatic Electric phone; a WECo in the next, and a Stromberg
in the third ... plus assorted cats and dogs from time to time.

Reminiscent of that time, when WECo built a pink Princess telephone,
AT&T was so proud, they ran an double-page color ad about how modern
they were in <Life> magazine.  One of my neighbors remarked to their
chum who worked for "the phone company" how classy that looked.  A few
weeks later, up rolled the chum in his yellow (remember those from the
non-Bell telcos, folks?) truck with ... you guessed it ... in a box
and proceeded to ask where they wanted it installed (the bedroom, of
course, where else?).  I don't recall it ever showed up on the bill.
But then, it was a different time and a different society, wasn't it?

Oh, ending the story about the pink Princess phone: The nice chum from
the telco said he was sorry, but he couldn't make the ringer work.
This is appropos of the pretty constant remarks about mechanical
tuning of riningers.  The "book" probably never told people to do it,
but in that place at that time, it was done a fair amount.  It was
probably a result of running a dial network with all that hodgepodge
of hardware.  As what happens with so many of our narrow views of "the
business," this kid thought it was just normal.  and, yes, bells
hummed and tinkled a lot in that place at that time.  We all just
thought it was normal.

And, thanks Larry, for telling me what a "pole-changer" was for.  I
saw old references to them, but never in a context that explained what
their function was.  They must have been very archiac, for by the time
this kid came along, all the offices I saw had motor generators for
ringing current.  I guess they were more maintenance free.  I can only
guess pole-changers went out before WW II.

Larry mentioned "AC power line operated ringing plants" in the context
of U.S. PBXs.  Most of the Bell and overseas telcos I ever got into
used a low frequency AC ringing current (16-2/3Hz in most, which is
curiously the same .83333.... of 20 Hertz as 50 Hertz is of 60 Hertz.

This always made me suspect I could guess where they got their first
ringing generators from.  What I found uniquely different was that in
my Paris apartment, it seemed the PTT rang phones with 50 Hertz.  This
could easily have been a current-limited sample of the AC power line.
I often thought that probably saved French-technology PTTS a few
million in ringing generators over the years.  Makes me wonder why the
rest of us even bothered to get into 20 Hertz in the first place.

But when Larry said:

> Sounds like an end-cell charger to me.....

and then:

> remember liquid countercells?

He brought up a whole tale I'll put into another nostalgia post,
because this one is getting too long and wandering off its title.

Anyhow, thanks and congratulations, Larry!  I hope people like Al
Varney have more to add to the "mysteries of ringing" and putting the
two major ways into context.

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 18:43:10 PST
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Around Town Followup


Episode four in my wonderful experiences with MCI Calling Cards:

You may recall at the end of Episode 3 I had (after a 5 month delay)
been credited with the 25 cent Around Town surcharges for several
months since MCI's 800 number still touted Around Town as a
no-surcharge service.  I called back today and Around Town is now
touted as a reduced charge service.  I then speak with a rep.

1.  She didn't think Around Town was being discontinued but checked
and found out that indeed it was (for crying out loud, it's 3/28 and
I'm sure she was telling people to sign up left and right for MCI with
the Around Town benefit).

2.  She will report that the 800 number (our 800 number sir?) still
has the advertisement.

3.  She didn't know about any notices but will "make a note to ask
about it."

Oh joy!  Since Around Town is gone April 1, does anyone have the right
800 number for ITT (Metromedia, whatever) to get their calling card.
I tried once and got someone who was entirely clueless, but I think it
was the wrong 800 number.


Joe Konstan

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #253
******************************










Received: from dsinc.dsi.com by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16353;
          30 Mar 91 4:47 EST
Received: by dsinc.dsi.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.39)
    id <[e-mail]>; Sat, 30 Mar 91 01:01 EST
Date:     Sat, 30 Mar 91 0:02:04 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #252
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 Mar 91 21:11:09 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 252

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Rich Zellich]
    Re: Ground Start vs Loop Start: How to Convert? [John Higdon]
    Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones [John R. Levine]
    Re: Query on 8-Party Ringing [Rich Zellich]
    Re: More on Frequency-Selective Ringing [Terry Kennedy]
    More Even More on Selective Ringing [David Lesher]
    Re: Hidgon an Expert on 2600 Hz? [Tom Gray]
    Re: Telecom Equipment Wanted [John Higdon]
    Re: Bell of PA's Guardian Service [Phydeaux]
    Re: PacBell Blocks 950-xxxx [Peter da Silva]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 10:11:37 CST
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws


Here in the St. Louis and St. Louis County areas, I have no idea what
the various local laws or franchise agreements allow the cable
companies to do, but they only charge for the basic entry F-connector
(or for the box, if one is connected); they charge for each _box_, not
for each internally-connected TV or VCR, and also for each remote
control unit (and they're optional, but at least the old city company
would give it to you free for the balance of the first year, to get
you used to having/using it).  I'm not positive, but I think they will
also install a second input jack for no extra installation or monthly
charge; the only charge is for the converters (city anyway, have no
idea about the various StL County cable companies).

I've recently had a new house built in the county, and had it prewired
for both video and phone.  I had a separate jack installed for the
future cable input, and it terminates on the other end in a four-foot
piece of cable without an F-connector on it; according to the
Communications Prewires, Inc. installer, the cable company will drill
a hole into my basement and connect to my pre-wired cable on request.

They've finally laid the feeder cables up and down our street over the
last week, and we're now waiting for them to recontact us to see if we
want our house connected to the two-house jack sticking out of a
cylinder in my front yard.  When they do connect, I will have to buy a
few more short video cables and three more Y-adapters to hook up both
the raw cable and the output of their converter box to a pair of
amplified Radio Schlock switch boxes.  These boxes each take four TV
and one computer/game inputs, and feed two TV's and a VCR; since I
have two of them, and have (or will have) the attic antenna, one of
the VCR's, and both cable outputs Y-ed into both of them, I can feed
four TV jacks and two VCRs (I currently have two TV sets and two VCRs
connected to the switches, with two pre-installed jacks unused in the
living room and spare bedroom).

The back of my TV/stereo cabinet is an unholy mess of wires and
cables, of course, since not only is all the video cable connected
every way imaginable, but the TV stereo output (a separate box, more
cabling) also feeds into the stereo system, which itself is fed every
which way it can possibly be.

If I had a cable company that insisted on making me pay for each TV
connected, I'd just let them put in their one jack and converter box,
and then just cheat and after-wire everything the same way, anyway.
The RS boxes are about $40 for the un-amplified one with only one TV
and one VCR output, and about $70 or $80 for the amplified version
with two TV and one VCR output capability.  If you want both raw cable
input and premium-channel converter-box input, then all you need do is
add a couple of extra short cables and a $3 Y-splitter.

Cheers,


Rich

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 10:01 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Ground Start vs Loop Start: How to Convert?


Zarko Draganic <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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?

Ground or loop start should not be an issue here. Different types of
CO switching behave differently upon disconnect. The 1/1AESS will
provide loop interruption immediately when the caller hangs up. A
DMS100 takes a while (and sometimes won't do it at all depending on
the hardware/software packs). The same is true for the 5ESS.

In Cupertino, you have service from both a 1AESS and a DMS100,
depending on the prefix. The old "ALpine" (252, 253, etc.) exchanges
are handled by the DMS, and the newer "weird" prefixes (996, 446,
etc.)  are served out of the 1AESS.

If you find that the DMS is not returning a loop signal upon
disconnect, you may be able to convince Pac*Bell to correct it. Good
luck.


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

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

From: Jeff Carroll <![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones
Date: 29 Mar 91 00:08:22 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> 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.

    Several of the desk phones of more recent vintage around the
office here are AT&T Touchtone desk phones with a carefully engineered
(not lead, I don't think; there are health concerns) metallic weight
bolted to the inside of the genuine used-to-be-Western-Electric base
plate. The phone itself consists merely of a PC card the same size as
the keypad and attached to the back of it.

    Although Boeing is gradually being ISDN-ized, the only ISDN
circuits I have seen are at the desks of employees who used to have
old-fashioned keysets. These have been replaced by Merlin-style ISDN
terminals.

    The more fortunate of the rest of us (around this particular
office, anyway) are using AT&T 610s, which are designed to look like
the Japanese programmable speakerphones, down to the simulated speaker
baffle in the middle of the handset cradle. Though the 610 *is*
programmable, the "speaker baffle" has no slots in it, and no speaker.

    Don't tell me AT&T is totally without marketing savvy.


Jeff Carroll   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 28 Mar 91 12:41:59 EST (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> Several posters have referred to some modern residential telephones,
> manufactured by AT&T and other companies, as "lightweight".
> [Some vendors weight phones with heavy pieces of metal.]

I like heavy telephones because they don't fall off the table when you
stretch out the cord.  It doesn't really matter whether the weight is
in active or inactive parts of the phone.

Regards,


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

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 15:04:13 CST
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Query on 8-Party Ringing


Donald E. Kimberlin asks:

> *how* did Bell accomplish 8- party ringing if they used only one
> frequency?

In my area, at least, it was simple.  They used coded rings, and rang
_every_ phone on the party line, instead of trying to ring only the
_right_ one.  If I remember right, when our number was "IMPerial
5201", we were three short rings (this may have only been a four-party
line, too, so they could have used frequency-selective ringing if they
had wanted to).

To tie the above reference to a previous thread, the IMPerial 5201
number was later changed to HObart 7-5201 and then, much later, to
467-5201 - in other words, in the 45 years my father has lived there,
his number has _never_ changed! (IMP = HO7 = 467)

Cheers,


Rich

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on Frequency-Selective Ringing
Date: 28 Mar 91 16:30:51 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Donald E. Kimberlin) writes:

>         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!)

  Well, BSP 501-250-300, Issue 2, January 1963 describes a system
where up to four parties can be signalled using Ring Party on tip,
Ring Party on ring, with + or - bias, and gives the codes for the
ring-back systems to select the right party. No direct mention of
eight-party ringing service is made, but there are two items of
interest: "Eight party line stations in step-by-step dial areas" as
well as a mention of "one-ring party" and "two-ring party", which
might mean that both subscriber's instruments rang, but with
distinctive ringing.

        Terry Kennedy           Operations Manager, Academic Computing
        [e-mail]     St. Peter's College, US
        [e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: More Even More on Selective Ringing
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 18:39:28 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


{How did *I* get started on this? - I've NEVER had a party line.}

Both Donald and Larry have brought up good points.

First, my BSP 500-114-100 titled "Ringing Limitations" answers Donald's
query. Paragraph 3.04 says

    {talking about eight party}
    Coded ringing is used to differentiate between
    stations....

In other words, it is only "semi-selective" ringing.

While I have not dug too deeply into this aspect, one advantage of at
least the two party Bell method was ANI. While the trick with the
tapped ringer coil added some noise, it DID allow the CO to figure if
Mr. Tip or Ms. Ring was calling Fargo without a "numberpleeze."

The isolators, such as a 28A or a 425A, are gas tubes. They don't
conduct until a LARGE (~90v) dc voltage is impressed on the line.
Ringing is on top of that. Thus, during talking, no unbalance thru the
ringer coil, and less noise. But, if you have a 28A or other of the
myriad items Ma mentions (11A's, 687B's, 425&6A tubes, 426N diodes and
D180036 isolators, to name a few) can you ALSO have ANI, and if so,
HOW?

Here's a mix of old and new: Can you have party line selective
ringing on ESS's?


[e-mail]                          (305) 255-RTFM

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hidgon an Expert on 2600 Hz?
Date: 28 Mar 91 21:18:14 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

>> John Higdon writes:

>>> 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! :-)

For those of you who want to know how the 2600hz system works, you can
obtain the CCITT international standard on R1 signalling. This
includes a complete description of how the system works. You may also
obtain the AT&T publication "Notes on the Network" which has a more
practical description of this system.

All of this information is totally public. It is an industry standard.
As a matter of fact, I know about it beacuse I designed an SF trunk.
Probably USENET is distributed to some places over this trunk type of
my design. I obtained all the inforamtion I needed from "Notes on the
Network" which AT&T was quite pleased to sell to anybody with the
required amount of money.


Tom Gray - have SF trunk for hire - will travel

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 14:00 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Telecom Equipment Wanted


DBILLINGSLEY <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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 guess I'm an undergrad with a wierd hobby.

Not at all. You might be amazed at how many responses you will get
from readers of this forum. Unfortunately, I have divested myself of
most surplus gear due to space considerations.

As I was growing up (and fooling around with things telephonic) it
seemed as though all manner of doodads simply fell into my lap. Cable,
blocks, telephone parts, switchboard parts, CO parts, even payphone
parts came from everywhere. Sometimes it was friends of the family
that would be cleaning out a garage, sometimes it would be a Pacific
Telephone installer that would come back and drop off his collection
of surplus stuff. In checking with associates, this seems to be a
common experience.

Visit any telephone "junkie" and you will find gobs of phone
droppings.  Even though I have cleaned most of it out, just a casual
glance will tell you that a telephone nut lives here!

Now where did I put that number for "Phoners Anonymous"?


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

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 15:49:59 PST
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell of PA's Guardian Service


The sad thing about this is that most people are afraid to do any of
this themselves.  Even if they *did* call the phone company and have
them fix it at $60/hr, they'd be better off paying for the service
call.  I've never had inside wiring problems.  I tried to convince one
friend of this recently.  She lives in an apartment building and is
spending $2 each month for "wire maintenance." What a rip-off.


reb

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


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell calls their plan 'Linebacker', and
like the others it is a total waste of money.    PAT]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PacBell Blocks 950-xxxx
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1991 03:41:35 GMT

> [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]

I don't know about you, but I've always found payphone prices
outrageous.  Even worse was being charged "operator assisted" rates
for using my AT&T phone card -- no operator involved. No, COCOTs are
at worst just a bigger dose of the same medicine. Plus, just because
it's a Bell phone doesn't mean it's not a COCOT.


([e-mail])

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #252
******************************






ISSUE 253 APPEARS BEFORE 252 DUE TO ERROR IN TRANSISSION.






Received: from dsinc.dsi.com by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03457;
          30 Mar 91 21:35 EST
Received: by dsinc.dsi.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.39)
    id <[e-mail]>; Sat, 30 Mar 91 21:01 EST
Apparently-To: <[e-mail]>
Received: from spool.mu.edu by spool.mu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
    id AA14814; Sat, 30 Mar 91 12:42:45 CST
Date:     Sat, 30 Mar 91 19:48:41 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #254
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 Mar 91 17:55:38 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 254

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Problems in Telecom City [TELECOM Moderator]
    Educational "Field Trip" to United Telephone of PA [Sean Williams]
    United Telephone -- 25 Years Ago [Sean Williams]
    AOS Payphone Experience [Jeff E. Nelson]
    Can Someone Please Help us in SO-Cal GTE-Land [Ron Schnell]
    New AT&T Digital Answering Machine [Chris Petrilli]
    MCI Bill Key Evidence in Murder Trial [Wm Randolph Franklin]
    Re: Into the Telecosm [Peter Marshall]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 30 Mar 91 17:11:21 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Problems in Telecom City


Since Thursday night, I have been dealing with a strange problem here
at eecs involving the delivery of the Digest (the mailing list
version) to the several hundred names and exploder addresses on the
matrix. The problem: they stalled in the queue and wouldn't mail!

We had a power outage early Thursday morning which dumped me (and
everyone else at eecs) offline in the early morning hours.  I was in
the middle of editing issue 248.  Once I got back on line, the system
was sluggish but I got issue 248 into the mailqueue list channel,
where it sat, and sat, and sat, all day Thursday and Friday.  Or did
it? Or was it a 'ghost'? From what I could tell, 'deliver' was not
working correctly. Ditto, issues 249, 250, 251, and 252 just sat there
in the queue.

And with a three day holiday weekend in the offing to boot! Except we
Moderators don't take that many three day holiday weekends.  Friday
night I was able to get issues 248-253 rerouted through a backup site
and now most of you have these issues. Some of you have gotten them
twice, and some of you still haven't gotten them once.

The next several issues may come to you through the backup site or
they may come from eecs ... depending. Things should get back to
normal soon.  If you get duplicates, toss them out and don't bother
writing me about it until/unless several issues have arrived and the
duplicates / out of numerical order delivery continues.

None of the mailing problems here caused any grief with the
comp.dcom.telecom feed: it now goes out using my very own nntpxmit to
several strategic and well-connected sites around the world where it
is deposited directly in the stream of news; the better to reach you
in minutes (or seconds!) after it leaves here.


PAT

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Mar 29 10:09:12 EST 1991
Subject: Educational "Field Trip" to United Telephone of PA


I'd just like to tell you all that I took the day off school yesterday
to experience an "educational trip" <grin> to the United Telephone of
PA headquarters in Carlisle yesterday.

The Carlisle CO uses a Northern Telecom DMS 100.  A technician showed
me around the building, explaining the operation of various sections
of the DMS.  He told me that there wasn't really too much to see,
since it was all self contained circuit boards.  He was right.

He then took me to another room, where the fiber optics are.  He told
me that the fibers led to long distance carriers and other area
exchanges.

I asked the man about United Telephone's MessageLine service
(voicemail), and he directed me to a little box sitting on the floor.
I looked at it, and noticed that it was faintly reminiscent of an IBM
PC CPU sitting on its side, and it had a 5-1/4" disk drive, too.
There were no labels on the machine indicating the manufacturer,
however, and the technician wasn't sure.  On the top of the machine
was a 1200 BPS modem, which is used to program mailboxes (etc) from
the business office.

Beside the voicemail system was the DMS' report printer, spewing forth
large amounts of seemingly useless information.  I pointed at a
particular listing and asked the man what it meant.  He looked at it,
then told me that it meant someone in (<blah-local town>) made a call
to a number which was not in service.  "What a waste of paper!" I
thought, thinking of all the calls I have made to numbers which were
not in service.  Some days I just sit and randomly dial numbers to see
where United allocates most of their customer numbers (I found that to
be in the 3000s and 4000s after much experimentation.  The 9000s are
used mostly for payphones and distinctive ringing, and the 8000s in
Marysville and Carlisle are used for voicemail.)

I read in the DIGEST that the DMS 100 was capable of supporting CLASS
features, so I asked the technician if United was going to offer it
anytime soon.  The technician told me that that was a sore spot among
the employees, and he recommended that I not talk about it while at
United.  It seems that a heated debate has been going on for some time
about CLASS, since it has been called an "invasion of privacy".  Bell
offers CLASS though, in most of its area exchanges.

After I was done at Carlisle, I visited the Marysville CO.  Since
Marysville is a much smaller town, the CO was too.  They have a DMS 10 (?).

[I couldn't hear the man over the high-pitched sound of the fiber optics
generator when he was telling me.]

Marysville has the same small voicemail system, with the same type of
modem.  [You can call it if you want, my number's listed below.  Maybe
you can identify what type of system it is...]  I thought it was
interesting to note that ALL calls from one exchange to another via
United are carried on fiber optics, even though the COs are located
less than 10-15 miles from each other.  I always thought that fiber
was used primarily for long distance, but now know that United uses it
for virtually all calls that are not made to a destination within the
same exchange.

I also thought that it was odd that calls from my Duncannon home to my
Marysville job and voicemail are routed to Newport and then across to
Carlisle Springs before returning to Marysville.  [Making a big loop
by going out around the mountains instead of following the highway to
Marysville] This explains the short delay I've noticed when calling
Marysville from my home.  Calls to Newport and New Bloomfield always
go through instantly.  [See a map for more of an explanation.]

After I got home, I wrote a thank you letter to the people who guided
me on my tour, and I then wrote another note to the man who
coordinated the whole thing, mentioning an interest in a summer job at
United before I'm off to college.

                    ***

PS Rochester people: The United telephone crews who were helping
Rochester Telephone repair their systems returned yesterday afternoon
while I was in Carlisle.  It has been three weeks since that storm,
almost four, hasn't it?  Rochester Telephone must have been hit hard!


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat Mar 30 15:10:12 EST 1991
Subject: United Telephone -- 25 Years Ago


I found a bit of nostalgia in the March 28, 1991 edition of {The Duncannon
Record}:
                   ***

Twenty-five years ago, March 31, 1966...

    The United Telephone Company's 1966 directory is off the
presses in time for April 1st delivery.  For the first time the Perry
County Directory will combine all telephone listings for the Blain,
Duncannon, Ickesburg, Liverpool, Loysville, Marysville, Millerstown,
New Bloomfield, and Newport exchanges into a single alphabetical list.

[I have excerpted this from a weekly article in {The Duncannon Record}
entitled "Them Was the Days".]

                   ***

    The directory mentioned in this article is a far cry from
today's United "Red Book", which includes listings for an additional
two United Telephone-served counties, plus the metro-Harrisburg
listings (provided by Bell of Pennsylvania).  Of course, the book also
includes the modern community pages, with maps/bus routes, etc.  And a
"Talking Fingers" (voice information) section. (It's like the
Donnelley "Talking Yellow Pages" if anyone is familiar with the
system.


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

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

From: "Jeff E. Nelson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AOS Payphone Experience
Date: 29 Mar 91 15:17:39 GMT
Reply-To: "Jeff E. Nelson" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


Last night I went to use a payphone next to a Dunkin Donuts shop in
Nashua, NH, USA. Rather than finding a phone operated by New England
Telephone (NET, a subsidiary of NYNEX), I found an AOS phone.

This phone was different. For one thing, it requires 25 cents to place
a phone call. NET phones only charge 10 cents. I decided to
experiment.

To get local directory assistance, one dials 1-555-1212. At NET
phones, this is a free call. At this phone, an electronic voice
(probably generated internally) said, "please deposit 25 cents for the
first three minutes."

I then tried 10288-1-555-1212, but as soon as I completed dialing the
first 8, the same voice said, "You have dialed an invalid number ...
you have dialed an invalid number."

I looked around for anything that would identify the owner/operator of
the phone. I found nothing, but did notice that the instructions for
this phone said that to get directory assistance, the appropriate
dialing sequence is "411." Upon dialing, I got the double "invalid
number" message. Now I was getting upset.

I dialed "0" to speak to an operator. The electronic voice came on
instead, and told me that to place a long distance call (credit card,
pay-as-you-go, or collect), just dial 1 plus the number. There were
more instructions which I forget, but the last was, "press 3 to speak
to an operator."

Aha! I dialed 3, and a NET operator came on. I asked if she could tell
me anything about the phone, and she said that her display didn't even
show the number of the phone I was calling from. After exchanging some
words about how much we both hated AOS phones, I hung up.

I then turned my attention to the phone next to the one I was using.
It was one of those blue phones with no coin recepticle; the kind you
use when placing a toll-free or credit card or collect call. This
phone had a sticker on it identifying it as being owned by "ITC
Communications" (I think; those initials may be slightly off).
Underneath the name was a toll-free 800 number.

I dialed the number, ready to complain about the lousy phone service
and lack of 10XXX dialing. A NET recording announced, "that number is
not valid from your calling area."

Some days you just can't win.


Jeff E. Nelson   Digital Equipment Corporation
Internet: [e-mail]
Affiliation given for identification purposes only

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 23:07:11 -0800
From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can Someone Please Help us in SO-Cal GTE-Land


Recently GTE converted our C.O. to a "much more advanced and improved
digital switch", according to a letter sent to all customers (I assume
it was 5ESS or similar).  However, since this "improvement", I have
noticed several degradations.

What I would really like is some advice on the best way to take these
complaints to GTE.  Especially since they are highly technical
compared to what most business office reps could understand.  Perhaps
someone reading this Digest knows of these problems and some reference
number I could quote to the right person.  Anyway, here they are:

1. Three-way calling - When I flash and dial the third party, I
   can't flash back right away.  I have to wait almost until the
   line starts ringing.  With the old switch, I could flash back
   immediately after dialing the last digit.  If I try that now,
   I have to do it all over again.

2. Three-way calling - THIS IS THE WORST PART OF THE WHOLE THING -
   During three-way calls, the line suddenly becomes one-way.  Two
   people can't talk at the same time anymore.  I can't even talk
   with the second party while the third party's phone is ringing.
   THIS PROBLEM EXISTS AT ALL TIMES, INCLUDING WHEN ALL PARTIES ARE
   LOCAL!

3. Flashing in general - It seems like flashing the switchook is
   much less dependable since the change.  I don't think it is just
   the timing either ... sometimes it seems to work, and sometimes it
   doesn't.

4. Infinite Dialtone - Sometimes I get a dialtone that won't go
   away.  Touchtoning won't stop it, and I have to hang up for
   at least five seconds to get one that will work.  This is pretty
   rare, though.

I appreciate any help anyone can give.  I dread trying to bring these
things to GTE's attention.  I can hear it now: "We can send a
repairman to your apartment sir, but if the problem turns out to be in
your phone instrument ..."  I'm tempted to move three blocks west so
that I can be in PacBell land, but who knows, the problem might be
there too.


Ron   ([e-mail])

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

i]From: Chris Petrilli <[e-mail]>
Subject: New AT&T Digital Answering Machine
Date: 30 Mar 91 01:52:23 GMT
Organization: Free Software Foundation


I was recently in an AT&T Phone Center and saw a new answering machine
that they have brought out.  It was a completely digital answering
machine, and shaped in a '50s art-deco style (more vertical than
horizontal), with a LED display on the front.  The person who worked
there knew nothing about it, and even a friend who works for Ma Bell
didn't know much about it.  It costs about $129, and would really
solve the sleep disturbances caused by my current answering machines
clunky sounds.


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

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

From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Bill Key Evidence in Murder Trial
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 29 Mar 91 22:31:17 GMT


An MCI bill is the key evidence in a murder trial now underway in
downstate New York.  A woman is on trial for killing her husband's
lover, and the question is where she was at a certain time.

For an alibi, she has produced an MCI bill showing a long distance
call made from another place to her mother at the critical time.  MCI
says that the bill is not theirs, for two reasons.

1) It omits a logo that was on all MCI bills at the time but which was
removed shortly after.  So, if the bill is a forgery, it was copied
from a later bill.

2) MCI's copy of the bill, and their master tapes, which were first
thought to have been destroyed, show no such call.  In contrast, at
that time they show a call from the defendant's home to a gun shop.

The judge disallowed as evidence a printout from the master tape since
the MCI person in court had not personally printed it out himself, but
had been mailed the printout.  Using that reasoning I'm surprised the
judge didn't rule out all evidence from a magtape in general, since
how can you prove provenance of a tape?  Presumably the DA will now
get the original person who printed the record to testify.

Anyway, this appears to be the first use of laserprinter fraud in a
murder case.  I wonder who actually did it, since they haven't said
that the defendant is a techie.  After they convict her, they should
convict her mother for perjury, and disbar the lawyer if they can show
he knew the bill was forged.


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: Thu, 28 Mar 91 08:51:44 -0800
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Into the Telecosm


This George Gilder article is interesting and useful; for example, as
it points to the upcoming NTIA report on their infrastructure study.
On the other hand, it is an all-too-typical example of this sort of
writing on technology topics, and of a very common perspective on
same. As such, its not-so underlying assumptions are those of a garden
variety technological determinism.

There is a myopia here that is also typical of the approach to such
topics regularly evidenced by the telecom industry and NTIA itself.
For example, we have here the positing of a "communications crisis,"
identification of *the* problem as "regulation," and a rhetoric
suggestive of telco press releases.

In context, the Gilder article really isn't anything to write home about.


Peter Marshall

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #254
******************************










Received: from dsinc.dsi.com by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03884;
          30 Mar 91 22:06 EST
Received: by dsinc.dsi.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.39)
    id <[e-mail]>; Sat, 30 Mar 91 21:30 EST
Date:     Sat, 30 Mar 91 20:31:21 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #255
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 Mar 91 19:42:43 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 255

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Phone Power Plant Nostalgia Story [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    More on History of Telephone Power Plants [Larry Lippman]
    Halogen Lamp Interfering With Cordless [Mike Johnston]
    Voice Mail Standard Keystrokes [John Boteler]
    Local Calling Cards vs. LD Company Cards [Sean Williams]
    Information Needed on WE 2500 DM Set [David Barts]
    What Happened with Sprint's Outage? [Thomas Lapp]
    Telephone Number > Address Service Needed in Houston [Raymond C. Jender]
    IBM PC PBX Card: Does it Exist? [Steve Kreisel]
    An HONEST PacBell Survey About CLID [[e-mail]]
    Selective Ring and Business Customers [Matthew McGehrin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 05:20 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Power Plant Nostalgia Story


In article <Digest v11,iss247>, Larry Lippman twanged a nostalgia
nerve with the remarks about end celss and liquid countercells.
Here's my tale of just one <only; ever> encounter with them.

In the picturesque town of Live Oak, Florida, AT&T had built a toll
testroom in Lord-Knows-When along what had been an open-wire line
route across north Florida leading to New Orleans.  Over the years,
AT&T had transferred the building to Southern Bell, and then taken it
back when TD-2 microwave exploded along that route.

Much of what had been in that building had been removed, and it was
crammed with TD-2 microwave bays ... the reason I was there.  However,
its old telegraph testboard was still there, and still connected in a
bunch of telegraph channels that interconnected to Southeastern
Telephone, the local Independent (totally unmanned, but it was there).
That old testboard still worked, including its Model TWELVE teletype,
which we knew enough to plug into the press wires just for some fun.
But, the power plant was a true museum piece, as I recall, called a
WECo 702C.  I remember the number because we couldn't find anybody who
knew where to get documents for it.

Now, Live Oak had one more antique that added to its story.  That was
a living antique of the Old South named Harvey.  Harvey was, to all
common knowldge, the retired "building service man" from Live Oak.
An aged Negro in the truest character of the Old Deep South, Harvey
took care of that building, in retirement just as he must have done
a good deal of his life.  The floors gleamed; the lawn was all trimmed
and tidy, wastebaskets emptied, toilet cleaned and the whole works.
The building had been unmanned for many years, and it had the standard
building alarm system that rang in Jacksonville any time someone opened
the door.  If you didn't know where and how to ring into Jacksonville
shortly after entering, a voice would stab out of the top of a rack,
and say, "Who's there in Live Oak?"  If there was no answer, it was
Standard Operating Procedure to call the local sheriff for a visit to
the building.

Except at Live Oak.  On one of my first visits finding Harvey there, I
asked the local supervisor at Lake city about Harvey and security, and
he told me that everybody back at Jacksonville just knew that an
unanswered Open Door alarm at Live Oak meant Harvey was is the
building.  They knew the Live Oak building was right in the center of
town, so nobody with malicious intent would get in there.  (Remember,
this was a different time and a different America!)

Anyhow, the event involving the 702C and Harvey was the day I got told
to go to Live Oak and clean the "counter-cell."  It was one full of
potassium hydroxide as Larry described, and after doping out a
suitable way to tie some jumpers around it so we wouldn't inadvertently
wind up with an open battery string if the old motor-driven switches
of the 702C called for it,  I proceeded to start trying to move it.

Miraculously, Harvey had shown up. (I kind of think he watched out for
us to arrive, for he often came in to bustle around while we were
there, exchanging pleasantries and asking us about names we didn't
know; people who must have worked there decades before.)

My move at the countercell got Harvey very interested, and he started
gathering all the needed tools to clean the tank and plates.  He
joined right in with me, knowing all the right moves to get the thing
outside, dump it down the sewer. (Remember, this was really pre-EPA!),
scrub the plates and tank and get it back inside for refilling. Now we
had a box of some powdered electrolyte to mix with water.  Harvey was
ready, taking up a position he seemed to know well with a bleached-out
broomstick like one sees people use on laundry in a machine.  I poured
water and powder, and Harvey dutifully stirred with his stick.  He was
really enjoying it.

When I had enough electrolyte mix in the tank, Harvey started stirring
at a ferocious rate, saying, "Throw in de blue pill, Boss!"  I didn't
have any blue pill.  After many repeats about this, I could deduce
that the old mix must have had some sort of depolarizer to dissolve in
the mix, and Harvey just knew it was necessary.  The incident must
have gone on for fifteen minutes with Harvey stirring so hard I was
afraid his old heart would give out.  When I finally insisted a number
of times that the contents of the "blue pill" must be in the powder
nowadays, Harvey finally stopped. But, I never did find the instructions
for a 702C Power Plant, much less those for its countercell.

When I went on to other assignments, Harvey was last seen still caring
for his private AT&T building. I suspect others who followed me there
just one day noticed that Harvey didn't show up any more.  I sure do
hope and pray Harvey had just gone off to his Maker a happy soul.

Thanks, Larry, for bringing up the memory!

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

Subject: More on History of Telephone Power Plants
Date: 29 Mar 91 01:14:14 EST (Fri)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

>     I wonder if they used electrolytic rectifiers back then to handle
> that kind of current?

    A liquid electrolytic rectifier was indeed used for small PBX
applications during the 1920's.  It used one electrode of tantalum and
one electrode of lead in an electrolyte solution of sulfuric acid.  A
floating layer of mineral oil prevented evaporation.  The maximum
current per device was limited to several amperes, though.  One
manufacturer of this device was Fansteel Products.

    Such electrolytic rectifiers were rapidly superceded by copper
oxide rectifiers, which were available in capacities up to 20 or so
amperes.  By the 1940's copper oxide rectifiers were largely
superceded by selenium rectifiers.  However, even selenium rectifiers,
which were used in new product designs until the advent of silicon
rectifier diodes during the 1950's, were limited to about 100 amperes
in capacity.

    From the *very* early days when telephone company central
offices produced their own electric power from steam boilers,
generators were used to create the DC necessary for charging
batteries.  By 1900 most telephone company central offices used
commercial AC power, but to run motor-generator combinations.  In
fact, one of the benefits from using batteries was the filtering of AC
noise created by the commutators of DC generators.

    AC motor-driven generators used to create DC for battery
charging were still in service in a few Bell System central offices as
of the early 1980's!  The last ones I saw were for +130 and -130 volts
used to power vacuum tube carrier and microwave apparatus.  Chances
are they were not replaced because the associated apparatus had very
little remaining service life, and 130 volt battery installations were
primarily associated with such old vacuum tube apparatus.  Newer
apparatus which required 130 volts generally relied upon solid-state
DC/DC converters powered by the -48 volt DC battery.

    Starting around World War I, mercury arc rectifiers came into
vogue, but only for smaller central offices.  Mercury arc rectifiers
were limited to about 50 amperes per device, although multiple devices
could be paralleled for larger loads.  Many mercury arc rectifiers for
smaller central offices were updated during the 1960's through the use
of solid-state devices which were plug-in replacements for the
rectifier tubes.  I feel certain that a few of these updated
rectifiers (like the WECo 110A) are still in service today in small
SxS CO's.

    For larger multi-thousand ampere battery plants, AC
motor-driven generators were still the only way to go until the 1950's
when large silicon rectifier diodes became available.  No other
rectifier method prior to this time could compete with motor-driven
generators for ampere capacity.


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: Mike Johnston <slcpi!admin8779.shearson.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Halogen Lamp Interfering With Cordless
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: 30 Mar 91 08:15:45


I just put one of those sleek looking, floor standing hologen lamps in
my living room. Imagine my chagrin when after turning the lamp on I
tried to use my cordless phone and discovered a loud hum.
Incidentally, this hum varies with the brightness of the lamp. I.E the
lower I dim the lamp, the louder the hum in my phone. Help! What's a
guy to do? Is there any way I can shield my lamp from this or am I
just stuck?


Michael R. Johnston    [e-mail] || [e-mail]
System Administrator        UUCP:     uunet!slcpi!mjohnsto
Lehman Brothers Inc.        Phone:    [phone]

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

Subject: Voice Mail Standard Keystrokes
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 18:16:15 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


Every system I configure which purports to have anything to do with
living, breathing humans has '0' reserved for the "Operater".

That's my contribution to a low noise environment. For the time being,
my super-tricked-out voice server I am working on here uses Cindi's
commands for the part that sounds like voice mail.

Does this win me a free round-trip ticket to Voice 91??


John Boteler   bote@csense                {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote
SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat Mar 30 14:12:43 EST 1991
Subject: Local Calling Cards vs. LD Company Cards


Jonathan White <acf5![e-mail]> writes:

>> if you used 950-xxxx access from your local calling area, you did
>> NOT pay the ripoff $0.75/0.80 charge.

> You might want to try ITT/Metromedia. They have no surcharge on
> calling card calls no matter where you call from.

Before checking out another Long Distance company's card, maybe you
should check with your own local telephone company.  Most local telcos
offer their own cards, and many are cheaper to use than a long
distance company's.

I recently called United Telephone of PA to order a card.  It was
explained to me that the charge for a call was $.30, as opposed to the
higher charge that MCI bills me for local calls.  I'm not sure if the
United Telephone card can be used for long distance calls, however.
I'll probably end up using both cards depending on what type of call
I'm making.  (I'll post a note after I get my new card.)

Bell of Pennsylvania also offers its own "IQ (sm) Card".  I'm not sure
of the details on that one, however.


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

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

Date: Sat, 30 Mar 91 00:55:25 pst
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed on WE 2500 DM Set


Recently, someone posted that a 500 D set was just like a 500 set,
except it was designed for use on a party line with divided ringing. I
own two Western Electric 2500 DM sets that were formerly used on a
LARGE centrex system (two NNX prefixes!).  What is the difference
between a 2500 DM and a "normal" 2500 set?

One of these sets is on the desk beside my computer as I type this.
It works just fine, and rings properly even though I don't have party
line service.  Both sets were manufactured in the late 70's and appear
to have been reconditioned at some time in the mid 80's.


David Barts  N5JRN    Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA
[e-mail]    ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb

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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 20:53:01 EST
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Happened With Sprint's Outage?


My question for those in the know: What was the cause of the fiber
break which caused the Sprint outage last week?  Details please.  If
it was along a RR right-of-way (and buried) how was it cut?  Not by a
train wreck I assume?  Right?


tom

internet     : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail] (home)
             : [e-mail] (work)
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Location     : Newark, DE, USA


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

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 15:56:00 EST
From: Raymond C Jender <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Number > Address Service Needed in Houston
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Here in Illinois there is a service that if you supply them with a
telephone number, they will respond with a name and address.  The only
catch is the phone number must be a listed number.  I need to do the
same thing, only for a suburb of Houston, TX.  Anyone know if a
similar service is available there?  In case you need to know, the
number is 713-486-xxxx.  Thanks.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: IBM PC PBX Card: Does it Exist?
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 23:50:43 PST


A friend of mine mentioned that he saw an ad for a IBM PC card that
mimics a PBX. It was only a one or two line version, but supposedly
support a couple of stations and calls could be transferred with
hook-flashes.

Has anyone heard of this? Any information would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Steve Kreisel  [e-mail]

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

Subject: An HONEST PacBell Survey About CLID
From: The unknown Florentine <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 12:07:13 PST
Organization: Sunshine in a box


A few days ago I received a call from a survey firm asking me if I
would be willing to fill out a survey if they sent it to me with a
check for $5 (sound somewhat familiar?)  They said PacBell had hired
them (a marketing firm) to do this survey.

I actually agreed to do this, figuring I would actually be getting a
check that authorized me to be slammed, and a hokey survey extolling a
LD carrier.

Well I was wrong.  They sent a survey mostly about CLID and a few
other potential services and a crisp clean $5 bill.

Now the survey asks a lot of questions about where I buy telecom
products and, in various fashions about what I would think about
buying a CLID phone from Pacbell, leasing it from PACBELL, or buying a
"Pacbell CERTIFIED or APPROVED phone" elsewhere.

{I thought that the Bells could no longer do that type of business.}

The phones were all in the $100 - 180 price range, the separate CLID
boxes were $40 - 60.

They also ask some questions that I thought were none of their damned
business, and told them so.

It was also interesting to note that the poll (and the "informative
brochure") did not mention CLID blocking or BLocked Call blocking.
Sounds like PACBELL has no intent to provide these.

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew McGehrin)
Subject: Selective Ring and Business Customers
Date: 30 Mar 91 01:16:15 GMT


Its interesting to see this new CLASS service called 'Selective Ring'.
I wonder if its available to business customers with those bulky boxes
we have now? We always had 'selective ring', but it was a centrex
feature. If the call was inter-office it would ring once, if it was an
outside line, it would ring twice, like ring-ring (quick ring).


Inet:   [e-mail]          UUCP:  crash!pro-nka!matthew
BNET:   [e-mail] ARPA:  crash!pro-nka![e-mail]
GENIE:  M.MCGEHRIN     --- 1+201/944-3102 : PCP via NJNEW 944-3102

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #255
******************************










Received: from dsinc.dsi.com by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07005;
          31 Mar 91 1:24 EST
Received: by dsinc.dsi.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.39)
    id <[e-mail]>; Sat, 30 Mar 91 23:46 EST
Apparently-To: <[e-mail]>
Received: from spool.mu.edu by spool.mu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
    id AA23986; Sat, 30 Mar 91 14:31:03 CST
Date:     Sat, 30 Mar 91 22:16:11 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #256
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 Mar 91 22:15:55 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 256

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Need ComKey 416 and Multiline Phone Information [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: "How Many Walkmans?" [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Request For In-Line Speed Dialer Information [Steve Pershing]
    Re: Higdon an Expert on 2600 Hz? [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Our Landlord Has a Charge-a-Phone [John Higdon]
    Re: More Even More on Selective Ringing [John Higdon]
    Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905 [Carl Moore]
    Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905 [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Front Door to Apartment Phone Service [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Ken Abrams]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 28 Mar 91 01:21 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need ComKey 416 and Multiline Phone Information


In TELECOM Digest V11 #239 Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail].
edu> writes:

> 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?).

Yes those movable blocks will select for lines 1/2 or 3/4. One of
these Molex-like connectors can be moved from one set of pins to
another, making the switch.

> 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.)

These things are possible. In basic operation, without the various
added features, the ComKey is really a 1A2 compatible beast. But don't
try to connect them directly as the A/A1 control does not match. 1A2
type phones can certainly be used as stations if you match the proper
wiring, and make sure the 1A2 unit has no conflicting option wiring in
the spare pairs of its 25 pair cord. The one basic incompatibility is
the lack of ringdown. Best to break out the wiring on a jiffy box or
other 66-type block and jumper only the leads in use.

I have two AT&T Touchamatics, and several 2565 type phones run off of
my 416 base unit, and everything works fine save for intercom
signaling, which is unfortunately incompatible to the best of my
fiddling.  Also, I have found the power supply on the thing amazingly
resilient as I have inadvertently shorted out the DC on it several
ways with no damage.


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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 05:12 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "How Many Walkmans?"


In article, (Digest v11,iss247), Martin McCormick <[e-mail].
okstate.edu> asks:

> I wonder if they used electrolitic <sic> rectifiers back then to handle
> that kind of current?

I can only surmise that the earliest ones had to use such methods,
Martin.  However, my point is to pop in here and say that one of Bell
Labs' major functions was continuous efforts at developing what were
first called "dry disk rectifiers."  They needed to have so much good,
reliable DC power that it was obvious they'd be looking for the best
materials and methods.  That lead to even (successfully) developing
solid-state higher-frequency diodes of such quality that the famous
balanced "ring modulators" were used with speech signals at
frequencies of the order of 100 kHz and up to perform the frequency
conversions in carrier channel banks.

That was the sort of work Brattain, Shockley and Bardeen were assigned
to at Bell Labs -- researching improved diode materials -- when they
made a "mistake," hooking up two diodes in an erronoeous fashion, and
inadvertently producing a current gain.  After they called in
colleagues to see check their "error," they discovered they had the
transistor!

How different a story than today's planned, controlled, deliver-the-
accountants-a-known-result "research!"  Which raises the question:
Could the discovery of the transistor have been the last piece of
research serendipity?

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

Subject: Re: Request For In-Line Speed Dialer Information
From: Steve Pershing <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 11:59:54 PST
Organization: Questor - Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC::[phone]


[e-mail] (Joe Konstan) writes:

> I remember reading about some of the Demon Dialers of yesteryear and I
> was wondering what is still available today.  Specifically, I'd like:

Zoom Telephonics in the Boston, Ma. area are still in business.  They
made probably the best "Demon Dialer".

I don't have the telephone number, but you should be able to find them
through area 617 information.


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

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hidgon an Expert on 2600 Hz?
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1991 04:50:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> mitel!Software!grayt@
uunet.uu.net (Tom Gray) writes:

> For those of you who want to know how the 2600hz system works, you can
> obtain the CCITT international standard on R1 signalling. This
> includes a complete description of how the system works. You may also
> obtain the AT&T publication "Notes on the Network" which has a more
> practical description of this system.

> All of this information is totally public. It is an industry standard.
> As a matter of fact, I know about it beacuse I designed an SF trunk.
> Probably USENET is distributed to some places over this trunk type of
> my design. I obtained all the inforamtion I needed from "Notes on the
> Network" which AT&T was quite pleased to sell to anybody with the
> required amount of money.

"Notes on the Network" was replaced with "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA
Networks - 19nn" where "nn" indicates the year released.  The latest
edition I have is 1986.  There could well be a more recent release.

The '86 edition does not give information on ordering "Notes" itself.
The following address was listed for "Technical Advisories":

  Bell Communications Research
  Information Exchange Management
  435 South Street, MRE 2J-155
  Morristown, NJ 07960-1961

The '86 edition is Technical Reference TR-NPL-000275.  The price is
not stated, and I don't remember what it was ... but expect well over
$100.

The book is indispensable if you live in the telecom industry.


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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 22:06 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Our Landlord Has a Charge-a-Phone


John Alsop <seachg![e-mail]> writes:

> 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.

There is a diner in Los Angeles (the name escapes me) that has a phone
at every table. They are "genuine Bell" phones and each is connected
to CO dial tone. These are, in effect, Charge-a-Calls. You can place
800, 10XXX, 950, 0+ (goes AT&T), but not local calls (except as 0+).

A group of us had dinner there a number of months ago and it was great
entertainment playing with the phone while waiting for our meals to
arrive!


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


[Moderator's Note: On I-55 from here to St. Louis all the food/gasoline
stops along the way have a similar arrangement. At each booth in the
restaurant, a wall-phone is hooked to a one-way outgoing line. All
calls from the phone must be zero-plussed or 10xxx zero-plussed with
billing on a collect, third number or telco credit card basis.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Mar 91 01:55 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: More Even More on Selective Ringing


David Lesher <[e-mail]> writes:

> While I have not dug too deeply into this aspect, one advantage of at
> least the two party Bell method was ANI. While the trick with the
> tapped ringer coil added some noise, it DID allow the CO to figure if
> Mr. Tip or Ms. Ring was calling Fargo without a "numberpleeze."

So how in the hell did that actually work? I remember that before
party lines were abolished in metro areas in the state, the sure-fire
way to tell that a friend had a party line when using his phone was by
the "tick-kunk" that came immediately after dialing and just before
the originating register dropped. Those of us with private lines had
no such noise. We all knew that sound had something to do with
identifying the tip or ring party, but to this day no one has ever
explained what was going on.

But going back a little further we find four-party lines. The instant
giveaway there was the dialing of any toll call. An operator would
come on the line and ask, "Your number please?" Also, participants on
a four-party line would find that the phone would ring when the call
wasn't for them. It was only to be answered if it was "ring-ring" or
"ring" -- depending on the phone number.

That little scheme worked like this: The key was the third digit from
the end. A 0-4 would be a single ring while 5-9 would indicate double
ring. An example was that one friend had the number 296-8122 (single
ring) and another 296-4894 (double ring). This pattern even carried
over after four-party and even two-party lines were history. Well into
the sixties, customers served out of the #1 crossbar offices had
double rings if the phone number was of the right type.


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


[Moderator's Note: IBT has long since grandfathered party line
service. If you had it thirty years ago and kept it, you can still
have it, but they quit offering it sometime around 1960. If you move,
or ask to change your number, that's it! Off the party line you go!   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Mar 91 9:31:12 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905


The code Woody had written about as a possibility for the splitoff
from 416 was 210, not 410.  (This was before 905 was announced.)  410
has already been announced as new area code for eastern Maryland.

903 came into use as an area code last year by splitting 214 in Texas.
And yes, when N0X/N1X area codes are used up, area codes will have to
generalize to NXX form.  As I explain in my area code history file,
this causes dialing changes so that timeouts can be avoided; if your
area has had to program for N0X/N1X PREFIXES, you already have allowed
for NNX area codes.

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905
Date: 30 Mar 91 22:36:17 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tony
Harminc) writes:

> 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 ten digit
> dialing everywhere in North America (or timeout nonsense).

The plan is to use seven digits for all intra-NPA calls, and 1 + ten
digits for all inter-NPA calls.  No timeouts, no ambiguity, and no
sure way to tell the difference between local and toll calls
intra-NPA.  Any NXX number can then be used as an area code, and as an
exchange prefix within any area code.  In the interest of user-
friendliness, Bellcore recommends not assigning the same NXX as an
area code and as a prefix within the area code.  (So we won't have a
201-201 central office in Northern NJ.)


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Front Door to Apartment Phone Service
Date: 30 Mar 91 17:12:24 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim
Gottlieb) writes:

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

[ regarding entry-door controls for apartment buildings controlled from
the central office... ]

> 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

> And then there was the cost:

>> [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]

If the landlord could get a mortgage on the building, he/she could
certainly find financing for the CPE, and spread the initial
investment over as many years as the bank would allow.  I must agree
with Jim, here, that this looks like an intra-premises problem, and is
best solved with a CPE solution.

I prefer to own my own room-to-room intercom, paging, and LAN devices,
and buy the external networking from the utility.


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

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws
Date: 30 Mar 91 19:38:56 GMT
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
ncsu.edu (Heath Roberts) 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.

    [If the owner so desires.]

> The ideal solution is to have everyone pay based on the number of
> hours they "consume" and the relative cost to the supplier (home
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
These are the right words, now if we can just put them into the proper
perspective ...

I supplied ALL the hardware to extend my cable service throughout my
house.  The cost to the cable company to provide my service is not one
cent higher if I watch a thousand hours a month than it is if I watch
one hour.  It is not one cent higher if five members on my family
watch five different sets than it is if nobody watches anything.

I expect to pay the cable company a fair price for the service that
they provide, including a reasonable rate of profit.  I do NOT expect
to pay extra for things that do not cost the supplier any extra.  This
is predatory pricing based on their monopoly position.

The price I pay for electricity is not related to the number of
outlets that I have, the price I pay for water is not related to the
number of faucets and the sewer fees I pay is not related to the
number of drains and toilets that I have connected.  Cable rates
should not be based on the number of outlets either unless the
building owner has ASKED the cable company to install and maintain the
wiring.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #256
******************************










Received: from dsinc.dsi.com by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09982;
          31 Mar 91 3:23 EST
Received: by dsinc.dsi.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.39)
    id <[e-mail]>; Sun, 31 Mar 91 02:48 EST
Apparently-To: <[e-mail]>
Received: from spool.mu.edu by spool.mu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
    id AA27112; Sat, 30 Mar 91 16:19:58 CST
Date:     Sun, 31 Mar 91 0:38:40 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #257
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 31 Mar 91 00:31:28 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 257

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Eight and Ten Party Ringing in the Bell System [Larry Lippman]
    Lorain Products Co. and More on Telephone Power Plants [Larry Lippman]
    The Culture of Technology [Technology Review, via Peter Marshall]
    Re: Bell of PA's Guardian Service [John R Hall]
    Re: Caller ID RS-232 Interface Needed [Dave Levenson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Eight and Ten Party Ringing in the Bell System
Date: 30 Mar 91 00:30:13 EST (Sat)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Donald E. Kimberlin) writes:

> Needless, to say, you could often
> hear your ringer click or buzz when another party's frequency sailed
> down the line, anyway!

    I was told by a WECo engineer some years ago that the above
was the reason why the [late, great] Bell System felt that
frequency-selective ringing was "inelegant".  Since the WECo method of
polarity-controlled superimposed ringing to ground provided four
selective ringing codes, and the frequency-selective methods provided
only one more code, Bell felt that their method - which required no
tuned ringers and had little propensity for bell tapping when used
with the 425A and 426A cold cathode electron tubes - was the optimum
choice.

>         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.

    You must bear in mind that the WECo eight party method is a
semi-selective method involving four "electrical" codes and two
ringing "cadence" codes, for a total of eight codes.  The ringing
supply was solely 20 Hz.  There was really no "secret" nor any reason
for anyone to have been "evasive".

>         So, my question to this forum, where someone certainly knows,
> is *how* did Bell accomplish eight 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?

    It's not at all a bit of lore.  While it is indeed true that
the Bell System maintained a wide diversity of non-WECo CO apparatus
in telephone companies which they had acquired, this has little
bearing upon the present discussion.

>         So far, I never met anyone who could tell me just *how* Bell
> did eight-party with WECo-built apparatus. (No weasel stories now,
> about apparatus WECo bought, resold and installed in some places.  I
> know they'd do that if they had to!)

    You have now met (electronically, at least) such a person. :-)

    My WECo experience in multi-party lines was limited to SxS, so
that's what I will tell you about.

    There were *many* WECo SxS connectors that supported
multi-party ringing.  An example is the connector per SD-30862-01.  I
quote from the CD-30862-01 circuit description: "This circuit is used
for extending a call from a toll or local selector to a subscriber
line of either an eight party semi-selective ringing rural line group
or a ten party three code ringing line group".  This connector was
used in No.  1, No. 350A and No. 355A SxS CO's.

    As previously discussed, WECo provided four party full selective
ringing using either positive or negative battery superimposed upon
ringing from tip-to-ground or ring-to-ground, summarized as:

PARTY 1        negative superimposed battery    ring lead to ground
PARTY 2        negative superimposed battery    tip lead to ground
PARTY 3        positive superimposed battery    ring lead to ground
PARTY 4        positive superimposed battery    tip lead to ground

    The party code number is an *absolute* number which
corresponds to the precise condition above.  The party code number was
used in plant records and apparatus drawings.  There is actually some
rhyme and reason to the numbering, which I'm certain astute readers
will notice.

    Eight parties could be achieved by using coded ringing; i.e.,
the parties one to four used the above scheme with a "one-long"
ringing cadence, and parties five to eight used the above scheme with
a "two-short" cadence.  This meant that a given telephone set rang for
two of eight possible parties.

    By adding a third ringing cadence, ten parties could be
signaled (note reference to ten party ringing in above quoted CD
section).

    The differences between multi-party connectors and regular
connectors were comparatively minor, and included: (1) provision for a
ringing synchronization lead "PKU" which assured that ringing was
started at a precise time so that a false, partial cadence would not
be sent; and (2) greater flexibility in ringing control and ring-trip
relay wiring options to accommodate the variations in polarity.

    Multi-party ringing in a WECo SxS CO was set up so that two
connector shelves of 100 numbers each were required, resulting in a
commitment of 200 directory numbers.  One shelf had the connectors
wired for tip-party ringing, and the other shelf had the connectors
wired for ring-party ringing.  The SxS connector wiper had four
contacts: the standard tip, ring, sleeve, plus a fourth "A-lead" for
ringing selection.  On the connector bank multiple wiring block, the
A-terminal corresponding to each directory number was strapped to one
of five terminals: (1) resistance ground interrupted with a "one-long"
cadence to provide negative superimposed battery; (2) resistance
ground interrupted with a "two-short" cadence to provide negative
superimposed battery; (3) resistance ground interrupted with a
"three-short" cadence to provide negative superimposed battery; (4)
solid ground interrupted with a "one-long" cadence to provide positive
superimposed battery; and (5) solid ground interrupted with a
"two-short" cadence to provide positive superimposed battery.

    While the above scheme was the most common for implementation
of 8-party and 10-party lines in a WECo SxS office, it was not the
only method.  The WECo 35-E-97 (actually modified Automatic Electric
Company apparatus) SxS CO used a connector per SD-30909-01 which
accepted and decoded an *additional* digit to select one of ten
possible ringing codes.  These ten codes corresponded to the same ten
possibilities outlined above.

    So, now you know how the [late, great] Bell System did eight
and ten-party semi-selective ringing.


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: Lorain Products Co. & More on Telephone Power Plants
Date: 31 Mar 91 00:37:11 EST (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Donald E. Kimberlin) writes:

> > 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.

> Lorain Electric is, of course, still in business, providing many a
> Sub-Cycle to this very day.

    Lorain Products has unquestionably been the largest outside
supplier of power plants to WECo and the Bell System.

    It is interesting to note that while WECo designed and
manufactured many power plants, in many instances they simply chose to
use a Lorain product - which says a great deal about the engineering
and manufacturing quality of Lorain Products.

    One thing I could never figure out was what motivated WECo to
design and manufacture a power plant internally as opposed to
obtaining one from Lorain Products under a KS-spec.  No one I knew at
WECo had the answer either, and the best we could figure was that with
every new power plant requirement, someone in upper management at WECo
would flip a coin having two sides: WECo on one, and Lorain on the
other! :-)

> 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.

    One can also *hear* the plates in the cells creak, along with
hearing an immediate evolution of hydrogen gas bubbles which are thus
displaced when the plates are stressed.

> 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!

    While I did not see it happen, I once saw the aftermath of a
500 MCM 130-volt power feeder cable which shorted to a cable rack when
its aged rubber insulation disintegrated during cable "mining" work.
The resultant arc burned through a 1/4" by 1-1/2" piece of steel like
a knife through butter.  The craftsperson doing the work suffered only
minor injuries - not from the arc or spewed molten metal, but from
falling off a ladder in surprise! :-)

    A truly scary experience is to move a piece of old RH or RHW
rubber-insulated power feeder cable, watch both the outer insulation
and the rubber flake into dust, and see exposed conductor within a
fraction of an inch of grounded metal!  I could never understand why
WECo continued to use potentially unstable rubber-insulated power
cable for almost forty years after far superior plastic insulation was
available following World War II.

    A cardinal rule in working around batteries is to always use
tools that are wrapped with insulating tape - in order to prevent
accidental short circuits.  I must confess that I did not always
follow this rule, and that I have suffered the consequences - which
fortunately were minor.


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: Fri, 29 Mar 91 13:30:55 -0800
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Culture of Technology


 From Langdon Winner, "A Postmodern World's Fair," TECHNOLOGY REVIEW,
Feb./Mar., 1991

An interesting counterpoint to the George Gilder article posted here
recently, this column is by a member of the Dept. of Science and
Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Insititute:

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

As I begin making plans to attend the World's Fair in Seville, Spain,
in 1992, I'm also girding for the ideological onslaught these events
always bring ... the underlying message is always the same:
celebration of limitless progress through technological change. The
Spanish fair seems ready to echo this weary theme with uncritical
devotion ... but shouldn't the experience of the past two centuries
lead us to reexamine the contexts and consequences of "progress"?
I've tried to imagine what an alternative World's Fair might offer.
How about "Humanity in a Postmodern World" as a colorful, overarching
theme?  Here are a few of the fair's possible attractions: The
Pavilion for the Social Construction of Science ... the social
dynamics of science in intricate detail ... places where knowledge
products, sometimes mistakenly called discoveries, are crafted as
within a complex, mulit-centered social process.

The pavilion would ask spectators to ponder the question, Science in
whose interest? ... Palace to the Ironies of Progress. As they enter
the great hall, spectators would compare predictions of past World's
Fairs to today's realities. The palace would also contrast the
conventional signs of technological and ecomeconomic advance ... with
the uncounted costs of these developments ... Theater of Futures
Foreclosed. A series of entertainments would show how decisions we
make today close off paths that future generations might take.

In short, a Postmodern World's Fair would playfully debunk old myths
while encouraging people to try some new ideas on for size. It is
unlikely, of course, that such an event could be financed. By removing
the need for people to think critically or to demand a share in making
decisions, old-fashioned rituals of progress serve the reigning power
structure. Thus World's Fairs will go on projecting glossy utopias
said to be just around the corner and assuring us that the future is
in good hands.

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

Date: Sat, 30 Mar 91 11:35:28 EST
From: John R Hall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell of PA's Guardian Service
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Well, I agree in general that "inside wire maintenance" plans are not
worth much especially for someone who is minimally handy with tools.
However, I lived in a high rise for several years, and I did choose
the inside wire maintenance plan, and I'm glad I did.  When I got my
initial service, I asked from what point in the loop I would be
responsible for repairs.  The best I can tell, the answer was a
telephone panel located in a stairwell a couple of floors down (I was
on 17), but I was never quite sure of this.  The wire went internally
through the walls and floors from that point where it popped up in the
kitchen jack.  Inside were many pairs of wires.  We also had an entry
door system which operated off a special code on a lobby telephone
that rang on our regular phone line.  I was not convinced that if
something went wrong I would be able to fix it, so I opted for
Illinois Bell's inside wire maintenance plan.

Well, two years later my phone went dead - no dial tone.  I called
repair, and the repair person had to check in a couple of places in
the building where I didn't have access, and he was in my apartment
for about six hours.  He got it working, and his diagnosis was one
corroded jack (probably due to moisture from an adjoining cooling
duct) and a "wiring error" (curious, though because it worked OK
before).  It was very confusing because I couldn't follow the wiring
easily from jack to jack, and the cable in the boxes was a rat's nest.
So I was glad I paid the wire maintenance surcharge.

In my current place, the wiring runs clearly along a conduit straight
down to the basement, and I would have no problem in diagnosing a
problem with it (my tip and ring ARE reversed, but I don't have access
do the basement - guess they want to protect that old coal bin which
is still full of coal even though the antique boiler was converted to
gas who-knows-how-long ago).


John

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID RS-232 Interface Needed
Date: 30 Mar 91 17:48:49 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(George Sipe) writes:

> (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).

Try ClassMate from MHE Systems.  It is available from Bell Atlantic
Business Supplies (they have an 800 number).  For about $50 they give
you a box the size of a cigarrette pack.  It has a modular jack on one
end, and a DB-25 on the other.  You connect the modular jack to your
phone line, and the other end to an RS-232 DTE device.  The box is
powered from the Carrier-Detect and Transmit Data leads of your RS-232
device, and it presents the Caller-ID information to you over its
Received Data lead.  (It looks like a simplex modem, receive-only.)
Data output is fixed at 1200 bps, seven data bits, with the parity bit
forced to zero.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #257
******************************






ISSUE 258 WAS DELAYED IN TRANSMISSION AND ARRIVED FOLLOWING 259 BELOW.





Received: from dsinc.dsi.com by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24149;
          31 Mar 91 18:17 EST
Received: by dsinc.dsi.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.39)
    id <[e-mail]>; Sun, 31 Mar 91 17:43 EST
Apparently-To: <[e-mail]>
Received: from spool.mu.edu by spool.mu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
    id AA27268; Sun, 31 Mar 91 03:55:11 CST
Date:     Sun, 31 Mar 91 16:02:43 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #259
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 31 Mar 91 16:02:22 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 259

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    A Response to Len Rose Story in the Washington Post [Jim Thomas, CuD]
    Internet <-> Envoy 100 Gateway - Instructions [Phil Trubey via Nigel Allen]
    Conference on Inter-Hospital / Physician Computer Consultation [D Parsons]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 00:38 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: A Response to Len Rose Story in the Wasington Post


Although Len Rose accepted a Federal plea bargain which resolved
Federal charges against him in Illinois and Maryland, and state
charges in Illinois, he will not be sentenced until May.  Therefore,
many of the details of the plea or of his situation cannot yet be made
public.  Len pleaded guilty to two counts of violating Title 18 s.
1343:

      18 USC 1343:

      Sec. 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television

      Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or
      artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by
      means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or
      promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of
      wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or
      foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures,
      or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or
      artifice, shall be fined not more than $1000 or imprisoned
      not more than five years, or both.

In our view, Len's case was, is, and continues to be, a political
case, one in which prosecutors have done their best to create an
irresponsible, inaccurate, and self-serving imagery to justify their
actions in last year's abuses in their various investigations.

Len's guilty plea was the result of pressures of family, future, and
the burden of trying to get from under what seemed to be the
unbearable pressure of prosecutors' use of law to back him into
corners in which his options seemed limited. The emotional strain and
disruption of family life became too much to bear.  Len's plea was his
attempt to make the best of a situation that seemed to have no
satisfactory end. He saw it as a way to obtain the return of much of
his equipment and to close this phase of his life and move on. Many of
us feel that Len's prosecution and the attempt to make him out to be a
dangerous hacker who posed a threat to the country's computer security
was (and remains) reprehensible.

The government wanted Len's case to be about something it wasn't.  To
the end, they kept fomenting the notion that the case involved
computer security -- despite the fact that the indictment, the statute
under which he was charged, or the evidence DID NOT RELATE TO
security. The case was about possession of proprietary software, pure
and simple.

The 23 March article in the {Washington Post} typifies how creative
manipulation of meanings by law enforcement agents becomes translated
into media accounts that perpetuate the the type of witch hunting for
which some prosecutors have become known.  The front page story
published on March 23 is so outrageously distorted that it cannot pass
without comment.  It illustrates how prosecutors' images are
translated into media narratives that portray an image of hackers in
general and Len in particular as a public threat. The story is so
ludicrously inaccurate that it cannot pass without comment.

Mark Potts, the author of the story, seems to convict Len of charges
of which even the prosecutors did not accuse him in the new
indictment. According to the opening paragraph of the story, Len
pleaded guilty to conspiring to steal computer account passwords. This
is false. Len's case was about possessing and possessing transporting
unlicensed software, *NOT* hacking!  Yet, Potts claims that Rose
inserted a Trojan horse in AT&S software that would allow other
"hackers" to break into systems.  Potts defers to prosecutors for the
source of his information, but it is curious that he did not bother
either to read the indictments or to verify the nature of the plea.
For a major story on the front page, this seems a callous disregard of
journalistic responsibility.

In the original indictment, Len was accused of possessing login.c, a
program that allows capturing passwords of persons who log onto a
computer. The program is described as exceptionally primitive by
computer experts, and it requires the user to possess root access, and
if one has root privileges, there is little point in hacking into the
system to begin with.  Login.c, according to some computer
programmers, can be used by systems administrators as a security
device to help identify passwords used in attempts to hack into a
system, and at least one programmer indicated he used it to test
security on various systems. But, there was no claim Len used this
improperly, it was not an issue in the plea, and we wonder where Mark
Potts obtained his prosecutorial power that allows him to find Len
guilty of an offense for which he was not charged nor was at issue.

Mark Potts also links Len directly to the Legion of Doom and a variety
of hacking activity. Although a disclaimer appeared in a subsequent
issue of WP (a few lines on page A3), the damage was done.  As have
prosecutors, Potts emphasizes the LoD connection without facts, and
the story borders on fiction.

Potts also claims that Len was "swept up" in Operation Sun Devil,
which he describes as resulting "in the arrest and prosecution of
several hackers and led to the confiscation of dozens of computers,
thousands of computer disks and related items." This is simply false.
At least one prosecutor involved with Sun Devil has maintained that
pre-Sun Devil busts were not related. Whether that claim is accurate
or not, Len was not a part of Sun Devil.  Agents raided his house when
investigating the infamous E911 files connected to the Phrack/Craig
Neidorf case last January (1990). Although Len had no connection with
those files, the possession of unlicensed AT&T source code did not
please investigators, so they pursued this new line of attack.
Further, whatever happens in the future, to our knowledge *no*
indictments have occured as the result of Sun Devil, and in at least
one raid (Ripco BBS), files and equipment were seized as the result of
an informant's involvement that we have questioned in a previous issue
of CuD ( #3.02). Yet, Potts credits Sun Devil as a major success.

Potts also equates Rose's activities with those of Robert Morris, and
in so-doing, grossly distorts the nature of the accusations against
Len.  Equating the actions to which Len pleaded guilty to Morris
grossly distorts both the nature and magnitude of the offense.  By
first claiming that Len modified a program, and then linking it to
Morris's infectious worm, it appears that Len was a threat to computer
security.  This kind of hyperbole, based on inaccurate and
irresponsible reporting, inflames the public, contributes to the
continued inability to distinguish between serious computer crime and
far less serious acts, and would appear to erroneously justify AT&T's
position as the protector of the nets when, in fact, their actions are
far more abusive to the public trust.

After focusing for the entire article on computer security, Potts
seems to appear "responsible" by citing the views of computer experts
on computer security and law. But, because these seem irrelevant to
the reality of Len's case, it is a classic example of the pointed non
sequitor.

Finally, despite continuous press releases, media announcements, and
other notices by EFF, Potts concludes by claiming that EFF was
established as "a defense fund for computer hackers." Where has Potts
been? EFF, as even a rookie reporter covering computer issues should
know, was established to address the challenges to existing law by
rapidly changing computer technology.  Although EFF provided some
indirect support to Len's attorneys in the form of legal research, the
EFF DID NOT FUND ANY OF LEN'S defense. Len's defense was funded
privately by a concerned citizen intensely interested in the issues
involved. The EFF does not support computer intrusion, and has made
this clear from its inception.  And a final point, trivial in context,
Potts credits Mitch Kapor as the sole author of Lotus 1-2-3, failing
to mention that Jon Sachs was the co-author.

The {Washington Post} issued a retraction of the LoD connection a few
days later. But, it failed to retract the false claims of Len's plea.
In our view, even the partial LoD retraction destroys the basis, and
the credibility, of the story. In our judgement, the Post should
publicly apologize and retract the story. It should also send Potts
back to school for remedial courses in journalism and ethics.

Some observers feel that Len should have continued to fight the
charges. To other observers, Len's plea is "proof" of his guilt.  We
caution both sides: Len did what he felt he had to do for his family
and himself. In our view, the plea reflects a sad ending to a sad
situation. Neither Len nor the prosecution "won." Len's potential
punishment of a year and a day (which should conclude with ten months
of actual time served) in prison and a subsequent two or three year
period of supervised release (to be determined by the judge) do not
reflect the the toll the case took on him in the past year. He lost
everything he had previously worked for, and he is now, thanks to
publications like the {Washington Post}, labelled as a dangerous
computer security threat, which may hamper is ability to reconstruct
his life on release from prison.  We respect Len's decision to accept
a plea bargain and urge all those who might disagree with that
decision to ask themselves what they would do that would best serve
the interests both of justice and of a wife and two small children.
Sadly, the prosecutors and AT&T should have also asked this question
from the beginning. Sometimes, it seems, the wrong people are on
trial.


[Moderator's Note: Jim Thomas, the author of this article, is the
Moderator of Computer Underground Digest, a publication which began
about a year ago as an offshoot from TELECOM Digest. For subscription
information, write: [e-mail].  And my thanks to Jim for an
excellent presentation here today.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 03:00 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Internet <-> Envoy 100 Gateway - Instructions
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue


Phil Trubey ([e-mail]) of SHL Systemhouse Inc. in Ottawa was kind
enough to post the following instructions about exchanging e-mail
between the Internet and Telecom Canada's Envoy 100 service. (Telecom
Canada is an association of Canada's major telephone companies, the
largest of which is Bell Canada.)

 * forwarding a message originally from [e-mail] (Phil Trubey)

Due to the fairly large number of requests for this info, I've decided
to post the following info.  I've used it a couple of times and it
seems to work.

To reach someone with an Envoy account, send your message with the
following address in the "To:" field:

     /ID=envoy_id/S=last_name/G=first_name/I=F/SITE=TELECOM.CANADA/
     @GEMINI.ARC.NASA.GOV


For example, if you want to send a message to Peter Jones, whose
Envoy ID is "p.jones", send to the following address:

     /ID=P.JONES/S=JONES/G=PETER/I=F/SITE=TELECOM.CANADA/
     @GEMINI.ARC.NASA.GOV


NOTE!

1)   The address line must be all capital letters.

2)   This is actually one long line.  It is broken into two lines
     in these examples so it will fit within 80 characters.

3)   The person receiving the message pays for BOTH the cost of
     sending the message and receiving the message.

As you can see, Envoy addresses tend to be very long.  You may want to
use some of the advanced features of your mail program to save the
addresses of people you frequently send to.  For example, the Popmail
mailer provided with NSTN has a "Group" menu that lets you save the
addresses of one or more people, and mail to them by picking a
selection off a menu.

How can people mail to me from Envoy?

To mail to you, they must do two things:

1)    Send their Envoy message to the following address:

          [INTERNETMAIL@NASA]NASAMAIL/TELEMAIL/US

2)   The first line of text in their message must be:

          To: your_user_id@your_address

     For example, if your user ID is "jsmith" and you address is
     "fox.nstn.ns.ca", the first line of the message would be:

          To: [e-mail]


Phil Trubey                 |  Internet: [e-mail]
SHL Systemhouse Inc.        |  UUCP:     ...!uunet!shl!phil
50 O'Connor St., Suite 501  |  Phone:    [phone] x667
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada     |  Fax:      [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 91 15:14:39 EST
From: "Donald F. Parsons MD" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Conference on Inter-hospital and Physician Computer Consultation


Preliminary Announcement from The New York Academy of Sciences:

A CONFERENCE ON EXTENDED CLINICAL CONSULTING BY HOSPITAL COMPUTER NETWORKS
Spring, 1992.     Cambridge, MA    Moderator: Donald F. Parsons MD

     In recent years there has been a serious and continuing decline
in the number of operating rural health facilities and in the
availability of acute care in rural hospitals.  This situation has
contributed significantly to rural economic decline and the rising
cost of health care in USA.  Increasingly, patients have the extra
expense of travelling to distant large medical centers for treatment.

     A partial reparation of the situation can be achieved by computer
networking between consultants at large medical centers and rural
hospitals and physicians.  Xrays or other medical images necessary for
the consultation can be transmitted over ordinary phone lines in a few
minutes, using new data compression algorithms and error-correcting
modems.  A diagnosis, or patient-stabilization information can be
phoned, faxed or e-mailed back to the rural center in a short time.
Chronic treatments that require repeated consultant control (such as
chemotherapy) can be handled in the same way.  The patient is able to
stay at the home site for such treatment.  Phone/fax consultant-access
systems using dedicated switchboards, are already working well in
several states (e.g., Alabama, Tennessee and Georgia).  These states
are attempting enhancement by addition of digital text and image
transmission capability.

     The identification of preferred technical approaches to such
computerized networking is a main objective of this Conference.  We
will review medical computer networks already operating, both in USA
and elsewhere, and discuss new possibilities.  This Conference is the
first comprehensive discussion of this question.  It is badly needed
since communication between experimenting groups has been at a
minimum, and the need for such systems has received little attention
by granting agencies and legislators.  Only recently, has a BITNET
discussion group (HSPNET-L@albnydh2) on this subject become available.

     Apart from the technology and design of such hospital computer
networks (including the place of local bulletin boards, landlines,
satellite and packet-radio links), we will address many related
issues: medical staff attitudes and training in use of computers,
types of patient data packages, confidentiality of data, legal issues,
etc.  We will also address a variety of applications: high-definition
TV, teleradiology, telepathology, fetal monitoring, accreditation/
education programs, access to literature searches in rural areas,
improvement of disease notification, exchange of state and federal
medical advisories, and disaster and trauma management.

     Hopefully, this Conference will serve to focus and catalyze the
use of modern medical informatics principles for the improvement of
the quality of health-care delivery.

For further information contact:

     The New York Academy of Sciences, 2 East 63rd Street, New
York, NY 10021. [phone].  Fax: [phone], or:

     The INTER-HOSPITAL & PHYSICIAN CONSULTATION NETWORKS
DISCUSSION GROUP ([e-mail]).
Owner and Moderator: Donald F. Parsons MD, PhD, DSc.

Wadsworth Center, Room C200, New York State Department of Health,
Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12201-0509. Tel: [phone];
Fax: [phone]. E-mail to moderator: BITNET dfp10@albnydh2;
Internet [e-mail]; UseNet [e-mail];
Compuserve 71777,212

Address for Discussion Contributions, Subscription and Listserv
Fileserver: [e-mail] or mail to moderator.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #259
******************************










Received: from dsinc.dsi.com by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03680;
          1 Apr 91 3:07 EST
Received: by dsinc.dsi.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.39)
    id <[e-mail]>; Sun, 31 Mar 91 16:38 EST
Apparently-To: <[e-mail]>
Received: from spool.mu.edu by spool.mu.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
    id AA25181; Sun, 31 Mar 91 03:17:21 CST
Date:     Sun, 31 Mar 91 15:08:33 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #258
Message-Id:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 31 Mar 91 15:07:45 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 258

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Roger Fajman]
    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Request For In-Line Speed Dialer Information [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: New AT&T Digital Answering Machine [David Farber]
    Re: New AT&T Digital Answering Machine [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security [Jonathan White]
    Re: Calling Card With no Surcharge (was: MCI Around Town) [Jonathan White]
    Re: Can Someone Please Help us in SO-Cal GTE-Land [John Higdon]
    Re: Information Needed on WE 2500 DM Set [Dave Levenson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 91  21:15:20 EST
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws


> While pricing for all three tiers is NOW the same as the basic package
> was before, IF they break out the pricing and you then need to
> subscribe to each tier separately, you can bet that that will lead to
> the scambling of the channels in tiers two and three.  Once that is
> done, you are then forced to use a cable company converter box for
> each separate TV to descramble tiers two and three.

That sounds logical, but does not appear to be what is happening.  For
the month of March, subscribers to the first two tiers have to use a
converter box, but not subscribers to the highest tier.  As of April
1, they are renumbering the channels and converter boxes will not be
required for those not subscribing to the premium channels (HBO,
etc.).  The strange thing is that there is no obvious relationship
between the new channel numbers and the tiers.  Changing tiers
requires a visit from the cable company, which suggests that they are
doing something in their boxes on the poles.

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws
Date: 31 Mar 91 02:25:02 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Rich Zellich) writes:

> If I had a cable company that insisted on making me pay for each TV
> connected, I'd just let them put in their one jack and converter box,
> and then just cheat and after-wire everything the same way, anyway.

Around here EVERYTHING is scrambled. Cheat all you want, but they have
BIG $ class clout and have it all set up that you WILL be prosecuted
for theft of service (just like any old phone phreak) if caught.

What we all really need to do is find which politicians now have
Florida condos financed by out of state banks under terms the
politician could hardly refuse, and that were not available to him
before cable came to town.

If enough citizens fought hard enough, they would not be able to get
their license renewed without more reasonable terms.

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws
Date: 31 Mar 91 15:26:56 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Daniel
Guilderson) writes:

> 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 agree.  This is why I like the concept of pay-per-view cable.  The
local cable company here is offering one or two pay-per-view channels.
These are usually filled with boxing, and other sports events I don't
care to watch.  I much prefer to have them offered on that basis,
where I don't pay for them unless I want to watch them.  Different
events carry different prices, but the idea is exactly what Danial
seems to want.


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

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Date: 31 Mar 91 02:10:50 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> I do have some qualms about the court decision, however.  The phone
> company does spend money to create the entries in the white pages, and
> it seems to me that rival directory companies are getting a free ride

This really misses the basic idea that the phone company ought NOT own
YOUR number. Now with alternate phone companies being able to provide
you dialtone this is more significant.

They are paid well to manage the dwindling phone number resourse. I am
in no way suggesting they should be paid any less than they are now
for providing local white pages. I get really POd when I have to
battle to get ALL the Metro Boston books I am entitled to, and when
411 is so badly configured that you MUST tell them what phone book
(Central, North, South, West) to look in or they won't even look for
you. 411 was bearable because it was free, but now they 'traded'
charging for 411 for providing 911.

AOS companies currently deserve every foul name they are called.  But
I bet an alternate 411 service here in MA that found what you were
looking for without your knowing which book to use would be a big hit,
and I bet they could charge less and make money.

But even without an alternate 411, consider the trees saved, and $s
saved by optionally providing white pages on CDROM. Each disc labeled
and boxed is well under $2 to make. The 'free' Boston four white books
pile can't be that cheap. I would instantly opt for a disc rather than
paper, and would even consider $10 'ok' until their volume got high
enough that their mastering costs became irrelevant.

What does NYNEX want for that CD? Try $10,000 per year, or MORE if
networked beyond 1 PC!

Phone numbers are a crude temporary necessity they have imposed on us.
Wouldn't it be nice to simply speak into the phone and say 'my friend
Tony Jones's third office line please', and from the random pay phone be
voice recognised as you and thereby indicating which Tony Jones is
being refered to.

In the meantime, the post office shouldn't 'own' my street address,
and the phone company shouldn't 'own' my electronic (phone) one.


[Moderator's Note: The post office does not own your street address.
The only organization which possibly 'owns' your street address is
your municipal government, which if they operate like ours, has at one
time or another passed an ordinance naming the streets and
detirmining the measurements used to provide each parcel of land with
one or more uniquely identifying numbers.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 00:27:07 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Request For In-Line Speed Dialer Information
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


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

>[e-mail] (Joe Konstan) writes:

>> I remember reading about some of the Demon Dialers of yesteryear and I
>> was wondering what is still available today.  Specifically, I'd like:

> Zoom Telephonics in the Boston, Ma. area are still in business.  They
> made probably the best "Demon Dialer".

  My Graybar Telecommunications catalog list them as catalog numbers
#176T (176 number capacity) and #93T (93 numbers) on page 1-51.
Includes a number of other capabilities I won't copy here. (Email if
necessary). It's 1A2, key-system, touch-tone compatible. I think the
prices were about $80 and $110 when I last checked.

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

From: David Farber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New AT&T Digital Answering Machine
Date: 31 Mar 91 01:47:12 GMT
Reply-To: David Farber <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


Unless I got a dud, the new AT&T Digital Answering set is an
unreliable machine which fails to answer at unpredictable times.  Its
quality is fair. I would recommend some other, quieter unit.

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New AT&T Digital Answering Machine
Date: 31 Mar 91 15:37:30 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron
Schnell) writes:

> I was recently in an AT&T Phone Center and saw a new answering machine
> that they have brought out.  It was a completely digital answering
> machine, and shaped in a '50s art-deco style (more vertical than
> horizontal), with a LED display on the front.  The person who worked
> there knew nothing about it, and even a friend who works for Ma Bell
> didn't know much about it.  It costs about $129, and would really
> solve the sleep disturbances caused by my current answering machines
> clunky sounds.

I can tell you a little about the new AT&T solit-state answering machine:

It uses no magnetic tape.  Both the greeting and the messages are
digitized and stored in semiconductor memory.  When you are listening
to your messages, you may save or erase individual messages, leaving
others.  You may listen in any order.  It remembers new and old
messages, more like AUDIX or other voicemail systems.

I'm not sure how much storage it has, but it's far less than
cassette-based machines.  I think I remember someone telling me that
it can take less than ten minutes of messages, if there are no "old"
messages saved.

There is a battery that maintains the memory in the event of a power
outage, but its life is only a few hours.


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

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

From: jonathan white <acf5![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security
Date: 31 Mar 91 16:29:51 GMT
Organization: New York University


[e-mail] (Bill Huttig) writes:

>     MCI offers account information via their 800 number also ...
> [Moderator's Note: Oh really? Would you please post the number we

I called 1-800-444-3333 and although I got a real live customer
service rep when I said that I had called for automated account
information I was told that it was normaly available and that the
system was down.


[Moderator's Note: I just now tried the above number, and not only
does the automated system discuss 'your' existing MCI account and
balance, it also allows you to convert 'your' line to MCI One Plus
service if desired. So, I converted several of you to MCI as your
primary carrier while I was there. :)  ha ha!    PAT]

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

From: jonathan white <acf5![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Card With no Surcharge (was: MCI Around Town)
Date: 31 Mar 91 16:38:43 GMT
Organization: New York University


[e-mail] (Bill Huttig) writes:

>    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.

According to Metromedia customer service rep "April" rates on my
residential account are, for interstate calls:

              1 +                  calling card

day       $0.17 - $0.26           $0.26 - $0.29

evening   $0.11 - $0.21           $0.16 - $0.19

nite      $0.09 - $0.16           $0.13 - $0.17


This is per minute rates. You have to figure out at what point it is
cheaper to use a calling card with a surcharge.

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

Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 11:23 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Can Someone Please Help us in SO-Cal GTE-Land


Ron Schnell <[e-mail]> writes:

> Recently GTE converted our C.O. to a "much more advanced and improved
> digital switch", according to a letter sent to all customers (I assume
> it was 5ESS or similar).  However, since this "improvement", I have
> noticed several degradations.

The switch you describe is none other than an Automatic Electric
GTD-5, probably the worst affliction to ever plague the telecom
industry. It is (by modern standards) featureless, had been virtually
abondoned by the manufacturer (for good reason), and has the worst
feature implementation of any digital switch on the planet. For some
reason, GTE droids always refer to that switch as "advanced".

The last time I quite properly badmouthed the GTD-5, I got some flack
from GTE types about how it was really a wonderful switch with all
kinds of capabilities. All of that is total rubbish; the switch IS
garbage. It has software and hardware deficiencies that render it only
suitable for GTE CO service (since GTE couldn't care less about its
level of service in the first place). It does not have, nor will it
ever have ISDN, CLASS, or any other advanced features.

The three-way calling problem you describe simply indicates that GTE
did not think you were worth ordering the advanced conference bridge
and that you would put up with the standard pathetic digital
three-way.

> What I would really like is some advice on the best way to take these
> complaints to GTE.  Especially since they are highly technical
> compared to what most business office reps could understand.

Sorry, you are out of luck. First off, GTE will cancel your first
three trouble reports as "resolved" to make its report to the PUC look
good.  Second, since GTE could not care less about customer
satisfaction, you will be told, in essence, to take a hike.

> 1. Three-way calling - When I flash and dial the third party, I
>    can't flash back right away.

Inherent in the switch; nothing can be done.

> 2. Three-way calling - THIS IS THE WORST PART OF THE WHOLE THING -
>    During three-way calls, the line suddenly becomes one-way.

This is the digital conferencing. It COULD be solved, but would
require the installation of a hardware/software pack. Remember, you
are dealing with GTE.

> 3. Flashing in general - It seems like flashing the switchook is
>    much less dependable since the change.

Again, inherent in the switch.

> 4. Infinite Dialtone - Sometimes I get a dialtone that won't go
>    away.

This is a hardware malfunction. It can be fixed, but good luck trying
to get GTE to do anything about it.

> I dread trying to bring these things to GTE's attention.

You should. My opinions on Pac*Bell notwithstanding, you stand a much
greater chance of having it all work if you moved into PB territory.
Pac*Bell may have thin feature offerings, but what it has seems to
work perfectly.

 From the GTE Definitions Handbook:

reorder -- What you typically get after dialing most numbers from a
GTE telephone.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed on WE 2500 DM Set
Date: 31 Mar 91 15:49:33 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Recently, someone posted that a 500 D set was just like a 500 set,
> except it was designed for use on a party line with divided ringing. I
> own two Western Electric 2500 DM sets that were formerly used on a
> LARGE centrex system (two NNX prefixes!).  What is the difference
> between a 2500 DM and a "normal" 2500 set?

The 500 D was a Dial set.  (The 500 C was the non-dial version with
the large round plastic cover where the dial was.)  Many older
telephone sets carry the designation 500C/D meaning that they were
field-convertible between dial and non-dial use.  The 2500 is the 500
with touch-tone dialing, and was sometimes identified as 2500 D.
(There was no 2500 C, however, since the 500 C would work just as
well!)  Eventually, the D was dropped.

The M was added when modular hardware was installed.  A 2500 DM means
a dial set with touch-tone, and modular handset and mounting cords.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #258
******************************






ISSUE 258 AND 259 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 259 IS FILED BEFORE 258,
AND 260 COMES NEXT IN THIS FILE.






Received: from dsinc.dsi.com by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04761;
          1 Apr 91 3:47 EST
Received: by dsinc.dsi.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.39)
    id <[e-mail]>; Sun, 31 Mar 91 20:25 EST
Date:     Sun, 31 Mar 91 19:25:42 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #260
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 31 Mar 91 18:31:46 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 260

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Mail and News Delivery Complaints [TELECOM Moderator]
    FORBES and BUSINESS WEEK on Local Competition [Peter Marshall]
    Sprint's Billing and Service: A Nightmare For Me [Marshall Barry]
    Testing For BUGS on Your Phone Line [Scott Marshall]
    Return to the Land of Selective Ringing [David Lesher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 16:44:40 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Mail and News Delivery Complaints


There have been numerous problems with mail and news delivery since
Friday, beginning with issue 248. I am aware of all of them, including
duplicate copies in the mail and some people not getting copies at
all.  Because the 'deliver' program here at eecs is apparently out of
order, (at least not working where telecom is concerned) mail is being
handled from a backup site -- a place where we had to re-write a bunch
of addresses on the list, etc ... and still the bounced mail is
rolling in at a fast pace. I am remailing the copies by hand when I
can figure out what was wrong.

The comp.dcom.telecom side of things was working okay ... but
apparently some problem occurred with the maps over the weekend, and a
few places in my nntpxmit could not get correctly resolved by the
server.  Then, issue 256 got out from here only partially edited due
to another software flaw ...

So -- live with it. What you see is what you are getting. Things will
get back to normal whenever. There is no need to write me about
duplicates or non-delivery problems until at least a few more issues
have gone out ... if the problems continue at that point.


PAT

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

Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 09:22:01 -0800
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: FORBES and BUSINESS WEEK on Local Competition


"The Baby Bells Learn a Nasty New Word: Competition," BUSINESS WEEK,
 3/25/91:

Breaking up local phone monopolies -- via new technologies -- looks to
be the "issue of the 1990s...."

After sweeping the long-distance business in the 1980s, competition is
headed for local phone service. The regional monopolies of local phone
companies are beginning to be undermined by such technologies as
microwaves, fiber optics, and wireless phone systems. Long-distance
carriers and cable-TV companies are trying to grab some of the market
for local communications. And government officials are questioning the
need to maintain the century-old system of regulated local phone
monopolies. All that makes competition in local phone service "the
biggest telecommunications issue of the 1990s."

But there's a hitch: Local phone companies complain that they're not
yet free to compete. There's little danger of the phone monopolies
crumbling overnight. Still, veterans of the 1984 Bell System breakup
know how quickly -- and how drastically -- things can change.

Some Baby Bell executives are seizing on the nascent competition to
justify deregulation. The challengers who claim they will make all
this happen are not a formidable lot -- yet. For example, the combined
revenue of the alternate-access companies -- fiber-optic and microwave
 -- will be $150 million this year, says Yankee Group Inc.  All but
one of the upstarts are losing money. But they have on their side the
awesome power of an idea whose time has come: competition.

Already, regulators are beginning to hand down rulings that challenge
the monopoly system. In 1988, for example, the Federal Communications
Commission issued a precedent-setting ruling that softens the
previously rigid geographic boundaries of local phone companies. It
allowed Southwetern Bell to provide phone service to an Atlantic
Richfield Co. research center in an area served by a GTE Corp. phone
company.

Similar border crossings are probably happening quietly all over the
country.  To date, the states have outdone the FCC in promoting
competition -- particularly New York. By the end of the decade, small
businesses and even residential customers may have some choice in
local phone services, too. That is, if new wireless phones, called
personal communications networks (PCNs), live up to their promise.
Backers say that PCNs could actuallly form a second phone system
paralleling the wired system.

Not surprisingly, the Baby Bell holding companies are eager to seize
control of PCNs. In a move that could undermine the local wired
system, some are seeking to operate PCNs themselves, rather than
through their regulated telephone companies. A more immediate threat
to the phone monopolies could come from the cable-TV industry.  If
phone companies gain admittance to the cable-TV business -- as they
have been lobbying for permission to do -- several cable-TV companies
are poised to counterattack.

Even as competition appears, however, business customers complain that
the local phone companies still behave like monopoly public utilities.
According to some critics, the Baby Bells largely ignored the local
phone business. In the seven years since the Bell breakup, they have
pumped millions into other businesses.  In 1989, the Baby Bells
actually generated slightly more cash flow from depreciation than they
spent on new investments.  In effect, they treated their core
businesses as cash cows.  Meanwhile, the new competitors continued to
attack with derring-do.  Traditional phone companies just don't work
that way.  The difference in corporate culture is immense.  However
quickly competition comes, the direction is certain.  The walls,
indeed, are tumbling down.

"Divestiture Revisited," FORBES, 3/18/91:

Since the breakup of the Bell System seven years ago, the regional
telephone utilites have been in clover. Their comfortable business of
colelcting monthly rent for telephone lines and taking a large
commission for handling connections for long-distance companies has
made them Wall street favorites. The stock prices of the seven
regional Baby Bells have on average tripled, to a level of twice book
value.

All this good fortune is built on an assumption that is no longer
valid: that local telephone service is and will remain a monopoly. An
onslaught of new technologies, hungry entrepreneurs and
pro-competition regulators are all teaming up ... the fuse is lit.

The money at stake is an annual revenue stream of about $14 billion.
This revenue excludes the fixed-rate "access charge".  Bypassing the
local telephone company in most American cities to avoid padded
monopoly charges is now a fast-growing business of $100 million a
year.  Bypassers are starting to do to the local phone companies what
MCI did to AT&T's long-distance business in the 1970s. But the
competitive threat doesn't stop there.

Competitive forces are only starting to be felt now in local service.
If nothing else happens, the competitors could quite possibly siphon
off an estimated $5 billion in revenues from the telephone companies
by the end of this decade. More important, the mere threat of bypass,
microwave and radio links will be enough to force realignments in
rates.

Is there economic justifiaction for the $14 billion in fees paid to
local monopolies? Some, but not much ... where did the 45% rate-
sharing formula come from? Out of the air.  Competition is coming to
the local telephone monopoly, bringing with it all kinds of new
services for the Information Age. The smartest thing that politicians
and regulators can do is get out of the way.

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

From: Marshall Barry <isis![e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint's Billing and Service: A Nightmare For Me
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Marshall Barry)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 21:45:38 GMT


    John Higdon wrote about Sprint's billing...

    Figured I'd add one more wonderful note about the same sort of
thing.

    When I moved from Phoenix to Los Angeles, I disconnected my
number there, and terminated (I thought) my Sprint 1+ access.  Wrong.

    TWO YEARS later, I suddenly received a bill for over $400.00
for long distance for six month's worth of calls.  Seems Sprint had
been chosen for the "default" 1+ access account, and just reconnected
it with my current one in another city, two years later.

    Another wonderful case where they PROMISED to fix it, and it
took three months for them to straighten out the original charges ...
in the meantime adding new charges to MY account.

    Neither letters nor phone calls seemed to make any difference,
until I finally had my attorney write them a letter, threatening legal
action, a show cause as to why they should be allowed to provide
service, and a class-action suit.  Matter was fixed in five days.

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

> ... 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.  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.

        Sorry for really chopping your message, but you brought up a
couple of interesting points.

        First, I had been a Sprint User for QUITE some time myself -
but, after a $31K (yes THOUSAND) Sprint Bill (someone hacked my
"access code" and handed it out to places I never heard of) - and the
fact that it became $31K due to the fact it took Sprint eleven weeks
(almost three months) from the time I reported the first "unauthorized
accesses" to the time they deleted the code, I was - to say the least -
disappointed.

    When Sprint told me that I would have to PAY that bill, in
full, because I was a "company" and it was "probably some disgruntled
employee who gave it out to everyone" - I was more than disappointed -
I was OUTRAGED!  They did everything down to sending collection agents
to MY HOME to get this "money that was due them".

     After several MONTHS of complaints - To everyone from the PUC
to the FCC, I finally got to someone in Sprint's office who said,
simply, "Do you know where xxxx is?"

        "No."

        "Do you know anyone in the xxxx County Jail?"

        "Where?" ...  followed by "This has OBVIOUSLY gotten out of
hand ... you reported the access when the total amount due was $640,
how much of that is yours and how much is the `unknowns'?"

    I figured out that I owed about $370 of that bill (which was
about our average monthly billing) - and I paid it.

    They then came after me for another $500 (which THEY figured I
had to owe them - and we went round and round again).

    Finally - I got THAT straightened out, and connected to 1+ for
Sprint - biggest mistake I ever made.

      I got billed three, four, five, and six times for the EXACT
same call (time date number, etc. all Identical) and was told to pay
it and submit documentation as to why I should be re-imbursed ... etc.

    Thanks, Sprint, but no thanks.

    BTW, got billed for SOME calls six or seven months after they
were made and billed for two HOURS on a call I know was under two
minutes.


 <[e-mail]> is also <[e-mail]>
          Data: [phone] +&+ [phone] 3/12/2400 baud
           Snail Mail: P.O. Box 486, Louisville, CO  80027=0486


[Moderator's Note: It sounds like you have really been through the
wringer with those people. Do they still have droids calling you on
the phone from time to time offering big savings on your long distance
bill, free calculators, and five dollar rebates if you change your
one-plus over to them?  I manage the phone system in our office, and
we had a very sour, very bitter experience with Sprint over a check
for several thousand dollars which they misapplied and could not
locate. We finally had to sue them. I may write more details soon.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Testing For BUGS on Your Phone Line
Date: 31 Mar 91 05:28:00 CST
Organization: University of Houston


Who needs to buy one of these things? There are numbers you can call,
that are supposed to show you if your line is been tapped. They call
it a sweep. It is an alternating pitch supposedly; and is meant to
stay high pitched if your line is being bugged and alternate if not.

For example, call this sweep:

214-357-8686


Scott Marshall     :     Sterling
  Sysop of -       :     Aviation
The Hornets' Nest  :     Sciences
[phone]      : 11625 Martindale Rd
24oo/96oo/14.4K    : Houston, TX 77048
  Baud Rates       :        USA


[Moderator's Note: Where did you get your information from, Scott?
Yes, you do connect with a (probably unsupervised) sweep tone when you
dial the above number, however I called it from six different phone
lines today and get the alternating high and low tones in each case. I
find it hard to believe that *any* phone I used is 'bugged', let alone
all six. And how would a location in Texas know anything about a bug
on my line in Chicago in any event?  Someone gave you bad information,
I'm afraid.  PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Return to the Land of Selective Ringing
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 15:56:24 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


John asked about a noise while dialing those with party lines, and how
the ANI worked. Larry is surely the man for the both questions, and
I'll defer to him.

But there was ANOTHER distinctive noise you could hear during ring
cycle: bridge lifters. Here's the story, as it was explained to me:

Party lines were intended for conservation of wire. The typical
application was:

    CO-----------------------------------------Mr. Tip
                         |-Ms. Ring
where the distance between them was small.

But when private lines became widely available, Bell had a problem.
Most folks would opt for them, and only one party would be out there
(Say Ms. Ring) by herself. She still WANTED party line service. A
similar situation existed when Mr. Tip called the business office and
raised Cain because Ms. Ring was ALWAYS on the phone to her
commodities broker.

Ma's options were:

    a) Force Ms. Ring to change to private line service.
    b) Give her a private line without charging extra.
    c) Leave her as the ONLY party on a given party line.
    d) Party her with someone NOT next door.

Now Ma often tried tactic a), but the problem with it was the PSC
and/or the FCC frowned on such coercion. The Beancounters LOATHED c)
and b) cuz they wanted every penny. That left d).

Now the reason you could NOT just do this:

           ___________________________Mr. Tip
    co/
      \
       \______________________Ms. Sleeve

was a guy named Farad.

Cable is capacitive. When Mr. Tip was dialing, he was breaking the
loop current with the pulser in his dial. BUT, the stub going off to
Sleeve's condo had a lot of capacitance in in, and it terminated in a
good sized ringer cap, too. (Maybe several, if Ms. Sleeve had a set in
each room.)

That (total) capacitor distorted Mr. Tip's dial pulses, and confused
his Strowger Switch. It could also, I suspect, shunt audio to ground
during talking, but I have never bothered to do the needed math to
prove or disprove that.

[Of course, there is another solution: Touch-tone. As I recall TT was
first proposed to eliminate the problem of dial pulse distortion on
ultra-long rural loops.]

So Ma called her elves at Murray Hill, and they invented a bridge
lifter. It goes between the CO and the outgoing pair and lifts
(disconnects) Mr. Tip when Ms. Sleeve is off-hook, and vice versa. I'm
now speaking out of my hat, but I THINK it only affected things during
dialing. Otherwise, how could the other party demand surrender of the
pair for an emergency?

In any case, you can HEAR the bridge lifter, in an office with ringing
sidetone, (as opposed to those that give you the switch generated
tone) as a "raspy" quality to the ring. I often notice this while
calling a doctor's office.

In closing, I was sure that you could get party line service here in
Miami in 1989, but I now see no mention of it.


[Moderator's Note: Do you think the ringing you heard on the call to
the doctor's office was due to the doctor's line probably being
bridged to a live answering service in some other exchange, etc?   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #260
******************************










Date:     Mon, 1 Apr 91 19:34:21 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #261
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 1 Apr 91 19:33:32 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 261

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Plan: 1+Own-NPA+7D or Just 7D -- Depends on Where You Are [John Covert]
    Sprint Outage in CA Last Week [Steve Elias]
    ANI and ONI [Larry Lippman]
    Revertive Calling [Larry Lippman]
    Calling Party ID on Two-Party Lines [Dave Levenson]
    "Dial 900 Directory": Guide to Services [TELECOM Moderator]
    Interop 91 Conference Notice [TELECOM Moderator]
    User Interfaces (was Envoy 100 Gateway Instructions) [Ralph W. Hyre]
    Request for Etymology [Daniel DanehyOakes]
    Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [David Cornutt]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 08:47:19 PST
From: John R. Covert  <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Plan: 1+Own-NPA+7D or Just 7D -- Depends on Where You Are


Dave Levenson wrote:

> The plan is to use seven digits for all intra-NPA calls, and 1 + ten
> digits for all inter-NPA calls.  No timeouts, no ambiguity, and no
> sure way to tell the difference between local and toll calls intra-NPA.

We call this "The New Jersey Plan", because New Jersey never had 1 + 7D
within the area code.  It was the Bellcore recommended plan, but it
met with objections all over the country.  All of the following places
have, within the past few years, either gone to or announced 1 + 10D
within the NPA:

    Dallas-Fort Worth, Northern Virginia, Maryland, Toronto, Georgia,
    North Carolina, Alabama, San Antonio, Detroit, Arizona

Philadelphia dropped the "1", but it is a relatively small area code,
close enough to New Jersey to have been able to get away with the New
Jersey plan.

Arizona announced 7D, and had so many objections they changed to 1 +
10D.  Here in Massachusetts, dropping 1+ has been mentioned, but it
hasn't been mentioned loudly and definitely enough yet to attract
attention.  In 508, 7D couldn't happen until the SxS exchanges, of
which there are still a large number, are all gone.

The Washington, DC, area has the best plan: 7D is local within your
own NPA (whether that be 202, 703, or 301); 10D is local to one of the
other two NPAs; and 1 + 10D is toll, either within your own NPA or to
one of the other NPAs.  1 + 10D is accepted for local calls to other
NPAs, and the call gets routed and billed the same as if you had
dialed just 10D.

I wish that would become the nationwide plan.

Regards,

john

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

Subject: Sprint Outage in CA Last Week
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 16:48:39 PST
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Thomas Lapp) wrote:

> My question for those in the know: What was the cause of the fiber
> break which caused the Sprint outage last week?  Details please.  If
> it was along a RR right-of-way (and buried) how was it cut?  Not by a
> train wreck I assume?  Right?

Wrong!  According to the local news here in the bay area, the fiber
was cut by the train wreck.  The video they showed made this easy to
believe.  The train wreck had ripped up the track badly, along with
all sorts of other stuff that must have been under or along side the
track.

The newsfolk did make some comment indicating that those who had put
the fiber down may not have gotten the appropriate permissions from
the track owners, however.  As an aside, there was a similar
controversy (but no train wreck or fiber cut) in Framingham, MA about
a year ago.


eli

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

Subject: ANI and ONI
Date: 31 Mar 91 20:42:05 EST (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

>> 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!

    ANI from WECo was in service as of 1960 for SxS CO's.  This
was ANI-B, which used a 5 KHz or so identification tone.  ANI-B was
quickly replaced with ANI-C by 1963 or so.  ANI-C and the later ANI-D
became the standard methods of providing ANI in SxS CO's, and I would
not be surprised if some is still in service in rural areas.  ANI-C
and ANI-D used short 340 volt DC pulses on the sleeve lead that were
decoded using a neon lamp matrix.

> I never knew.  I always had to ask what she meant.  I had assumed that
> they knew where I was calling from (you mean I could have lied and
> gotten away with it? -- never occured to me), yet I had just dialed
> the number I wanted, so why would she ask that?

    Fraud by giving an incorrect number to the ONI operator was a
problem, but not that serious.  The first line of defense was that the
called party (we know *that* number for certain!) would be contacted
should the billing number not be in service, or should the call
charges be contested by the party upon whose bill they appeared.

    Some ONI fraud was easy to spot - like giving a telephone
number from a CO other than the one calling from!  The ONI operator
certainly knew what CO belonged to the trunk being answered.  In some
areas the ONI operator had a chart of valid thousands and hundreds
groups for each CO served by the ONI position; this somewhat reduced
the problem of being given non-existent numbers.

    There was a more sophisticated approach tried in some areas.
The ONI position automatically used the keyed numbers to access a
special test trunk back to the originating SxS CO, which used a
special test distributor and connector to ascertain if the calling
number that was furnished to the ONI operator was busy.  If it did
test busy, it was presumed that the number furnished to the ONI
operator *could* be valid.  It it did not test busy, then it was
presumed that the number furnished to the ONI operator was phony.

    I never personally saw one of the above verification systems
since comparatively few were installed due to their marginal value at
reducing fraud.


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: Revertive Calling
Date: 31 Mar 91 21:29:06 EST (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> > 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 don't know what our old (Bell System) switch was before it was
> replaced with a 1A some time in the late '70s, but it had ringback on
> 491x.  Different values of 'x' would give eight different coded rings
> plus continuous ring.  I miss this feature.  Our current switch
> doesn't even have a ringback number that I can find (I've tried all
> the test prefixes, and located all kinds of tones, battery,
> terminated-no-battery, and so on, but no ringback).

    I feel certain that your CO has a ringback number; it may well
be "hidden" as a three or four digit number, rather than a seven-digit
test line number, however.

    Ringing another party on the same party line is a unique case
called "revertive calling".  Such a call cannot be completed using the
conventional SxS connector.  It was accomplished using apparatus known
as a reverting call selector.

    While there was more than one way to implement revertive
calling in a SxS office, a typical method was to dial four digits such
as NNYD, where NN is a two-digit access prefix common to the CO, Y is
your party code number and D is the party code number of the
destination station.

    After dialing the appropriate four-digit number above and
hearing an acknowledgement tone, your handset was placed on hook.
Your telephone then rang along with that of the destination party.
When the ringing stopped it indicated that the other party had
answered and you picked up your handset.  To abandon an unanswered
call required momentarily picking up your handset.

    Implementing revertive calling the *right* way was a little
tricky from a circuit design standpoint, since your ringing code is
*not* the same as that of the called party!  How could your telephone
ring to indicate that the called party was being rung with a different
electrical and/or cadence code?

    This is why in a better reverting call implementation, two
digits were dialed: your ringing code and that of the called party.
What really happened is the the ringing cycle was split.  During your
silent interval the ringing condition for the other party was placed
on the line; during their silent interval your ringing condition was
placed on the line.  If your ringing was electrically the same
condition but with different cadence for the other party, you simply
heard their cadence and the ringing cycle was not split.

    Less sophisticated reverting call selectors did not ring your
telephone at all.  You dialed an access code followed by the party
code of the called party.  You heard an acknowledgement tone and hung
up.  After you *think* the other party has had time to answer the
telephone, you then picked up the line.  If they were there, fine; if
not enough time or they picked up and heard silence and then hung
up -- tough.

    In some ESS CO's where party lines were almost non-existent,
*no* reverting call trunks were installed at all.  If you wanted to
call another party on your party line, you were required to go through
the operator.


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: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Party ID on Two Party Lines
Date: 1 Apr 91 04:42:04 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


John Higdon asks how party identification works on two party lines.

The party whose ringer is connected between Tip and ground, known as
the 'tip party', has the hookswitch wired so that part of the ringer
is connected between tip and ground without the normal DC blocking
capacitor whenever the handset is off-hook.  The other party, called
the 'ring party', does not.  After collecting enough digits to
identify the called party, the originating register in a five-crossbar
switch performs a tip-to-ground resistance check for about 100 msec.
This is the 'click-plunk' you hear when originating from either party
on such a line.  If it finds resistance less than about 2000 Ohms, it
identifies the caller as tip party.

This is why, years after most of us could walk into almost any
appliance store and buy a telephone set equipped with a modular jack
and take it home and plug it in, subscribers on party lines are denied
this right.  The fine print in the phone book, and some mouldy old
Bell System Practice, no doubt, requires that only non-modular
telephone sets furnished by the telephone company may be used on
two-party service with ANI.

The telco must wire the correct selective ringing and party
identification option when installing the set.

Any why doesn't the unbalanced line condition result in hum during the
call?  Because the ringer's inductance hides the ground-loop-induced
AC hum path!


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: Mon, 1 Apr 91 2:17:03 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Dial 900 Directory": Guide to Services


A little publication came to my attention today which I want to
mention to you for whatever it is worth. Since subsctiptions are free,
you might want to send in your name.

The "Dial 900 Directory", which bills itself as 'your complete guide
to 900 services' is published quarterly by Dave Edwards. The current
32-page issue lists several dozen 900 numbers, ranging from sports and
business news through a variety of adult services. Party lines, jokes,
confessions, sports, trivia contests, product giveaways, etc are all
categories represented.

Since the 900 industry is heavily into sex programing, the 900
Directory reflects this with several full page ads for adult services,
but a full page ad for the Business News Network is also there, along
with ads for lottery results and rock music promotions and a wake-up
service. From 900-321-SINS to 900-999-KINK as it where, and a lot
more.

This is the first time I have seen such a large collection of 900
numbers in one publication, unless you count the ads in the {Weekly
World News}.

To order your copy and be on the mailing list for quarterly updates:

            1-800-786-4-FUN   (surprise! 800 number rather than 900!)
            Then enter code number 906363 when requested.


If you prefer to order by mail, write:

             The 900 Directory
             ATTN: Dave Edwards
             Post Office Box 2270
             Temecula, CA  92390


You would also contact Mr. Edwards if you have a 900 service you want
to list in his directory.


PAT

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

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 91 2:34:22 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interop 91 Conference Notice


The Interop '91 events will be held this year at the San Jose
Convention Center, October 7-11.  The three main components to this
year's program include:

        In-Depth Tutorials,   October 7-8
        Executive Interop,    October 7-8
        Conference and Exhibition, October 9-11


The events will include some 45 coference sessions, and displays by
250 or more vendors.

For more information, to register or receive a detailed conference
program, call 1-800-INTEROP.  From outside the USA:  1-415-941-3399.

Interop, Inc. is located at:

480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100
Mountain View, CA   94040-1219      FAX: [phone]


PAT

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

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: User Interfaces (was: Envoy 100 Gateway Instructions)
Date: 1 Apr 91 16:15:05 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nigel
Allen) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 259, Message 2 of 3

> * forwarding a message originally from [e-mail] (Phil Trubey)

> To reach someone with an Envoy account, send your message with the
> following address in the "To:" field:

>     /ID=envoy_id/S=last_name/G=first_name/I=F/SITE=TELECOM.CANADA/
>     @{internet site [name deleted]}

This is a pretty sad statement for X.400 implementations.  Hasn't
anyone built a reasonable user agent to these ISO beasts?  The
Internet user@hostname convention is pretty straighforward.  Telecom
Canada should follow Compuserve's example and build an Internet
Gateway, rather than forcing the entire load on one US government
facility that happens to translate RFC822 into X.400.

As a user, I won't accept any system that forced me to remember the
arcane X.400 syntax.  Is there a delivery or user agent that works
with the ISO directory stuff? (X.2500?)  I want to be able to use my
'old' user interface {user@organization - which is all the X.400
address really captures anyway.} [Example: Bob.Allen@AT&T]

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

From: Dan'l DanehyOakes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for Etymology
Date: 1 Apr 91 17:43:20 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA


I may have asked this before, but if so nobody answered (or I didn't
receive the answer) ...

What "slamming" is is pretty evident from context -- but why is it
called that?


D

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

From: David Cornutt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1991 17:59:49 GMT


There's one hell of an argument going on in the Usenet rec.aviation
group about the use of cellular phones from aircraft.  Can anyone
answer:

(1) what effects this could have on the cellular phone net?

(2) what, if any, FCC regulations might apply?


David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL  [phone]
([e-mail]; some insane route applies)
"The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer,
not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary."

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #261
******************************










Date:     Mon, 1 Apr 91 22:35:57 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
To:       [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #262
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 1 Apr 91 22:35:17 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 262

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Jeff Wasilko]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Michael Ho]
    Re: New Hotel Ripoff [Bob Yazz]
    Re: Conversion of TV Transmission Standards [Herman R Silbiger]
    Re: Sprint's Billing and Service: A Nightmare For Me [John Higdon]
    Re: Questions About New Service Being Installed [Al L Varney]
    Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu / Motorola [J Gottlieb]
    Re: Caller ID RS-232 Interface Needed [Damon Schaefer]
    Re: What Happened With Sprint's Outage [Jim Maurer]
    Re: Movie Excerpt / Ringing Phones [Carl Moore]
    Re: An HONEST PacBell Survey About CLID [R. Kevin Oberman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1991 00:18:15 EST
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable


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

> for providing local white pages. I get really POd when I have to
> battle to get ALL the Metro Boston books I am entitled to, and when
> 411 is so badly configured that you MUST tell them what phone book
> (Central, North, South, West) to look in or they won't even look for
> you. 411 was bearable because it was free, but now they 'traded'
> charging for 411 for providing 911.

I had to call Boston DA today to track down a Boston area number. I
knew the company was in the Boston area, but not in Boston. I told the
operator this, she checked the Boston listings, and told me she
couldn't find a listing. I asked her to check the surrounding areas,
she said she had to know the name of the town. When I asked her to do
a cross-directory check, she hung up on me!

I called back, asked for the supervisor and told her what happened.
She said that the operators can do a search of surrounding areas
without any problem. She took some info about the call (the DA
operator didn't giver a name, either) and said she would look into it.

When I asked the supervisor about why the DA operator would have hung
up on me (hinting that the operator didn't want to spend the time due
to a time quota), she said there is no quota and suggested that it was
an equipment problem.

Can anyone tell me what it's really like behind a DA console? Surely
there must be quotas/time limits per call. What kind of searching
capability do the operators have? How is the informatio presented to
the operator when there is more than one matching name?

Thanks!


RIT VAX/VMS Systems: |     Jeff Wasilko      |     RIT Ultrix Systems:     |
BITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax +----------------------+ INET:[e-mail]|
INTERNET: [e-mail]              |____UUCP:[e-mail]____|

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 91 01:47:01 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe
Konstan) writes:

> 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!

If the sweeping generalities in the Post article are true, I have to
disagree with the Supreme Court, because it left this big, vague
"originality" problem in case law.

But in this particular case, I'm actually chuckling quite loud.
Here's a rural telco that basically didn't feel like giving its
directory information out to anyone, and they got spanked -- but in
the process, they apparently brought grief to other telcos (like US
West) who have maintained copyrights on the White Pages but have been
willing to license the subscriber lists.

Now, anyone can rip 'em off for free.  Everybody say 'thanks' to that
li'l telco.  (I bet the BOC's are gonna be as happy with that company
as the press is with CNN for launching that silly prior restraint
case.)


Michael Ho, University of Nebraska
Internet: [e-mail]  |  Face it.  Harry was WAY too homely for Sally.
Disclaimer:  Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be
         applied to any university agency.

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Hotel Ripoff
Date: 31 Mar 91 22:33:10 GMT


On that Del Mar Hilton the phone bill overcharge --

This hotel is in my local calling area so I called them up and asked
about it.  I got the manager in charge of their phone system.  She
insisted that it was Pacific Bell that programmed their system and
that Hilton charged their hotel guests a non-local rate Only because
Pac Bell charged Hilton a non-local rate.

I insisted her information was false.  She offered to look at my bill,
and I believe that if I had been the guest with the bill she'd have
refunded the $4.86 for "guest relations" reasons and let it go, but
she did promise to get with Pac Bell and make sure they were charging
correctly.

She also indicated exactly what the earlier poster indicated -- that a
call to La Jolla (an abutting community to the south) was a local call
from the Pac Bell payphone in the lobby but Not a local call from the
Pac Bell programmed Hotel Telephone System.

My Pacific Bell directory indicates that Del Mar to La Jolla is a zone
1 (as local as it gets) call.

Anybody at Pac Bell or Hilton reading this?


Payphone ripoff problems in California?  Call Pacific Bell at 800/352-2201
Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]         They take complaints M-F, 8-5

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

Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 19:48:32 EST
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Conversion of TV Transmission Standards
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> There are international VCR's that do what you want.  The Akihabara in
> Tokyo is lousy with them, as they are a big hit with tourists.  These
> VCRs can play PAL, SECAM and NTSC VHS tapes, and also have tuners that
> can pick up all the formats.  They have an internal converter and, I
> THINK, can drive a PAL, SECAM or NTSC tv or monitor.

The 47th Street Photo catalog shows several multi-standard VCRs, as
well as multi-standard TV sets and camcorders, all at prices not much
different from NTSC equipment.

They also have multi-standard coffee makers.


Herman Silbiger

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

Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 18:22 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Sprint's Billing and Service: A Nightmare For Me


Marshall Barry <isis![e-mail]> writes:

>     Another wonderful case where they PROMISED to fix it, and it
> took three months for them to straighten out the original charges ...
> in the meantime adding new charges to MY account.

The person that spoke with me last month indicated that it takes
months for Sprint to resolve billing problems. He told me that he
would be following up monthly until charges for the old number stopped
appearing. This is not impressive.

What I am doing about it is simply turning off all usage of the
account until it is fixed. Not one call will be routed over Sprint
until two months have gone by with no new charges on them. I have
never had this sort of problem with AT&T.


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

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

Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 20:20:05 CST
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About New Service Being Installed
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


Oops!  Some corrections:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Al
"Oops" Varney) writes:

> [In other articles, Fred R. Goldstein and Jim Rees write:]

Fred> The 1ESS has relays in it, not to do the actual switching,
Fred> but to switch ringing voltage and the like on to the loop.  It makes a
Fred> lot of noise, although nothing like a panel office!

  This is correct, in the sense that the "switches" are not "relays".

Jim> The 1ESS (and the 1A, which uses a less antiquated processor) uses
Jim> reed relays to do the actual switching.  They're vacuum-sealed, so
Jim> they're quieter than the old ones.  I suspect that the 1 can do Caller
Jim> ID too, though Im not sure.

>   The No. 1 ESS Switch indeed uses sealed relays for the switching

      But I meant to say "reed switch" here ^^^^^^

> fabric, but "reed relays" ???  Nope.  The actual T/R path is through
> magnetic-latching relays, surrounded with some metal and a coil.
                    ^^^^^^
        ...and here

> 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.

  I E-mailed a better explanation to Jim, but in summary, the reason I
disagreed about the term "reed relay" was because of the word "relay";
but then I used it myself (Ooof)!  They are "switches" because they do
not actually switch a current based on another current or pulse.  They
are switched "dry" (sans current); the contacts can't be cleaned and
will stick or weld shut if switched "wet" frequently.  Therefore,
external relays to trunks and lines must be used to remove battery/
ground before setting up a path through the network.  A matrix of
switch crosspoints is arranged so that closing a tip/ring crosspoint
in a matrix automatically opens all the other pairs in the same X row
and Y column.  When a path is "released", it's X and Y matrix points
are marked idle, but the crosspoints remain closed until some other
action selects another crosspoint in the same X row or Y column.

Further errata:

> Instruction set vaguely resembles an orthoganal version of 1E, with
   No "Freudian" jokes, please... it's ^^^^^^^^^^ "orthogonal".

> a typical instruction (24 or 48 bits wide) taking .7 milliseconds.
                         let's try "microseconds", eh? ^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Al Varney, AT&T, Lisle, IL

  You really ought to read the stuff before you publish, dum-dum.

 Al

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: User's Evaluation of Handheld Cellular: Fujitsu vs Motorola
Date: 31 Mar 91 07:24:24 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


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

> The complaint is that the Japanese government closed it's market
> to the Micro Tac, and then subsidized the creation of a competitor.

The issue is very complicated.  I never fully understood it until I
read an article that explained the whole incident.  Now I forget both
where I read it and most of the details.

But I thought I would point out a major difference in the cellular
market here as compared to the U.S.

In the U.S., one buys a cellular telephone on the free market and then
must pick a carrier.  The free market (and carrier kickbacks) keeps
the price of equipment low, while the duopoly of cellular carriers in
any given market forces the customer to be ripped off, with little
real choice.

Here in Japan, the duopoly extends to the equipment side.  You don't
see cellular phones being sold in stores here.  Rather, you choose
your cellular carrier (either NTT [the telco] or IDO in Tokyo), and
they also rent you the telephone.  You have very little selection.
The NTT hand-held that most people carry around looks quite
old-fashioned when comapred to what is sold in the U.S.  NTT is now
running a large campaign on T.V. and in the print media featuring
Bruce Willis, announcing at least three new hand-held cellular phones.

Japanese who have come to visit me when I'm in Los Angeles have been
impressed with my Mitsubishi 900 hand-held, saying they've never seen
such a nice-looking and small unit in Japan.  The new NTT-offered sets
will change this, but if I understand correctly, they could never
offer the Motorola MicroTAC because Motorola's phones are not
compatible with the NTT system.  I bet if Motorola were a Japanese
company, rather than cry to the government about there being no
cellular systems in Tokyo compatible with their equipment, they would
have seen to it to build compatible telephones.

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

From: Damon Schaefer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID RS-232 Interface Needed
Date: 31 Mar 91 01:38:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA


The original questioin was from a "while" ago...
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 614, Message 1 of 9

I think this will catch the attention of many.  Bell Atlantic Business
Supplies is marketing a device called "CLASSMATE".  It is a device
that plugs has a RJ-11 and a DB-25 connector on it.  It converts
CallerID to Your serial port.  It comes with some software that allows
you to hook the output of the box to your favorite database (or other
application program.).

The device is priced at about $49.00 and will be shipped in about two
to three weeks.  Judging by the usefulness of this unit I would order
early...

Note for the PROGRAMMER: Please let me know about the interesting
software you write for this GEM!!

The phone number for Bell Atlantic Business Supplies: 800-523-0552


James Van Houten     POTS [phone]

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

Subject: Re: What Happened With Sprint's Outage
Date: Mon Apr  1 14:33:08 1991
From: [e-mail]


In V11, #255 Thomas Lapp wrote:

> My question for those in the know: What was the cause of the fiber
> break which caused the Sprint outage last week?  Details please.  If
> it was along a RR right-of-way (and buried) how was it cut?  Not by a
> train wreck I assume?  Right?

If you mean the Sprint outage in the San Francisco Bay area last week,
yes the fiber break was along a railroad right-of-way, and yes it was
a train wreck.  A Southern Pacific freight was traveling southbound
through Hayward, CA on a section of track where the max. speed is 10
MPH.  One of the cars had old fashioned style friction bearings
(probably a car used in company service, those style bearings are no
longer legal for interchange) and it developed a "hot box", meaning
the bearing overheated.  What usually happens in a hot box is the end
of the axle melts and the wheel comes off the axle, followed rapidly
by the car derailing!

In this case it was followed by about twelve other cars.  Fortunately
there were no hazardous materials involved, just frozen chickens and
stuff.  When that much weight hits the ground it can dig some very
deep trenches, and it seems they never bury the fibers deep enough!
It took a few days, but the line is now opened, and I believe Sprint
has fixed their line.


Jim Maurer   Specialix Inc.    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 91 10:40:59 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Movie Excerpt / Ringing Phones


Since the earlier message, I stopped in a motel which had a note
saying that if your call goes unanswered after FOUR rings, try hanging
up and redialing.  (Otherwise, you may be charged for call even though
it's unanswered.)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: An HONEST PacBell Survey About CLID
Date: 31 Mar 91 17:23:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (The
unknown Florentine) writes:

> It was also interesting to note that the poll (and the "informative
> brochure") did not mention CLID blocking or BLocked Call blocking.
> Sounds like PACBELL has no intent to provide these.

No, Pac*Bell has no reason to ask. California state law requires that
CLID blocking be available. So why bother asking?

Actually, there is one valid question--total blocking or per-call
blocking.  Pac*Bell wants per call while several "consumer" groups
want total blocking. So it's not whether to block CLID, but how.


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 #262
******************************





^A^A^A^A
Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05149;
          3 Apr 91 12:28 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac02297;
          2 Apr 91 12:01 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20957;
          2 Apr 91 0:01 CST
Date:     Tue, 2 Apr 91 0:01:02 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #263
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 2 Apr 91 00:00:08 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 263

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws [Roger Fajman]
    Re: Our Landlord Has a Charge-a-Phone [Brent Chapman]
    Re: Lorain Products Co. and More on Telephone Power Plants [Dan Boehlke]
    Re: Computerized Phone Callers [John R. Levine]
    Re: Is There a Selective Ringing Blocker? [Tad Cook]
    Re: Information needed on 2500 DM Set [John R. Covert]
    Re: More on Selective Ringing [Rolf Meier]
    Re: New AT&T Digital Answering Machine [Randy Borow]
    Re: Telephone Number > Address Service Needed in Houston [Randy Borow]
    Re: Caller ID Hearings in California [Jim Gottlieb]
    Digest Gets Forged Message! [Ron Schnell]
    Information Needed on Internet <=> Sprintnet Gateway [Joseph Tucker]
    Re: I Can't Wait For Caller ID to Start in Chicago! [Christopher Owens]
    Re: Conversion of TV Transmission Standards [Scott Dorsey]
    Telecom Archives and FTP (was: Delivery Complaints) [Peter M. Weiss]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff Carroll <![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws
Date: 1 Apr 91 19:56:14 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> It's different for phone companies because some calls take up more
> resources than others.  Which makes me wonder about how a computer
> network could be billed.  I figure a TCP/IP (or some kind of ISO based
> protocol) network would be a highly desirable thing for a lot of
> people.  I don't think it's good enough to limit it to SLIP because
> then the only time your connected to the network is when you call it
> up.  I would want something that's always connected.  I figure the
> fairest way to bill this kind of network would be to only charge for
> packets that originate from your node.  What do you think?

    This topic is discussed rather heavily in the comp.protocols.*
newsgroups by people far better qualified than I; but I'll offer my
0.16 bits.

    My feeling is that the additional overhead involved in
per-packet accounting would result in unnecessarily high costs to
everyone. I'd advocate flat-fee billing to all but those who impose
significant burdens on the network, who could be charged by some
coarse measurement of bandwidth consumed.


Jeff Carroll   [e-mail]

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date:  Mon, 01 Apr 91  17:55:45 EST
Subject: Re: Cable TV vs Telco Connectivity Laws

> As of April 1, they are renumbering the channels and converter
> boxes will not be required for those not subscribing to the premium
> channels (HBO, etc.).

I got an additional piece of information today.  The channel numbering
with converter boxes is still going to be different than without a
converter box.  Can anyone say why this is done?  It's confusing when
you have some sets with converters and some without.

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

From: Brent Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Our Landlord Has a Charge-a-Phone
Date: 2 Apr 91 00:35:40 GMT
Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation; San Jose, CA


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

> There is a diner in Los Angeles (the name escapes me) that has a phone
> at every table. They are "genuine Bell" phones and each is connected
> to CO dial tone. These are, in effect, Charge-a-Calls. You can place
> 800, 10XXX, 950, 0+ (goes AT&T), but not local calls (except as 0+).

> [Moderator's Note: On I-55 from here to St. Louis all the food/gasoline
> stops along the way have a similar arrangement. At each booth in the
> restaurant, a wall-phone is hooked to a one-way outgoing line. All
> calls from the phone must be zero-plussed or 10xxx zero-plussed with
> billing on a collect, third number or telco credit card basis.  PAT]

If you look at the customers at these joints, you'll probably see a
relatively large number of long-haul independent truckers.  These
phones are commonly found at restaurants along Interstate highways.
The drivers use them for such things as arranging delivery details of
their current loads, lining up future loads, and simply calling home.
I believe that many of them will allow incoming calls, on the
assumption that if the driver is sitting there waiting for a call
back, he's likely to order something to eat or drink while he waits.


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

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

From: Dan Boehlke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lorain Products Co. and More on Telephone Power Plants
Date: 31 Mar 91 01:03:39 -0600
Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota


In article <[e-mail]>, kitty![e-mail]
(Larry Lippman) writes:

>     A truly scary experience is to move a piece of old RH or RHW
> rubber-insulated power feeder cable, watch both the outer insulation
> and the rubber flake into dust, and see exposed conductor within a
> fraction of an inch of grounded metal!  I could never understand
> why WECo continued to use potentially unstable rubber-insulated
> power cable for almost forty years after far superior plastic
> insulation was available following World War II.

It is my understanding that good real rubber products resist acid
better than even most of today's plastics.  Acid resistance would be
very important arround batteries.


Dan Boehlke                    Internet:  [e-mail]
Campus Network Manager         BITNET:    [e-mail]
Gustavus Adolphus College
St. Peter, MN 56082 USA        Phone:     [phone]

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

Subject: Re: Computerized Phone Callers
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 1 Apr 91 13:01:47 EST (Mon)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> They would have to establish that the calls where made from your
> phone.  This would require them to subpoena the Phone Company's
> records.

Nope.  Most 800 numbers get itemized billing, so your calls show up as
line items on the bill.

> They then have to prove material damages.

Nope. Most places in the U.S. using the phone to harrass someone is
against the law whether or not the victim loses money thereby.

I'm no fonder of annoying phone pitches than anyone else, but using
your computer to annoy them back is a bad idea.

Personally, I find the most effective thing to do to them is to put
them on hold indefinitely.

Regards,

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

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

Subject: Re: Is There a Selective Ringing Blocker?
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 1 Apr 91 19:49:35 GMT


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

> 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.

Why would this happen?  If this is true, why does the box separate the
calls into two outputs?

 From the Hello Direct catalog:

"Our Ring Director automatically connects each call to the phone
or device associated with that phone number."

> 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?

Sure!  Its EASY!  Just install the device ahead of everything, just
like the instructions for these units always show.  The only way you
could ever hear the calls to your fax machine is if you left a
telephone wired to the incoming line BEFORE it reaches this device.

This is why there is a "normal" output ... that is the one you
hook your telephone to, and it only rings when someone dials
your "normal" phone number.


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

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

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 91 13:16:44 PST
From: "John R. Covert  01-Apr-1991 1615" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information needed on 2500 DM Set


> The M was added when modular hardware was installed.

Not so.  The "M" indicates that A-lead control is provided.
Internally, the set is wired so that the switchhook, when lifted,
makes a contact closure between the Black and Yellow wires, in order
to provide control if the station has an appearance on a key system.


/john

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

From: Rolf Meier <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on Selective Ringing
Date: 1 Apr 91 18:01:54 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

> 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
>

 From REA form 522, Part III:

single frequency:  20 Hz

decimonic:  20 Hz
        30 Hz
        40 Hz
        50 Hz

harmonic:  16 2/3 Hz
       25 Hz
       33 1/3 Hz
       50 Hz
       66 2/3 Hz [actually I added this one since it is sometimes used]

sychronomic:  20 Hz
          30 Hz
          42 Hz
          54 Hz

Another interesting spec is that the voltage increases as frequency
increases, and the generator must be capable of up to 140 Vrms on the
higher frequencies!

Hope this helps.


Rolf Meier    Mitel Corporation

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Apr  1 13:48:21 CST 1991
Subject: Re: New AT&T Digital Answering Machine


Chris Petrilli discussed AT&T's new digital answering machine.
Actually, it's not that terribly new, since they were in the stores
back in November of '90.  I was seriously considering purchasing one
(and at our employee discount the price was great :-) ); however, the
big drawback for me was that the outgoing message is limited to a
maximum one minute in length; and, with the type of business I run out
of home, I occasionally must leave outgoing messages of greater than
one minute.

All in all, though, I was impressed with the machine: remote
programmability (even with rotary or pulse phones), voice prompts,
time and date stamps, LED message indicator, personal memo feature,
auto disconnect (of machine) when picking up any extension, etc.
Another tidbit: the machine is tapeless; it uses two digital chips to
do its job -- and no, it's not a computerized voice.  You can record
your own messages. Like Chris said, it's thin: about seven inches
tall, one inch thick, and six inches wide and stands vertically.


Randy Borow    AT&T Communications     Rolling Meadows, IL.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Apr  1 15:04:32 CST 1991
Subject: Re: Telephone Number > Address Service Needed in Houston


Raymond Jender asked what the Houston 713 CNA Number is. Bad news,
Ray. That number is one where you need an authorization code in order
to obtain information. Unlike Illinois Bell's CNA number here in
Chicagoland, the Houston number is not available to the general
public.


Randy Borow             AT&T Communications     Rolling Meadow, IL.

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Hearings in California
Date: 1 Apr 91 10:09:55 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


In article <[e-mail]> Robert_Swenson.OSBU_North@
xerox.com writes:

> Also planned is a per-call blocking feature which requires a three
> digit code before placing each call.

It's already implemented.  Dial *67 from almost any Pacific Bell
ESS-served line and you will hear a confirmation tone followed by dial
tone.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 91 17:50:31 -0800
From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Digest Gets Forged Message!


The article with ID [e-mail] says its from me, but
it's not.  Please post something immediately so that I don't get any
replies.


Ron   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note:  Here it is. Sorry about that, and I wonder who
would have been so nasty to us?  Its kind of a stupid thing to do,
considering the non-controversial nature of the message.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 91 12:10 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Information Needed on Internet <=> Sprintnet Gateway


Could someone please post the instructions on the gateway between
Sprintnet and the Internet.


Joseph Tucker

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

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 91 09:48:43 CST
From: Christopher Owens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Can't Wait For Caller ID to Start in Chicago!


In comp.dcom.telecom [e-mail] writes:

> 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.

So, what's wrong with the solution of allowing blocking, but allowing
your line to be set up to reject calls that originate with CLID
blocked?  Seems like that would please everybody.

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

From: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Conversion of TV Transmission Standards
Reply-To: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1991 14:10:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>  kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.
co.jp![e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 251, Message 1 of 11

> [e-mail] (morten steffensen) writes:

>> My question: Does there exist 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?

> There are international VCR's that do what you want.  The Akihabara in
> Tokyo is lousy with them, as they are a big hit with tourists.  These
> VCRs can play PAL, SECAM and NTSC VHS tapes, and also have tuners that
> can pick up all the formats.  They have an internal converter and, I
> THINK, can drive a PAL, SECAM or NTSC tv or monitor.

Most of these units are VCR's that produce a PAL signal from PAL
tapes and an NTSC signal from NTSC tapes.  Changing from one scan rate
to another is very, very difficult (anyone remember the Eidekoscope
with the three storage CRTs?), but building equipment designed to use
either one isn't all that hard.  International VCR's will probably
work only with international TV sets.  You might be able to get your
NTSC TV to synch up on a european TV signal, although you probably
won't get the sound carrier and the color won't be there.

Oh, there are shops in NYC that do sell multistandard TVs and VCRs.


Scott

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

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 91 07:52 EST
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Archives and FTP (was: Delivery Complaints)


Would it be worthwhile to note that back issues are available by
FTP from lcs.mit.edu?


Pete


[Moderator's Note: Good point.  And when you have used anonymous ftp
to login to lcs.mit.,edu, you will need to then 'cd telecom-archives'
to get into our section.  Feel free to help yourself!    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #263
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05731;
          3 Apr 91 12:41 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad02297;
          2 Apr 91 12:07 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32285;
          2 Apr 91 1:18 CST
Date:     Tue, 2 Apr 91 1:18:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #264
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 2 Apr 91 01:05:44 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 264

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    End of the [Party] Line [AP wire via Bill Berbenich]
    Party Lines, ANI and ESS [Larry Lippman]
    Calling Party ID on Two Party Lines [David Lesher]
    Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones [Julian Macassey]
    Slam Your Friends! [Michael Ho]
    Re: Telecommunications: The Transmission of Information [Carol Springs]
    The "Sweep" Tone [Fred Ennis]
    Party Line Service on our Exchange Thirty Years Ago [Fred Ennis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bill Berbenich <[e-mail]>
Subject: End of the [Party] Line
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 20:49:24 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I read this story off the AP wire and was reminded of the days, not so
long ago in 1982 and '83, that I had a party line in rural Maine.  I
felt like I was reliving a little bit of early Americana by having a
party line in the Eighties.  As I recall, it was either have a party
line or wait a few months and pay an extremely high installation fee
to get a private line.  Anyway, I hope you all enjoy this story as
much as I did.


By JANET L. CAPPIELLO
 Associated Press Writer

   WOODBURY, Conn. (AP) -- In the bucolic towns of western
Connecticut, where farmhouses and antiques shops dot the rolling
hills, about 100 people are hanging onto a piece of the past: the
telephone party line.

   But as the Woodbury Telephone Co. starts to upgrade its equipment
this spring, the holdouts will all be switched to private lines,
forced into the age of computerized telecommunications.

   Woodbury Telephone, itself a relic from the days of small,
independent phone companies, has received permission from state
regulators to replace the last of its two- and four-party lines with
private lines.

   Southern New England Telephone Co., which serves 1.5 million
customers to Woodbury's 16,000 customers, eliminated its last party
line in January.

   Around the nation, the number of party lines has been steadily
decreasing but one study in 1987 by the United States Telephone
Association said there were still 2.8 million people on party lines.
In 1985, there were 4.6 million party lines, it said.

   Although the party line is going the way of hand-cranked
telephones, J. Garry Mitchell, Woodbury Telephone's president, sees no
reason to mourn. He calls party lines old-fashioned, and has been
trying to abolish them for two decades.

   "Party lines (are) nothing to be proud of," Mitchell said.

   Party lines were popular from 1910 until the early 1960s, he said.
Customers share a phone wire but have separate telephone numbers.

   Even the people with party lines, mostly older customers, say
they've put up with the occasional inconvenience of finding someone
else already on the line more for economy than out of a sense of
nostalgia.

   In 1961, Woodbury Telephone charged $6 a month for a two-party
line, $4.95 for a four-party line, and $7.25 for a private line.
Today, those costs haven't risen more than 50 cents per month.

   Robert Keating, a 61-year-old Woodbury architect who grew up with a
party line, says he has one now because it's the cheapest way to have
separate telephone numbers for his home and the business he operates
out of his house.

   Still, having party lines is "sort of nice, in a way," he said. "It
sort of keeps the town rural, if you want to call it that."

   Telephone lore has it that party lines were a great source of
gossip for busybodies bold enough to eavesdrop on their neighbor's
conversations.

   Norma Bennett, 72, a retired Woodbury operator, remembers the story
about two women who were chatting on their party lines while a third
listened in.

   "One said, `I wonder when the mailman is coming?' And the one who
was listening in answered, `Soon, because he just went by here."'

   Party lines were once standard telephone fare because there wasn't
enough equipment to provide private lines, Mitchell said. Some party
lines accommodated up to ten customers, usually all in one
neighborhood.

   Woodbury Telephone has provided telephone service in the towns of
Woodbury, Southbury and Bethlehem and parts of Roxbury and Oxford
since 1899. SNET serves the rest of the state, except for a small
corner served by New York Telephone.

   Woodbury Telephone is being allowed to eliminate the service now
because of a $1.8 million equipment upgrade, Mitchell said.
Eliminating party lines also became imperative because of computerized
911-emergency response systems.

   When a caller dials 911, the caller's address appears on a computer
screen at the dispatch center. With party lines, there's a risk that
the address could be that of the other customer, Mitchell said.

   Freida Gauthier, 78, who has had a party line "ever since I had the
phone ...  over 40 years," says she's willing to pay a little extra
for the sense of security she will get having the emergency 911
service.

   "I live alone," she said.

   She too has kept the party line because the service is less
expensive, and she rarely uses her telephone. She talks fondly of the
days when people got much of their news through party lines.

   "Other people would listen in to what was going on. That was fun,"
she said.  She quickly added that she had never eavesdropped herself.


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

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

Subject: Party Lines, ANI and ESS
Date: 2 Apr 91 00:15:36 EST (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> While I have not dug too deeply into this aspect, one advantage of at
> least the two party Bell method was ANI. While the trick with the
> tapped ringer coil added some noise, it DID allow the CO to figure if
> Mr. Tip or Ms. Ring was calling Fargo without a "numberpleeze."
> The isolators, such as a 28A or a 425A, are gas tubes. They don't
> conduct until a LARGE (~90v) dc voltage is impressed on the line.
> Ringing is on top of that. Thus, during talking, no unbalance thru the
> ringer coil, and less noise. But, if you have a 28A or other of the
> myriad items Ma mentions (11A's, 687B's, 425&6A tubes, 426N diodes and
> D180036 isolators, to name a few) can you ALSO have ANI, and if so,
> HOW?

    ANI party detection based upon a balanced ground was only used
with two party lines which had fully selective ringing.  Four party
and eight party lines were always assigned a class of service for ONI
if the originating CO were equipped with ANI.

> Here's a mix of old and new: Can you have party line selective
> ringing on ESS's?

    ESS always had the technical support for two party, four party
and eight party lines.  However, contemporary with new ESS
installation was usually an effort to upgrade outside cable plant to
minimize or even eliminate party lines.  No operating telephone
company really wants to maintain party lines.  This was also
accompanied by a tariff change filing and notification of affected
party line subscribers that they *had* to change to private line
service.

    In some cases where a state public utility commission would
not permit total elimination of party line tariffs, the telephone
company would bill a "recalcitrant" subscriber at a lower rate for two
party service, but in fact give them the equivalent of a private line.
To make this "legal" for accounting purposes, the subscriber in
question was often assigned the "ring party" on a hypothetical two
party line.  For practical purposes, the ring party on a two party
line is no different from that of a regular subscriber with a private
line.


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: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Party ID on Two Party Lines
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 91 21:05:15 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


John Higdon asks how party identification works on two party lines.
Dave Levenson explains...

> This is why, years after most of us could walk into almost any
> appliance store and buy a telephone set equipped with a modular jack
> and take it home and plug it in, subscribers on party lines are denied
> this right.

Err,

Ma didn't always do this correctly. A technician (who worked on a
project of mine at a past agency) bought his party-line 500 set from
Ohio Bell. He wanted to install some more sets. You guessed it - he
was ring party! We wired the other 500 sets to also provide the ground
through the ringer.

I never *did* figure out how Ma was so confused that She could provide
party line service, charge for party line service, and yet not KNOW it
when they offered to sell him the phone!  Yet when he called them
about it, they pitched him about getting private line service. ;_]

By the way, Lou was one of the hold-outs I mentioned. He had been the
ONLY party on the pair for several years, and had NO intention of
giving in, when I last talked to him.

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Take Issue With Moderator Buying Radio Shack Phones
Date: 1 Apr 91 06:59:08 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> contact![e-mail]
(Nigel Allen) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 243, Message 7 of 14

> 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.

    There are a couple of reasons to add weight to today's modern
electronic phones:

1.    Give the handset enough weight so it can activate the
hookswitch.  The alternative to this is to use cheezy microswitches
instead of decent solid multicontact switches. Yes, this is one thing
that distinguishes garbage phones.

2.    Give the base some weight so the damn thing doesn't keep being
yanked off the desk and dropping to the floor.

    Cheezy, crummy, sleezy, phones that are supposed to handle
today's telecommunications needs are also often lighter because they
use thin wall plastic that cracks and bends easily. A good phone (and
that includes Northern telecom) is made from thick wall ABS such as
Monsanto Cycolac T grade. This stuff is hard to break or flex.

    Modern handsets, even if they are using decent G3 style
handsets, often are lighter because they have an electret element
rather than a carbon T1 type element. Old style phones also had metal
bases and gong ringers with iron and brass in them. These weighed more
than phones with Ceramic resonator disc warble units.

    I have always considered TIE phones to be excellant examples
of cheap, nasty, crummy, cheezy phones with nasty plastic, nasty
little hook switches and armies of dweebs in polyester suits peddling
them door to door. They managed to move telecommunications back five
decades by selling phone systems that blew fuses when Tip and Ring
were shorted.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: Slam Your Friends!
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 21:44:02 GMT


In <[e-mail]> acf5![e-mail]
(jonathan white) writes:

[MCI's account information line]

> [Moderator's Note: I just now tried the above number, and not only
> does the automated system discuss 'your' existing MCI account and
> balance, it also allows you to convert 'your' line to MCI One Plus
> service if desired. So, I converted several of you to MCI as your
> primary carrier while I was there. :)  ha ha!    PAT]

Waitjustaminnitbuster.  Are you saying that by calling this number,
someone can arbitrarily cause 'his or her' (read: ANY) line to be
slammed?

Time to call the phone company and see if we can get slam protection
here.  (Is 'slam' an 'official' word, or did c.d.telecom just adopt it
as an apt description?)

(Or was I swallowed up in a Moderator joke?  Hmmm...)


Michael Ho, University of Nebraska    Internet: [e-mail]
Disclaimer:  Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be
         applied to any university agency.


[Moderator's Note: No, it was not a joke. Well, the part about
converting you over to MCI was, but not the part about being able to
do it. One of the menu choices given was 'to set up your phone with
one plus dialing' ... and I am sure they did not mean with AT&T as the
default carrier!    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 91 13:05:28 EST
From: Carol Springs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecommunications: The Transmission of Information
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


In Volume 11, Issue 245, Donald E. Kimberlin highly recommends the
following new book which he received through his book club:

>            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 called the McGraw-Hill bookstore at corporate headquarters this
morning to order this book.  I just received a voice mail message from
the bookstore saying that the book shows up as not having been
published yet, and that the warehouse doesn't know exactly when it
will be available.  So don't be surprised if the book isn't in
bookstores and libraries yet and if your efforts to get a store or
library to order a copy are unsuccessful at first.  The general public
may have to wait a few weeks longer for the book.

The woman from the McGraw-Hill bookstore recommended that I try my
order again at a later time.  I shall do so.


Carol Springs     [e-mail]

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

Subject: The "Sweep" Tone
From: Fred Ennis <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 91 00:07:25 EST
Organization: AFI Communications - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


Scott Marshall recently gave a "sweep" number that he wrongly thought
would provide a "sweep" of the line for bugs or taps.

The "sweep" at that number is a sweep of frequencies, which you either
monitor on a scope or with a meter to check the frequency responsoe of
the line.

Since a search for bugs or taps on a line is also called a "sweep" we
can see how the "urban legend" got started.

Bottom line is that it's nearly impossible to detect a properly
installed legal wiretap.

The best you can do is just try to confuse whoever might be listening
in (grin).

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

Subject: Party Line Service on our Exchange Thirty Years Ago
From: Fred Ennis <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 91 00:07:25 EST
Organization: AFI Communications - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


Someone was asking about the use of eight party lines when the telco
only had four ringer options (tip +/- ground and ring +/- to ground).

Back when I was growing up in the 50's and early 60's we had Nxx-5911
in our exchange.  Dialing any last digit would still ring our phone,
with 5912 giving two rings, 5913 giving three rings, I think 5914 gave
us four rings and 5915 gave a long and a short.  They were repeated at
5916 thru 5910.

This is pure conjecture here now, but I'd assume Bell could run ten
parties on such a system, because there could be five distinctive
rings on tip to ground and another five on ring to ground.

And, from our "That's not a bug, that's a feature!" department, I used
to give out 5913 to my friends, so mother and dad always knew if the
phone was for me.  I now find it funny that telco marketing folks have
rediscovered this concept and are now selling it as "distinctive
ringing"!

Plus ca change, c'est plus la meme chose!


F.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #264
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12162;
          4 Apr 91 19:18 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21603;
          4 Apr 91 2:28 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27044;
          4 Apr 91 1:23 CST
Date:     Thu, 4 Apr 91 1:09:47 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #265
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 4 Apr 91 01:09:29 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 265

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Delays, Backlogs, etc. [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Request For Cellular Phone Service Manuals [Carl Wright]
    Re: New AT&T Digital Answering Machine [Mark Rolfs]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Carl Wright]
    Re: Can Someone Please Help us in SO-Cal GTE-Land [Carl Wright]
    Re: Halogen Lamp Interfering With Cordless [Martin McCormick]
    Re: Halogen Lamp Interfering With Cordless [Nils Arbeitstein]
    Re: New AT&T Digital Answering Machine [Jamie Cox]
    Re: Caller ID RS-232 Interface Needed [Gilbert Amine]
    Re: Bell of PA's Guardian Service [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Sprint's Billing and Service [Christopher Lott]
    Re: Sprint's Billing and Service - A Pleasure For Me [Pankaj Mayor]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 Apr 91 0:03:54 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Delays, Backlogs, etc.


As many of you know, this past weekend there was a major problem on
portions of the Internet with a network server which caused a great
deal of mail (including a dozen or more issues of the Digest) to go
undelivered; get bounced back to the sender; or get delivered in some
random and unpredictable order.

In the case of this Digest, there were numerous instances of duplicate
and triplicate copies of issues; in many instances missing issues; and
in general a lot of havoc including out of numerical order delivery.

I've been spending literally *hours* here the past couple of days
responding to requests for missing issues, answering complaints of
'did you get my article; why did I not get a reciept; why has it not
been published, etc' ...

Because I physically cannot work 24 hours per day -- or even several
hours per day on a regular basis -- on the Digest, and because there
has been a huge flow of stuff arriving in the past few days which was
clogged up in the system over the weekend, I had to take a rather
drastic action: most articles received in the past few days have been
returned to the sender with a request that they be held at least a
week or so, and only submitted if they remain relevant at that time.

Quite honestly, in the nearly three years I have been involved in the
production of this Digest, I have **never** seen a backlog as I have
experienced the past three days!  You will note there were no Digests
at all on Wednesday ... I spent several hours handling administrative
mail.  So, if you sent an article here anytime since last Sunday and
got it back with a form letter saying 'thanks, but no thanks', do not
take it personally ... about 95 percent of the other correspondents
got the same thing ... and at that, I still have enough here to fill a
couple issues today!  In all, about 100 messages were returned unused.

Again, PLEASE read all replies before you write your own. If the topic
is covered (or saturated is more like it), then DO NOT send anything.

Do not send your article here and to an unmoderated telecom (or other)
newsgroup at the same time. One person did that Monday and I am still
getting copies of his two line, totally irrelevant message. 237 copies
have arrived so far. You MUST write to this group by mail. You cannot
post messages direct.


PAT

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Request For Cellular Phone Service Manuals
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1991 03:38:59 GMT


Brandon Allbery asks for information on cellular phone service.

He and other readers may be interested in books from the Cellular
Bookstore (tm). They offer the <Product Operation Handbook> with info
on 150 phones. Also of interest will be the <Program Handbook> which
provides programming information on over 200 models of cellular
phones.

Both are available for $149 from:

Bishop & Assoc.
1018 164th St. S.E.
Suite A-24
Mill Creek, WA 98012
206-485-0572


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

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

From: Mark Rolfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New AT&T Digital Answering Machine
Date: 3 Apr 91 18:23:51 GMT
Organization: HP Fort Collins, Co.


Randy Borow writes:

> All in all, though, I was impressed with the machine: remote
> programmability (even with rotary or pulse phones), voice prompts,
> time and date stamps, LED message indicator, personal memo feature,
> auto disconnect (of machine) when picking up any extension, etc.
> Another tidbit: the machine is tapeless; it uses two digital chips to
> do its job -- and no, it's not a computerized voice.  You can record
> your own messages. Like Chris said, it's thin: about seven inches
> tall, one inch thick, and six inches wide and stands vertically.

Either some of your information is in error or there is more than one
AT&T digital answering machine available.  I bought one recently and
am reasonably pleased with it but it does not have voice prompts,
time-date stamp, or remote programming via a rotary phone.  It does
have the rest of the features you mentioned and has a total message
capacity of about seven minutes, according to the documentation.


Mark Rolfs

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1991 04:17:19 GMT


In response to Moderator's assertion that alternate phone directory
companies are a bunch of cheating copy-cats, I must disagree.

Our local alternate pays 45 cents per name to obtain the names from
Michigan Bell to prepare their book. They used to pay two cents per
name less than ten years ago. They didn't actually tell me how long
ago it was, but the young lady I spoke to couldn't have been working
longer than that.

The practice of including "ringers" in compiled lists is common in
compilations of information, but the practice doesn't mean that people
actually steal the information frequently.


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

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can Someone Please Help us in SO-Cal GTE-Land
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1991 04:34:11 GMT


Notwithstanding John Higdon's certainty that you will get your problem
reports marked "resolved" with no actual solution, report them on the
phone and then report them in writing.

If John ends up being right, call the CPUC (California Public
Utilities Commission) and also write them. The information is below.

CPUC President - G. Mitchell Wilk 415-557-2444
Commissioners are:
  Norman Shumway 415-557-1407
  Patricia Eckert 415-557-3700
  John B. Ohanian 415-557-2440
  Danel Fessler 916-752-2896
Division of Ratepayer Advocates
  John Leutza 415-557-1272
Commission Advisory & Compliance Division
  S. Robert Weissman 415-557-2558

The address is:
CPUC
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-557-0647


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, 1 Apr 91 16:42:07 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Halogen Lamp Interfering With Cordless


The interference to the cordless phone from the halogen lamp is a
perfect example of an irritating problem which began to show up about
25 years or so ago when silicone control rectifiers, (SCR's) and
triacs, (double SCR's), began to be used as control devices in
everything from power tools to light dimmers.  These marvelous devices
have made it possible to build light dimmers and motor speed
controllers which are a fraction of the size and cost of older
rheostat based controls.

The problem is that they do this voltage control by turning on once
each AC cycle in the case of SCR's and once each half-cycle in the
case of triacs.  Any time current is rapidly switched into a
conductor, electromagnetic energy is produced.  When the halogen lamp
is dimmed, the control lead of the SCR or triac is being fed with an
AC signal with sufficient phase shift to turn the SCR on just as the
AC sine wave is nearing the zero point.  The SCR turns itself off when
zero is reached and won't come on again until about the same point in
the next cycle.  The result is that the bulb is fed with short
saw-tooth pulses rather than a sine wave of lower voltage.  The upshot
of this involved description is that modern solid-state lighting and
motor controls can generate stupendous electromagnetic interference in
the low-frequency radio spectrum.  The best defense is a good AC line
filter between the lamp and the power outlet.  The problem may be in
finding a filter which can handle the wattage of the lamp without
cooking.

Finally, try this little test.  If you are lucky, no one will see you
do this and think your crazy, but it demonstrates what I just told
you.  If the room is very quiet, put your ear near the lamp bulb and
very slowly, turn the brightness control up.  If the control is a
full-range control, the bulb may barely start to glow.  At the same
time, your interference should start and you should also hear a faint
buzzing or ringing sound from the bulb.  This is the electromagnetic
shock of that saw-toothed wave form.  Now turn up the light and you
will probably hear the noise vanish or soften.  This is because the
wave form is more like a sine wave.  Don't burn your ear on the bulb
while doing your research.


Martin McCormick   WB5AGZ   Oklahoma State University
Computer Center   Data Communications Group   Stillwater, OK

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

From: Nils Arbeitstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Halogen Lamp Interfering With Cordless
Date: 1 Apr 91 02:23:41 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic


This story sounds familiar to me. Try and shield the transformer,
which usually is located within the stand of the halogen light. Don't
forget to not just put some metal around it, but also to connect it to
ground. That ought to do the trick.


[e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: New AT&T Digital Answering Machine
Date: 3 Apr 91 00:54:24 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jamie Cox)
Organization: Harris Govt. Aerospace Systems Division


The new machine is the "Digital Answering System 1337".  I saw one the
other day at the AT&T store.  My brochure states that it has seven
minutes of "total recording time".  It has an LED which shows the
number of messages received.  It looks very different from any other
answering machine I've seen, but I don't know how well it works.

One nice thing about a digital machine is that you can go directly to
a specific message without waiting for intervening messages to go by.


Jamie Cox  [e-mail]  | Phone:           [phone] (work)
Harris Government Aerospace Systems,|                  1 407 723 7935 (home)
MS 19/4827, P.O. Box 94000,         | "Speaking only for myself."
Melbourne, Florida  USA

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

Date: Wed,  3 Apr 91 17:51 GMT
From: Rochelle Communications <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID RS-232 Interface Needed


In an article which appeared in the TELECOM DIGEST V11 #249 on March
29th, 1991, George Sipe writes:

> I'm interested in Caller ID for my home, but would want an
> RS-232 interface to it... Can anybody give me any pointers?
> ANY RS-232 Caller ID interface would be of interest since I've
> found none so far.

There are two products on the market which provide a Caller ID/RS-232
interface.

The first product is ANI-232, available from Rochelle Communications
of Austin, Tex (800-542-8808). It provides Caller ID decoding
(compatible with both US and Canadian formats), ring detection, and
on-hook/off-hook indication (for call timing, and to keep track of
unanswered calls). The ANI-232 is available now and sells for $85. It
comes with a free demonstration software which displays the Caller ID
data on an IBM PC. A Developer's Package is also available for serious
developers/VARs. Rochelle has also developed a PC-based Caller ID
Telephone Line Simulator for testing and demonstration of Caller ID
products.

The second product is CLASSMATE Model 10, developed by MHE Systems
(Tustin, California), and is distributed by Bell Atlantic Business
Supplies (800-523-0552) for about $50. It is a cost effective solution
for hobbiests and developers who do not need the ring detect and
off-hook detect features. The CLASSMATE is not compatible with the
Canadian and US WEST implementations of Caller ID.


Gilbert Amine    Rochelle Communications, Inc.
[e-mail]     [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 10:41 PST
Subject: Re: Bell of PA's Guardian Service


Phydeaux <[e-mail]> writes:

> .....  I've never had inside wiring problems.  I tried to convince one
> friend of this recently.  She lives in an apartment building and is
> spending $2 each month for "wire maintenance." What a rip-off.

I live in an apartment building.  We have an interesting situation for
inside wiring.  Pairs are multipled through apartments and down to a
phone closet on the side of the building.  There they are cross
connected to the incoming cable on nut and bolt type blocks.  The
entire shebang is locked with a lock that says "Bell System"!  Inside
this locked island of pre-mfj phonedom is one (count 'em) grey modern
demark for my two lines.  I had the telco mount this during my one
inside wire failure.

My inside wire failure was sabotage, or more probably vandalism.
Somebody seemed to have reached into the cabinet (it's open at the
bottom) and pulled down a loop of wire (mine.)

The telco charge to fix this was $60, which was paid (cheerfully) by
the building management.  Thus I have established a precedent that
inside wire maintenance is, at least at 1600 Stokes Street, a building
repair.

Next question: If I want to perform my own connection to the inside
wire, will the telco send a man at no charge to unlock the lock?


edg


[Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago, in one of the very bad
neighborhoods, a situation like yours culminated in one group of
neighbors going after another group with *guns*, each accusing the
other of disrupting phone service while trying to install their own
lines. They had gotten into each other's pair multiples and made a
terrible mess. It turned out one person had paid the janitor in their
building to 'run a wire' for them. He knocked out the others ... just
another of the wonderful aspects of permitting the federal judiciary
to administer the phone system in the USA.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 12:49:29 -0500
From: Christopher Lott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint's Billing and Service
Organization: The University of Maryland Dept of Computer Science


Here's our Sprint billing story - my housemate seems to have several
Sprint accounts, despite his repeated efforts to have them closed
down.  One month they didn't credit our account with one of our checks
and listed that amount on the next month's bill as a balance.

We sent in a copy of the cancelled check, got the credit, forgot about
it.  Then some time later an account statement for one of the old
accounts showed up, with the disputed amount shown as a credit
balance.  Seems that they applied the missing check to one of the
"closed" accounts instead of our active account.

So we asked for a refund check.  Got it some time back.  Hey, they had
their chance.  We don't feel too guilty about it.  Why in heck don't
they close old accounts out, finis, when asked?


Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
  [e-mail] /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg  301 405-2721 <standard disclaimers>

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

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 15:26:38 EST
Subject: Re: Sprint's Billing and Service - A Pleasure For Me
Organization: Syracuse University
From: Pankaj Mayor <[e-mail]>


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

>    BTW, got billed for SOME calls six or seven months after they
> were made and billed for two HOURS on a call I know was under two
> minutes.

Nearly two years ago I made a 55 minute call to India using Sprint's
access code (I had AT&T as my primary carrier then).  I never got
billed for that call.  Thanks US Sprint for a gift of over a hundred
bucks.


Pankaj

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #265
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12217;
          4 Apr 91 19:19 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04725;
          4 Apr 91 4:35 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25274;
          4 Apr 91 3:29 CST
Date:     Thu, 4 Apr 91 2:48:22 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #266
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 4 Apr 91 02:48:11 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 266

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Where Can I Purchase Old Pay Phones? [Phil Collins]
    SouthWestern Bell Testing CLASS Services [Rich Zellich]
    Dublin Number Expansion [Charles Bryant]
    Strange Phone Call [David E. Bernholdt]
    New FCC Modem Tax? [Arun Baheti]
    New CRTC Brochure [Nigel Allen]
    Add Washington State to the 1+10D List [David Barts]
    Raytheon Single Mode Equipment [Rick Battle]
    Modular Adaptor for British Phones [Tad Cook]
    What are Tymnet et al? [Adam Denton]
    Lack of TELECOM Infrastructure Affects Elections in Albania [R. Budd]
    MCI Eliminates Mercury (in TV Advertising) [Earl Hall]
    Telephones in Taverns and Restaurants [Larry Lippman]
    Phoneline Levels, Studio Interfaces in E Europe [Robert Horvitz]
    Research on "Intelligent Nets" in the US [Dr Sabine Thuermel]
    Information Needed on Phoenix Telecom Conditions [Steve Wolfson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Phil Collins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where Can I Purchase Old Pay Phones?
Date: 3 Apr 91 14:06:52 GMT
Organization: Alliant Computer Systems, Littleton, MA


 A few years ago you could buy old pay phones to use in your house or
whatever. Does any one know where I can buy one now at a resonable
price?  Thanks.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 91 9:14:43 CST
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: SouthWestern Bell Testing CLASS Services


 From this morning's {St. Louis Post-Dispatch}:

Columnist Susan Thomson, after a long discussion of how SWB is
providing, through a third party, a pay-your-phone-bill-by-phone
service (for big bucks - $3.95 for each charged phone bill under $50 &
$4.70 for each one between $50 & $100.  Wow! What a "service"! ...
makes me want to run right to my phone and start giving money
away :-(), goes on to discuss ongoing and future trials.

Apparently, SWB has, for the past year, been testing Call Return, Call
Blocker (pre-blocking of specific numbers), Call Cue (auto redial),
Priority Call (special rings on incoming calls, even overriding busy),
Selective Call Forwarding, and Call Trace.  In Joplin, the first four
services are a package within a package; each one $3/month alone, each
add'l one $1.50 to a total of $7.50 for all four.  Call Trace has an
installation fee - $7.50 residential, $14.50 business -and costs $8
for the first call "traced" each month, and $2 for each subsequent
one.  Selective Call Forwarding is $3.30/month alone, or $2 with any
of the other options.

The article says "similar" prices are applicable in Chillicothe and
Kirksville, where SWB is testing a combination of Call Return, Call
Cue, and Call Trace.

SWB plans to offer some form of this "call control" in St. Louis
sometime next year, and eventually throughout it's five-state
territory, but no decision has been made yet on what combination of
options (gee guys, why not just offer _all_ of 'em?) will be offered
where and at what prices.

Caller ID is said to be planned for a startup test next month in
Muscogee, OK.  Someone other than SWB will offer the display units
starting at $30, and SWB's price for the feature will be $6.50
residential and $8.50 business.  SWB says it will offer per-call
blocking free as a matter of course wherever it offers Caller ID (the
article discusses _only_ per call blocking, but actually states just
"will offer blocking free" with no explicit mention of default
blocking).  Block-blocking isn't mentioned, either.

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

From: Charles Bryant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dublin Number Expansion
Organization: Datacode Communications Ltd, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 91 15:10:01 GMT


With our bills Telecom Eireann customers have got a leaflet giving the
first stages of the 01 area number expansion plan. Last year the first
stage expanded numbers starting with 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 70 and 79
adding a 6 on the front. This put Dublin in the unusual position of
having numbers both six and seven digits long in the same calling area
(does anywhere else have variable length local numbers?).

 From April 8th all numbers starting with 69, 8 will have a 2 added to
make them 269 XXXX and 28X XXXX. By 1994 all numbers will have been
changed to start with 2, 4, 6 or 8. By experiment, I verified that the
2 is currently optional.

It makes me wonder why British Telecom split London from 01 into 071
and 081. Why not just add a digit? And if eight digit numbers are too
long, why not split into 017 and 018 leaving more room for expansion.
Or even split 01 DXX XXXX into ten areas 01D DXX XXXX removing the
need for the tables to convert old number to new area.


Charles Bryant ([e-mail])

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

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Strange Phone Calls
Date: 3 Apr 91 15:34:54 GMT
Organization: Quantum Theory Project, Univ. of Florida


I received a rather strange series of phone calls at my home last
night.  I answered the phone and a synthesized female voice says
"Please hold the line, I have a call for this number."

After several seconds of silence, it says "I am trying to connect your
call, please hold." (Or something to that effect.)

This was repeated about four times, then it said "Are you still
holding?"  and I mechanically answered "Yes".  The voice said "I'm
sorry, but I have not been able to connect the call.  I will try again
later," and hangs up.

It called again, perhaps 20 minutes later.  Same drill, except this
time I didn't answer the "Are you still holding?" question.  It said
nothing more, and held the line until I hung up.

The third time it called, I hung up after the first "I am trying to
connect your call ..."  It didn't call back after that.

I've never heard of anything like this before.  Does anybody recognize
what it might be, besides a failure (at least in this case)?


David Bernholdt            [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project        [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611        904/392 6365

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

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1991 11:21 CST
From: Arun Baheti <[e-mail]>
Subject: New FCC Modem Tax?


Does anyone have any up-to-date information on the new tax that is
being considered?


ab

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

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 91 10:53 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: New CRTC Brochure
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto


The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission has
just released a free brochure that explains in simple, non-
bureaucratic language how it regulates telecommunications,
broadcasting and cable television in Canada. The brochure was
developed "as part of the Commission's ongoing efforts to strengthen
its communication with Canadians."

The booklet is  called, "So, what good is the CRTC?".

If you would like to receive a free copy, write to:

 Information Services
 Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
 Ottawa, Ontario
 Canada K1A 0N2
 telephone [phone] (voice)
 fax [phone]
 TDD: [phone]

You can also order a free copy of the CRTC annual report from the same
address.

I would particularly encourage anybody who works for a regulatory
commission to order the booklet, and think about preparing a similar
one for their own agency.

(A word of explanation about the 819 area code: The CRTC is actually
located in Hull and has Hull phone numbers, but like many federal
government offices in Hull, receives its mail through the Ottawa post
office.)

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

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 21:59:00 pst
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Add Washington State to the 1+10D List


> All of the following places have, within the past few
> years, either gone to or announced 1 + 10D  within the NPA:

>     Dallas-Fort Worth, Northern Virginia, Maryland, Toronto, Georgia,
>     North Carolina, Alabama, San Antonio, Detroit, Arizona

You can add Western Washington State to the 1+10D list, as US West
announced that permissive dialling would begin sometime around
November in NPA 206.


David Barts  N5JRN    Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA
[e-mail]    ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb

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

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 91 16:19:57 -0500
From: Rick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Raytheon Single Mode Equipment


Does anyone know if Raytheon makes fiber optic single mode equipment.
I have part numbers M90 and RDM428.  Any ideas???

Thanks,

Rick Battle   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Modular Adaptor for British Phones
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 3 Apr 91 23:32:05 GMT


Does anyone know of an adaptor that will plug into a standard RJ11
modular jack and adapt it for a British telephone?

As I recall, British phones do something funny where they break out
the ringer on a separate wire, and there needs to be a capacitor in
the phone outlet in the wall in series with this lead.  So the adaptor
I need would have a male RJ11 plug on one side, then the three wire
connection to the British phone on the other, with the capacitor (I
assume running from the ring side of the line to the third wire on the
British jack) in the adaptor.

Any source for something like this in the USA?


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

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

Date: Wed,  3 Apr 91 16:13:53 EST
From: Adam Denton <[e-mail]>
Subject: What are Tymnet et al?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Middletown, NJ


What are these?  Are they services that provide long-distance data
connections by dialing a local or semi-local number?  How much do they
cost, and how can I find out more about them?

Thanks in advance,


Adam Denton   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Tymnet and Sprintnet (formerly known as Telenet)
are two major public data networks. They employ local dial-up lines to
connect with their networks. Both have numerous local sales offices
for inquiries, etc.  In the case of Telenet, call 1-800-TELENET.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 01 Apr 91 21:40:39 EST
From: KLUB000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lack of TELECOM Infrastructure Affects Elections in Albania


The lack of communication between rural areas of Albania and Tirana
and other major cities played a crucial role in the inability of
opposition parties to bring their message through to all the people.
This was the conclusion drawn from an analysis by the New York Times
and the Associated Press on the first free elections in Albania's
history.  In rural areas, where the Communist Party won representative
seats by landslide margins, what telephones existed, and there were
very few, belonged to privileged Communist families.  Other modern
means of communication, fax machines, computer networks, even
automative transportation was non-existent.

The Democratic Party, the main opposition party, had difficulty
campaigning in many villages, despite being given telephones,
computers, and private automobiles (which are illegal in Albania) by
the Communists because of their inaccessibility due to the mountainous
terrain of the country and a poor road system.  Communists also
continued to control the communications media.  From descriptions of
the country provided in travelogues, much of Albania is still trying
to enter the 19th Century, never mind the 21st.  According to news
reports, the Communists garnered 70% of the total vote despite
overwhelming opposition victories in Tirana, Durres, Shkoder, and
other cities and the turning out of the President, Ramiz Alia, from
his legislative seat.

The point is the impact proliferation of information through telecommun-
ications instruments can have on the development of alternative opinions
and the push to democracy.  However, poor telecommunications infrastruc-
ture can undermine such an effort.


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

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

Date: Sun, 31 Mar 91 03:19:31 PST
From: cdp![e-mail]
Subject: MCI Eliminates Mercury (in TV advertising)


The advertising people have done it again!  First AT&T gave Fiji an
NPA areacode ("Baku Vinaku Beachside").  Now MCI has eliminated
British Telecom's domestic competition.

In a "Friends and Family" television commercial I saw 2 nights ago, a
British-accented woman in the commercial says: "In England, there's
only one phone company.  In America, we get a choice - and a better
hamburger."

(But, can MCI give us decent Fish and Chips?)


Earl Hall     | via PeaceNet:                   | GEnie: ERHALL
Chicago IL    | cdp![e-mail]  | [phone]

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

Subject: Telephones in Taverns and Restaurants
Date: 2 Apr 91 01:09:23 EST (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> There is a diner in Los Angeles (the name escapes me) that has a phone
> at every table. They are "genuine Bell" phones and each is connected
> to CO dial tone. These are, in effect, Charge-a-Calls. You can place
> 800, 10XXX, 950, 0+ (goes AT&T), but not local calls (except as 0+).

> A group of us had dinner there a number of months ago and it was great
> entertainment playing with the phone while waiting for our meals to
> arrive!

    I don't know if they are still in business, but during the
1970's in Hartford, CT there was a tavern called "The Dialtone Lounge"
that had a telephone at every table and booth.  While there was no
outside line access, one could call in orders and call from one table
to another.  Calling from table to table was a great way to initiate
conversations with the opposite sex, and probably accounted for the
popularity of the establishment! :-)


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
VOICE: 716/688-1231       {boulder, rutgers, watmath}!ub!kitty!larry
FAX:   [phone]   [note: ub=acsu.buffalo.edu] uunet!/      \aerion!larry

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

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 00:23:27 pst
From: Robert Horvitz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phoneline Levels, Studio Interfaces in E. Europe


I am writing a pamphlet describing how to build a low-cost, low-power
radio station under conditions prevalent in Central/Eastern Europe.
It will be translated and distributed in those countries.

Many applicants for radio licenses in the post-communist countries are
particularly interested in airing telephone talk shows.  So my
question to TELECOMDigest readers is:

     Do Eastern Europe telephone systems operate at the same
     line levels as in the US?

     Can anyone recommend a particular telephone interface
     unit that combines low cost with the ability to handle
     noisy, unstable phonelines?

Equipment specs and source addresses with phone, fax and telex numbers
will be most appreciated - and included in the pamphlet's listing of
"Sources."

Respond by email, if you wish, or post your comments to the Digest.
Either way, thanks in advance!


Robert Horvitz    1122-1/2 E St. SE    Washington, DC 20003-2232    USA
[e-mail]     ...{apple,pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!antenna

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

From: Dr Sabine Thuermel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Research on "Intelligent Nets" in the US
Date: 2 Apr 91 12:17:00 GMT
Organization: Siemens AG, Munich, W-Germany


We at Siemens, Munich are doing research on intelligent networks. I
would like to get into contact with US universities working in the
same field.  I am grateful for any pointers.


Sabine Thuermel   e-mail: [e-mail]
snail-mail:  Dr. Sabine Thuermel
             ZFE IS SOF22
             Siemens AG
             Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
             8 Muenchen 83
             Germany

phone: [phone]    fax:   [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 10:01:20 CST
From: Steve Wolfson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed on Phoenix Telecom Conditions


I am relocating to the Phoenix Area and would appreciate a quick
synopsis of the local state of telcom, costs customer service etc.
Anyone other than the BOC (U.S. West?) operating in the area.  Also a
comparison the cellular carriers if possible.  If it matters, I expect
to be living around Chandler/Tempe.


Thanks,

Steve Wolfson -- Motorola Inc.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #266
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01938;
          5 Apr 91 7:43 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24751; 5 Apr 91 6:44 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04277;
          5 Apr 91 3:48 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11208;
          5 Apr 91 2:41 CST
Date:     Fri, 5 Apr 91 1:45:22 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #267
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 5 Apr 91 01:45:11 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 267

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Plan: 1+Own-NPA+7D or Just 7D -- Depends Where You Are [A Boardman]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [David Lemson]
    Re: Taking an Agressive Stance With Harassing Callers [Larry Riba]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Daniel R. Guilderson]
    Re: End of the [Party] Line [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Caller ID Hearings in California [Bob Yazz]
    Re: Strange Phone Calls [Tad Cook]
    Re: Sprint Outage in CA Last Week [Jim Maurer]
    Re: Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security [David Smallberg]
    Re: MCI Around Town followup [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Re: Calling Cards With No Surcharge [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 91 17:09:37 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The Plan: 1+Own-NPA+7D or Just 7D -- Depends on Where You Are


> The Washington, DC, area has the best plan: 7D is local within your
> own NPA (whether that be 202, 703, or 301); 10D is local to one of the
> other two NPAs; and 1 + 10D is toll, either within your own NPA or to
> one of the other NPAs.  1 + 10D is accepted for local calls to other
> NPAs, and the call gets routed and billed the same as if you had
> dialed just 10D.

This will never be possible in at least one place -- the 516 NPA is
within the LATA from the 212 NPA, and a call carried by NY Tel.
Dialing without the 1+, however, would lead to some sort of time-out
scheme to decide whether one was dialing 516 as an NPA, or just the
212-516 exchange in 212.  From 212, incidentally, all out-of-NPA calls
are dialed 1+, and all 0+ calls, even within 212, are dialed 0+212+7d.
Talk about a full NPA ...


Andrew Boardman   [e-mail]

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1991 23:23:33 GMT


[e-mail] (David Cornutt) writes:

> group about the use of cellular phones from aircraft.  Can anyone
> answer:

> (1) what effects this could have on the cellular phone net?

We've been through this before.  The bottom line, from several
authoritative sources that I'm told, is: In rural areas where cells
are likely to be fairly spread apart, the impact on the cellular
network is likely to be minimal.  It might be even "ok".  (If you can
even get a tower!! The antennas that cell phones use, including on the
site towers, have almost zero coverage straight up, where you are!)
In metro areas, such as if you were in a heli over Manhattan, it would
WREAK HAVOC, as it keeps bouncing you from channel to channel trying
to only receive you at one site, which it receives you at several
sites at once!  This is discounting the fact that you might hear
others' conversations.

As for FCC rules, it appears that there are no regulations that
disallow this, but it is REALLY not a good idea.  Cell phones were
made for people to be travelling relatively slowly.


David Lemson    U of Illinois Computing Services Student Consultant
Internet : [e-mail] UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson

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

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1991 23:12 MST
From: LARRY RIBA <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Taking an Agressive Stance With Harassing Callers


In <[e-mail]>, Randy Borow ([e-mail].
com) writes:

> 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!)

Would it have mattered less to you if the calls were being made by a
20-year-old female?  Are you suggesting that older gay people are
more likely to harass others via the telephone?  Perhaps the moral of
your story is that it doesn't pay to socialize with those of a
"different persuasion."

I fail to see how these ageist and homophobic comments relate to the
harassing calls.


Larry Riba  |  University of Colorado at Boulder  |  Boulder, CO  80309-0530
  Internet  :  [e-mail]         |  voice   [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I did not interpret his 'guy was 50-ish' remark as
what you term ageist. I took it to mean he thought the guy should have
been a bit more mature -- at his age -- than to seek pleasure from
playing games with his telephone. I think he was saying he fully
expected to find a much younger person responsible.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 30 Mar 91 19:08:00 EST
From: "Daniel R. Guilderson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable


> PAT writes:

> [Moderator's Note: [stuff deleted]
> If *I* had anything to do with telco directory compilation and
> distribution, my response to the Supreme Court would be to abolish
> phone directories entirely. That would wipe out the leeches in the
> directory-publishing industry overnight and prevent any futher
> theft of my work, whether the Supreme Court liked it or not.  PAT]

That would be a counterproductive response for a company which was in
the business of pleasing its customers.  Publishing a directory
probably doesn't cost the phone company a whole lot relative to the
entire business.  Since it is great public relations and great
advertising, it would be prudent to keep producing and distributing
them.  Another thing to consider is that the cost of compiling and
checking the directory information is probably miniscule compared to
the cost of manufacturing and distributing the directories.

My last thought on this is that the competing directory publishers
have to get the information somehow.  I would think that it would be
easier and cheaper to buy the information directly from the phone
company, probably in electronic form.  I say this because of all the
different white page directories I have ever seen, I have never seen
one that wasn't reformatted to fit in more advertising.  With that in
mind, I would imagine that the cost of buying the electronic info
would be small compared to the cost of working with a hardcopy or the
cost of scanning in the information.

By the way, the framers of the US Constitution never intended
copyrights to protect personal information.  They were intended to
protect creative works.  Trying to apply a limited law to a more
general case will most likely be disastrous.


Daniel Guilderson   UMass Boston, Harbor Campus,
Dorchester, MA  USA    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You say it would be 'easier and cheaper' to get the
informaiton by paying telco -- but the court ruling we are discussing
said the competitors no longer have to pay telco the first nickle.
They are free to take the information, period. Telco cannot forbid
them to rip off the information in the directory, nor can they force
them to pay for it. You say 'telco is in the business of pleasing its
customers' ... but what about the alternate directory people? Are they
trying to please anyone, or just make a fast buck show up even faster?
Since they no longer have to pay telco for the directory listings (for
to force them to pay if they were unable to do so would be denying
them what the court said they could have with no strings attached),
how many of those companies do you think will actually volunteer to
pay anything?  Do you have money you wish to give away to telco?  If I
was in telco's place, I'd suspend directory publishing at least for
two or three years and let the lucky benefactors of the Court's Wisdom
wind up bankrupt and out of business, *then* start publishing
directories again.  PAT]

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: End of the [Party] Line
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 91 20:52:24 GMT


TELECOM Digest vol 11 issue 264 msg 1 reprinted an AP wire service
story submitted by Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
about the end of party line service in Woodbury, Connecticut.

I enjoyed the story, but would like to make a couple of technical
comments. I wish there were a way to get them back to Ms Cappiello of
AP.

> By JANET L. CAPPIELLO,  Associated Press Writer
 ...
>   Woodbury Telephone is being allowed to eliminate the service now
> because of a $1.8 million equipment upgrade, Mitchell said.
> Eliminating party lines also became imperative because of computerized
> 911-emergency response systems.

>   When a caller dials 911, the caller's address appears on a computer
> screen at the dispatch center. With party lines, there's a risk that
> the address could be that of the other customer, Mitchell said.

This does not ring true to me. If the switch software can provide ANI
for billing, I would expect it to provide ANI for E911 witout
problems.  It disturbs me when businesses deliberately tell lies to
regulatory agencies. (It also disturbs me that we set up regulatory
agencies that aren't technically competent to see through such fibs).
While this particular obfuscation is relatively harmless, I bet that
if the company fibs about harmless things they probably lie through
their teeth about facts that have a material impact on the
ratesetting.


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

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Hearings in California
Date: 4 Apr 91 07:25:17 GMT


Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]> writes:

> Dial *67 from almost any Pacific Bell ESS-served line and you will
> hear a confirmation tone followed by dial tone.

On my DMS-100 line in San Diego, I get a CPC disconnect and the
DMS-100 "catch-all" recording -- "We're sorry, your call did not go
thru".  A couple of times the equipment got confused and required 30
seconds on-hook to be able to provide dialtone again.

Could be because I'm on DMS-100 or because I'm in San Diego and the
CLID trials are planned for LA and SF.


Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]

Payphone ripoff problems?  Californians call Pac Bell at 800/352-2201,
M-F, 8-5.  From elsewhere try the FCC's enforcement division at
202/632-7553.

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

Subject: Re: Strange Phone Calls
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 4 Apr 91 23:19:22 GMT


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

> I received a rather strange series of phone calls at my home last
> night.  I answered the phone and a synthesized female voice says
> "Please hold the line, I have a call for this number."

> After several seconds of silence, it says "I am trying to connect your
> call, please hold." (Or something to that effect.)

> I've never heard of anything like this before.  Does anybody recognize
> what it might be, besides a failure (at least in this case)?

This is an automatic dialing system used by phone solicitors.  The
idea is to increase the productivity of phone solicitors by having a
machine call people and que them up for the next available solicitor
 ... kind of like when you call the airline, and get a recording saying
"ALL OUR AGENTS ARE BUSY NOW...PLEASE HOLD FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE
AGENT"... only in reverse.

These things are supposed to be set up for minimum or no waiting
time, based upon statistics and a large number of agents.


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: Sprint Outage in CA Last Week
Date: Wed Apr  3 16:58:01 1991
From: [e-mail]


In vol. 11, issue 261 Steve Elias <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The newsfolk did make some comment indicating that those who had put
> the fiber down may not have gotten the appropriate permissions from
> the track owners, however.  As an aside, there was a similar
> controversy (but no train wreck or fiber cut) in Framingham, MA about
> a year ago.

Sprint did have permissions to put the fiber alongside that track.
When they put the fiber in they had to shut that line down and ran
work trains to haul equipment and supplies.  They did the same thing
when MCI put the fiber along the track from San Jose to San Francisco,
only since that line is double track they only shut down one track.

Many railroads are now getting large sums of money for letting the
phone companies put in fiber along their right-of-way, and as we've
seen in this wreck and the wreck in Cajon Pass a couple of years ago
(which also had an oil pipeline rupture) show that these fibers can be
disrupted.  Both this wreck and the one in Cajon Pass were on the
Southern Pacific, a large "ICC Class One" railroad, imagine what could
happen on some of the smaller short lines with low quality trackwork.
Maybe the long distrance carriers should have redundant fiber on a
different routing?  (Like also along the Union Pacific from San Jose
to Oakland.)  That way one wreck won't disrupt the long distance
network.


Jim Maurer   Specialix Inc.    [e-mail]

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

From: David Smallberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Says NO to Increased Account Security
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 91 20:55:44 GMT


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


> I just spoke to Gena Fulmer at the above number [ 1-800-347-8988 ].  She
> admits to having heard quite a few complaints, and indicated that they would
> likely be acted on.

Maybe Rochelle Richter and Gena Fulmer don't talk to each other.  I
just got off the phone with Ms. Richter.  Here's the history of the
system: a survey of customers showed that people would love automated
access to the kinds of information that they had previously had to ask
a human operator for.  Originally, a caller would give his Sprint
account number to access the system.  This was a pain for many people,
and *lots* of complaints were received; things were changed so that
your phone number is accepted instead.  Sprint examined the Privacy
Act, and does not disclose things that the Act prohibits (call
details, customer name or address).  They do, of course, give the
total amount of your bill.

Her claim is that the cost of the programming change to require a PIN
is not yet justified by the number of complaints.  There is some
consideration of flagging a number to disallow automatic billing info
access.  It's a numbers game -- oodles of people like the system,
whereas I'm only the 19th person to have called her (she's keeping a
list, to let us know if things change).

I gave her the "boss suspects you're looking for another job" and
"jealous boyfriend suspects you're doing a lot of calling to that guy
you met from far away" scenarios.  I didn't think she felt that these
were problems, given that no one's complained that it's happened to
them.  One thing she said was "Well, you can't have perfect security
 -- someone who really wants the information could probably find some
way to get it."

Oh, and since the number is that of Sprint's executive offices, I
would imagine that those of you who've been having serious billing
problems could direct your complaints there (You probably already
have).


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

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

Date: 2-APR-1991 22:12:31.46
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Around Town followup


In response to a recent query, the ITT "Longer Distance"
service-questions 800 number *was* 1 800 221 4064 (ages ago, when they
sent me my ITT LD card).  Hope that's still valid.


Fred        <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 91 13:43:00 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Cards With No Surcharge


Cable & Wireless also has a calling card that has no surcharge.  They
have 950 access in many areas, and 800 access for the rest.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #267
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10643;
          6 Apr 91 14:31 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28764;
          6 Apr 91 12:58 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29085;
          6 Apr 91 11:52 CST
Date:     Sat, 6 Apr 91 11:11:33 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #268
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 6 Apr 91 11:11:14 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 268

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Loop Checker Lines and the Human Imagination [Larry Lippman]
    411 Will Now Connect Call Direct [Stephen Fleming]
    First Day of CLID in Delaware [Ken Weaverling]
    10xxx Dialing From Hotels == Potential Fraud? [Ed Greenberg]
    A New Low for Western Union [[e-mail]]
    Directory Assistance "Quotas" (was: Supreme Court: White Pages) [R Bowles]
    Info on Motorola "Ultra Classic" Cell Phone Needed [Phydeaux]
    Voice Actuated Phone Systems [John Boteler]
    Can I Convert a Single Line Cordless to Multi Line Use? [Daniel Wynalda]
    Seeking Comparisons on Cellular Equipment and Systems [[e-mail]]
    Information About Digital Switching Software [SheshaPrasad G. Kris]
    56kbps Alternatives? [Mark McWiggins]
    Latest on Text-to-Speech Processing? [R. Steve Walker]
    Converting PCM to ADPCM [Quinn Jensen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Loop Checker Lines and the Human Imagination
Date: 2 Apr 91 11:04:04 EST (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> Who needs to buy one of these things? There are numbers you can call,
> that are supposed to show you if your line is been tapped.

    Oh, right.  Like 1-800-FIND-BUG or 1-900-FIND-TAP. :-)

> They call it a sweep. It is an alternating pitch supposedly; and
> is meant to stay high pitched if your line is being bugged and
> alternate if not.  For example, call this sweep: 214-357-8686

    I think someone has been watching too many James Bond movies.

    While I had a pretty good suspicion as to what the above
number actually is, I called it to make certain.  It sounds to me like
a 24B Loop Checker circuit.

    These "sweep tone" lines, which exist in many, but by no means
all central offices, are used by installers to make a rapid assessment
of the transmission quality of subscriber loops.  Dialing the number
associated with the test line connects it to a loop checker generator
circuit which places a continuously repeating sweep tone on the line.
The sweep time period is usually 15 to 20 seconds.  In the field, an
installer uses a simple audio frequency level meter with a specially
calibrated scale (it usually has red and green colored regions for
"go" and "no-go").  The installer watches the meter while listening to
the sweep tone; if the needle states in the green, then the loop
transmission quality is usually "okay".

    The above system is usually called a "Loop Checker".  From a
transmission measurement standpoint, it provides rather imprecise
information.  However, it is a quick and dirty measurement method
which requires inexpensive field equipment and does not require much
training on the part of the installer for use.

    It is important to realize that the amplitude of such loop
checker generator lines is NOT CONSTANT over the swept frequency
range.  Therefore, this line is of no value for serious transmission
measurements.  The expected amplitude variation is taken into
consideration on the level meter indicator scale.

    Needless to say, loop checker test lines have *NO* utility in
the detection and location of eavesdropping devices on a telephone
line.

> [Moderator's Note: Where did you get your information from, Scott?

    The human imagination has no bounds, eh? :-)


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: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: 411 Will Now Connect Call Direct
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 08:36:56 PST


Just called local information (411) in northern Virginia.  Got a new
recording: "You may be connected to this number for an additional
charge of 30 cents.  The number is: xxx"

Nice.  Very nice.  Especially when I'm in my car trying to juggle
pencil and paper.  Should get some use.  (Disclaimer: for all I know,
NT invented this service, but *I've* never encountered it before!)


Stephen Fleming            | Internet: [e-mail] |
Director, Strategic 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.    |

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

From: Ken Weaverling <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1991 12:48:21 EST
Subject: First Day of CLID in Delaware


Caller*ID started Monday (1 April 91) in Delaware. I called Diamond
State last week to order it, and was told that they couldn't take
orders for it until the first day that they were authorized to offer
it.

So, I spent all morning trying to call Customer Service today and all
I got was an engaged signal. Finally, around lunch time, I got through
to an automated message that put me on hold for 10 minutes for the
first available operator.

I've had to wait until April 3 it to be installed on my line. :-(  I
just HATE having to wait to play with my new toys!

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 10:57 PST
Subject: 10xxx Dialing From Hotels == Potential Fraud??


Bull Puckey!

> There is a diner in Los Angeles (the name escapes me) that has a phone
> at every table. They are "genuine Bell" phones and each is connected
> to CO dial tone. These are, in effect, Charge-a-Calls. You can place
> 800, 10XXX, 950, 0+ (goes AT&T), but not local calls (except as 0+).

Some have said that permitting 10xxx+0 dialing could result in fraud,
since the perpetrator, oops, I mean customer, might request a call to
be completed by the operator and billed to the calling number (as in
"I'm having trouble dialing, could you please call... ")

Why not offer dial-8 access to Charge-A-Call lines?  Why not?  Because
it wouldn't be possible to rape the customer that way.


edg

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: A New Low for Western Union
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 91 11:52:00 GMT


As if things there weren't bad enough, I see that Western Union is trying to
change its corporate name to "New Valley".


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

From: Richard Bowles <[e-mail]>
Subject: Directory Assistance "Quotas" (was: Supreme Court: White Pages)
Date: 5 Apr 91 00:12:22 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218


I don't know about Boston, but once-upon-a-time I worked for the DA
vendor for Pacbell in California -- and probably half of the software
involved gathering huge amounts of statistics regarding DA operator
performance.  The items included how long per call, per key-stroke,
number of keystrokes per call, number of listings retrieved per
call ... and many more.

The key issue is that the DA operator was PAID based on his or her
performance on a number of the criteria, so you can rest assured they
are at least tempted to be less than cooperative on potentially long
or complicated calls.

While I didn't have a lot of contact with the actual operators (I was
a programmer), what I saw and heard made it sound like one of the
worst, most demeaning, and high-pressure jobs available.  These people
were monitored constantly, handled calls at an unbelievable rate
without any pauses, and even had put up a little sign when they needed
to go the bathroom.

DISCLAIMER:

My knowledge is over five years old and a bit fuzzy.  Opinions are just
that and mine.  This has NOTHING to do with my present employer.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 09:50:57 PST
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info on Motorola "Ultra Classic" Cell Phone Needed


I just got the above mentioned phone.  I'm looking for a way to outfit
it with an RJ-11 jack.  When you remove the battery there are some
contacts that are obviously there for something (the battery
connections are at the other end so they are not for power).  Does
anyone know what they are?  I know there are some vendors out there
who make attatchments for some of these phones.  An address or
telephone number would be helpful.

Also, one functions on the phone is "CYCLE BATT" which I assume has
something to do with the Ni-Cad batteries.  There's nothing in the
documentation about this.  Anyone have an idea what this function is?


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

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

Subject: Voice Actuated Phone Systems
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 9:06:54 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


Barton F. Bruce typed:

> Wouldn't it be nice to simply speak into the phone and say 'my friend
> Tony Jones's third office line please', and from the random pay phone be
> voice recognised as you and thereby indicating which Tony Jones is
> being refered to.

Come on, we had this in the early part of this century.

She was called "Central".

She even provided Caller*ID!


John Boteler   bote@csense                {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote
SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling

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

Subject: Can I Convert a Single Line Cordless to Multi Line Use?
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 91 10:16:42 EST
From: Daniel Wynalda <[e-mail]>


Although I'm not a bad systems analyst, I wouldn't consider myself any
kind of electrical engineer.  I can, however operate a soldering gun.

Here's my problem:

I have a single line cordless phone that I want to work on several
phone lines.  Ideally, this is what I'd like to do:

After a flash (hangup) on the phone, I'd like a box that will listen
for a tone from the keypad on the phone.  This tone will select the
phone line that I wish to be connected to.  This box doesn't seem like
it would be that hard to build, and I'm surprised that no one else has
done this and marketed it.

Is there anyone out there who's attempted a project like this?  It is
not that important that the phone actually ring when calls come in on
any of these lines.  I just want to be able to pick up line 3 when I
hear a page for "Line 3".  Without walking a half-mile.

I would think a tone decoder wired to three relays could do the logic
for three lines -- just press 1 to flip relay 1 on (thus forcing 2 and
3 off).  This would work for all three lines.  My main question in the
design would be how to DISCONNECT the phone from the phone lines on
flash (hangup) but still supply voltage to the phone to decode the
tones.  I suppose I could monitor the phone line for voltage change
when returned to hook.  This could disconnect the phone from the lines
 -- but what voltage should I feed the phone so the decoder can watch
for a tone?  After the tone is heard, I'd want the box to drop off the
line (or ignore more tones -- because I'll have to dial out
sometimes).

Any suggestions?  Is this a project that is feasible for a
near-beginner or is there someplace I can purchase such a device??  I
have had some basic electrical classes including digital circuits in
college.

Any information is appreciated.


Daniel Wynalda       | [phone] X22 Ham:N8KUD Net:[e-mail]
Wynalda Litho Inc.   | 8221 Graphic Industrial Pk. | Rockford, MI  49341

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

Subject: Seeking Comparisons on Cellular Equipment and Systems
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 91 11:07:00 -0800
From: [e-mail]


I would like to receive comments from readers of this net on the
comparative evaluations of cellular subscriber equipment (i.e.,
handhelds, transportables, mobile transceivers) and systems (i.e.,
cell sites, base stations, switches).  The inquiry extends to products
for both the US and international markets.

The recent messages comparing the Motorola and Fujitsu are a good
start in my search.  I hope the traffic will concentrate on the
relative technical merits of the product lines.  I am not especially
interested in the marketing approaches/restrictions, but I would be
receptive to those comments as well.

I am particularly interested in products of the following manufacturers:

    Motorola    Fujitsu        Oki         Panasonic
    NovAtel        Ericsson/GE    Nokia         NEC
    Mitsubishi    AT&T        Northern Telecom

Comments are solicited on:

Technological advancement (Innovative design, RF sensitivity,
    handoff algorithms, talk time, cell site equipment modularity)
Reliability & Servicability
Human Factors (Packaging, Ease of Use, Voice Quality)
Completeness of the product line
Future product announcements

IN ORDER TO CONSERVE NET BANDWIDTH, please send e-mail to:

        [e-mail]

I will maintain a file of all messages received, if others are
interested in the comments received.

I am encouraged by the helpfulness that I have seen and received from
the readers of this net.  Let me express my appreciation in advance.


Roy Stehle   SRI International

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

From: "SheshaPrasad G. Kris." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted About Digital Switching Software
Organization: Computer Science Department, Oregon State Univ.
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 91 21:54:25 GMT


I am looking for information in Digital switching (Telephone exchange)
software. I have worked as design engineer for 3 years, developing
softawre for Telephone exchanges in India. I am looking for some
organisations or universities which are developing switching software.
I am developing Digital switching software simulation module.  If you
can pass some e-mail addrees it would be great! Please reply by
e-mail.


Thanks,

SheshaPrasad Krishnapura G.             Internet: [e-mail]
Computer Science Department             UUCP    : hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!shesha
Oregon State University, Corvallis,     OR 97331        [phone]

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

From: Mark McWiggins <intek01![e-mail]>
Subject: 56kbps Alternatives?
Organization: Integration Technologies, Inc. (Intek)
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 91 22:43:04 GMT


My prospective employer is using a leased line for 56kbps service
between two remote offices.  I've read the blurb for UUNET's Alternet
service, and I got an e-mail note saying that PSInet offers something
similar.

Presumably either of these is much cheaper than a leased line, but
what would one be giving up by changing from a leased line to Alternet
or PSInet?  Are there any other alternative services that one should
consider?

Thanks in advance for any insight on this.  I'd be especially
interested in hearing from someone who's made this switch.


Mark McWiggins        Integration Technologies, Inc. (Intek)
[phone]        DISCLAIMER:  I could be wrong ...
1400 112th Ave SE #202    Bellevue WA  98004
[e-mail]

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

From: "R. Steve Walker" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Latest on Text-to-Speech Processing?
Date: 5 Apr 91 01:06:58 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


I'd like to know what the latest (or current) technology is for the
Text-to-Speech processing market. What is being used and what are the
latest breakthroughs. I'm familiar with DecTalk, but I'm looking for
equipment that can run on a PC or Mac platform & works w/ a voice mail
system. Thanks for your help!


Richard S. Walker       Georgia Tech Research Institute
GA Tech Box 35302       [e-mail]  (vm)
Atlanta, GA 30332       [e-mail] (vms)
[404] 874-1886[W]       [e-mail] (unix)
[404] 607-0958[H]       [e-mail] (cis)

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

From: Quinn Jensen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Converting PCM to ADPCM
Organization: Sanyo/Icon International, Inc., Orem, Utah
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1991 15:23:08 GMT


I am looking for some routines, hopefully in C, to convert 8-bit
companded PCM samples to ADPCM.  I want to convert the samples in
not-necessarily real time.  If no software is available, I'll probably
attempt myself to impliment a transcoder in fixed-point using C, with
the TI app note as a reference ("32-kbts/s ADPCM with the TMS32010,"
_Digital Signal Processing Applications with the TMS320 Family_, Sect.
17).  The code and documentation found on Dr. Bub for the 56001 should
be helpful as well.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #268
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03138;
          7 Apr 91 1:31 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32269;
          7 Apr 91 0:04 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09766;
          6 Apr 91 22:59 CST
Date:     Sat, 6 Apr 91 22:47:59 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #269
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 6 Apr 91 22:47:39 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 269

Inside This Issue:                         DON'T FORGET! Set Clocks Forward

    Western Electric Power Cable [Larry Lippman]
    Mystery Solved (was: Strange Phone Calls) [David E. Bernholdt]
    International Tariff Expertise Sought [Carl Wright]
    Telemarketing Sleezoids [David Lesher]
    Two Wire vs Four Wire Subscriber Line [Gerald Peppers]
    Multi-Line Ringer Sought [Rod Erickson]
    I Have AT&T, and I Can't Call Home [Christopher Wolf]
    Caller-ID Specifications Needed [David Berman]
    "Hello, I'm Digit Dialing ..." [John Palmer]
    Auto Dialing Deskset? [Gary Delong]
    D-I-Y Slamming [David Barts]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Western Electric Power Cable
Date: 6 Apr 91 00:24:11 EST (Sat)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> >     A truly scary experience is to move a piece of old RH or RHW
> > rubber-insulated power feeder cable, watch both the outer insulation
> > and the rubber flake into dust, and see exposed conductor within a
> > fraction of an inch of grounded metal!  I could never understand
> > why WECo continued to use potentially unstable rubber-insulated
> > power cable for almost forty years after far superior plastic
> > insulation was available following World War II.

> It is my understanding that good real rubber products resist acid
> better than even most of today's plastics.  Acid resistance would be
> very important around batteries.

    Synthetic rubber does have good chemical resistance to acids
in concentrations likely to be found in storage battery electrolytes.
In fact, common telephone industry practice for cable connecting
directly to battery terminals is to use finely stranded welding cable
with "SO"-type rubber insulation.

    However, WECo traditionally used type RH or RHW rubber
insulation for ALL power cabling in gauges ranging from 14 AWG to 750
MCM.  Chemical resistance to acids was not really an issue once
outside of the battery room.

    As a somewhat interesting aside, WECo 750 MCM power cable had
"non-traditional" uses.  A sixteen inch length (which weighs about
three pounds) makes an excellent "attitude adjustment tool" for
telephone company personnel who have to work in crime-ridden urban
areas.  I once saw its effectiveness in deterring a car theft in the
parking lot of a New Jersey Bell central office in Newark.  The power
cable section also had the advantage of not being an unlawful weapon.
After all, it's an engineering sample, right? :-)


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: "David E. Bernholdt" <bernhold@red8>
Subject: Mystery Solved (was: Strange Phone Calls)
Date: 5 Apr 91 16:25:48 GMT
Organization: Quantum Theory Project, Univ. of Florida


In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:

> I received a rather strange series of phone calls at my home last
> night.  I answered the phone and a synthesized female voice says
> "Please hold the line, I have a call for this number."

After a couple more of these calls the next day, I finally found out
what it was.  A call arrived at roughly the interval it had been
retrying at from the holder of my student loan -- the Illinois Student
Assistance Commission.  After discussing the matter of my continued
student deferrment, I asked if they used such a computerized system as
had been bugging me.  They do.

The system is called Voicelink, and is produced by a company of the
same name in Seattle, WA.  A computer dials the phone number in
question and listens for an answer.  If an answering machine answers
(recognized by a long speech, I imagine), it leaves a computerized
message saying that the ISAC is trying to reach you and will call
back.  If a human answers it connects you immediately to a human to
take the call (this transfer was unnoticable to me).  The place I got
caught is that there were no humans available to take the call, so the
computer tried for a little while to find one, then apologized and
hung up.  All in all, there are a bunch of humans takining a bunch of
automatically dialed calls at the same time.

The obvious utility of this system for the _caller_ is that human time
is expended only in talking to a human.  Several people who responded
to my original posting say that this is also being used in
telemarketing.  Someone mentioned that you can also employ a human to
dial the numbers and connect in the computer if there are (legal)
problems with computer-dialed calls. (Boy, what a job!)

The person managing VoiceLink for the ISAC said that her Visa company
uses such a system as well.  She said she appreciates it.  Apparently
she only gets calls when she's away, so there is a message on the
answering machine.  She claimed that situations like mine, where no
human was available to take the call were quite rare (though it
happened to me five times in two days).  I suggested that the computer
should identify the call as being from the ISAC in such situations,
and she promised that she would talk to the vendor to see if it could
be done.

She reacted quite calmly when I said that I would hang up on future
calls which didn't identify the caller -- her only concern was to be
sure that I _would_ speak to a human if everything worked as it was
intended to.

Of course now that I know who the caller (probably) is when it happens
again, things are somewhat less bothersome.  I must say that it was
rather disconcerting, having never met such a system before -- and
everyone has to have a first experience with it _sometime_.


David Bernholdt            [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project        [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611        904/392 6365

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Tariff Expertise Sought
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1991 18:07:54 GMT


I am seeking individuals who can discuss how the revenues from
international calls are distributed and determined. Any names are
appreciated. Anywhere in the world.


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

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketing Sleezoids
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 19:48:47 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


We got hit by the {Miami Herald's} Telesleeze dialer yesterday.
Seeing as we just got DID with about one hundred incoming numbers, it
was a royal pain. I immediately asked the name of the man in charge of
this verbal whorehouse. He actually accepted my call. (Gee - working
for the people I do has SOME advantages ;_) I demanded he remove our
entire trunk group from his machine. Time will tell if he does or not.

But the real reason I write today was his claim that newspapers are
immune to the law about telesleezi. He said it was a First Amendment
issue. I pointed out that I had reread the First Amendment very
recently, and sure did not see anything about newspaper telemarketing
in it ;-} He backed off, and said it was a Supreme Court decision. I
did believe THAT either, so I checked.  Here's what I found:

Florida Statute section 501.059 allows residential subscribers to get
on a "no sales solicitation calls" listing maintained by the Dept of
Agriculture Division of Consumer Services ($10 first time, $5 yearly
renewal).

Once you're on the list, unsolicited telephone sales calls can not be
made to you except (1) in response to your express request, (2)
primarily in connection with an existing debt or contract, (3) to any
person with whom the solicitor has a prior or existing business
relationship, or (4) by a newspaper publisher or his agent or employee
in connection with his business.

(This from a friend in the state gov't.)

So I guess the newspaper lobbyist got their bonus paid this year.

John Hignon, I suggest that you do NOT move to Florida.


[e-mail]   (305) 255-RTFM

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

From: Gerald Peppers <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Two Wire vs Four Wire Subscriber Line
Date: 5 Apr 91 19:40:19 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I have a question for which I hope that more knowledgable people in
telephony can assist me with!

What is the difference between a two wire subscriber line and a four
wire subscriber line?  That is to say, if I am a cellular switch owner
and don't know a lot about cellular but my management staff does, how
do I go about making an informed decision on the selection of two wire
vs. four wire subscriber lines coming into and out of my switch?

What are the advantages of using two wire subscriber lines coming into
the switch?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of using four
wire subscriber lines?  Is the decision made based on the direction of
the trunk circuits (Inbound , Outbound or Two-Way Trunks)?

Please advise, anyone!

Thank you,


Gerald Peppers

usenet address: !motcid!void!peppers

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 09:46:36 PST
From: "Rod Erickson, x2505" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Multi-Line Ringer Sought


I'm looking for a ringer which can be connected to three or more phone
lines, providing distinctive ringing for each.

One could track down separate ringers which sound sufficiently
different (any pointers on sources? many sound alike), but a single
unit would make for a neater and more compact installation, and its
rings might be more easily distinguished.

Does such a device exist?

P.S. What's the most tidy way to wire up three-line switching in a
residential installation?  Should I buy one of those five-button
switches with a modular plug on one side and a 25-pair plug on the
other?


Roddy Erickson     [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 06 Apr 91 13:23:28 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: I Have AT&T, and I Can't Call Home


Here's the story.  Any help someone could give me would be nice.

My school has this wonderful little thing they started this year.
Instead of phone bills being sent to the room, and quite possibly
having a phone disconnected because one of several roommates didn't
pay, each student has their own 'PIN' number that will work when
calling long distance from any phone ON CAMPUS.  This is the only
place this number will work.

Well ... Before break, I received a phone bill for $4-5.  Being as it
was small, I figured to wait till next month to pay it.  When the next
one came, it had a total of about $30 on it, and ... a warning saying
that since I didn't pay the $5 from before, I'd be disconnected in
several days if I didn't pay up.

Well, I mailed off the check.

Well, now my PIN had been disconnected.  I don't know why.  Funny thing is,
neither does AT&T.  I called and asked what's up.  They put me on
hold for about ten minutes listening to a tape about all this wonderful
AT&T equipment I can't afford, but would make my life oh so much more easier,
and when the gentleman came back, he said he didn't know why the code didn't
work.  He said maybe his information hadn't been updated.

He said I should start contacting people around here.  Campus
telecommunications department.  Local telco address to make sure a
local computer isn't screwed up.  Etc.  I asked him for another number
to contact, but he wouldn't give me one (like someone who would have
up-dated info on me.)

Anyone know something I can do to get this fixed?


Christopher Wolf

P.S. I can't call home but from a pay phone, and that's expensive.

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

From: @comspec.uucp (David Berman)
Subject: Caller*ID Specifications Needed
Organization: Comspec Communications Inc., Toronto Ontario Canada
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 91 13:22:08 GMT


Northern Telecom has had their Maestro phones out a while, I think.
And I also believe that the Caller*ID transmissions from the phone
company are kind of standardized. I think.

Question: Does anyone reading know what is sent out? How the phone
number or alpha information is encoded on the ring cycle? Has it been
done in a reasonable way so that decoding is sensible? (etc) Addresses
the future?

Or: Does anyone know where such information is published for
reference?

Further: Will Toronto (416)'s Caller ID transmissions be compatible
with the ones in the United States, say, in AT&T territory? Or will
they be similar, but different, so that Maestro phones in Atlanta, GA,
won't work in Toronto, even though they have fixed the design flaw down
there?

(I have even more questions, but hope that I will be able to follow
the thread as others ask in response to your answers ...) [thanks]


Dave Berman
436 Perth Av #U-907   [e-mail]   Computer at work
Toronto Ontario       uunet!mnetor!becker!comspec!daveb
Canada M6P 3Y7        416-785-3668         Fax at work

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

From: [e-mail] (John Palmer)
Subject: "Hello, I'm Digit-Dialing ..."
Organization: CAT-TALK Conferencing System, Detroit, MI
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 91 13:51:04 GMT


I was in my car the other day and had my office line forwarded to my
car. Got the following call:

Me: "Hello, <name of company>, can I help you?"

Woman: "Yes, I'm digit-dialing and I was wondering if your company
        has any other numbers in this prefix?"

Me: "What's digit dialing?"

Woman: "I'm dialing all of the numbers that begin with 881-8"

Me: "Why? Why are you doing this?"

Woman: "I'm telemarketing."

I go on to bawl her out for invading my privacy and tying up my
business line. I hand her some line about how that is illegal and that
she better not call me again or I'd call the police. She politly says,
"Thank you. Goodbye"

Hmmmm. Someone wrote a very bad telemarketing script for her. They
actually told her to be *HONEST* about it!!


E-MAIL Address: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 6 Apr 91 16:17:52 EST
From: Gary Delong <[e-mail]>
Subject: Auto Dialing Deskset Needed


At this time I am assisting our local PBS station setup for their
auction by installing the wireing and jacks for almost 50 phones.  Two
of them are going to be in a public area so that people can call into
the auction.

Those two lines have been ordered as toll restricted, however because
they are "business" lines, the PBS station will be billed for ALL
calls.

Does anyone have any ideas how I can reduce the potential for misuse
of these phones? In the past I have encountered telephones (with no
dial) that when picked up dialed a pre-defined number. Any info out
there on where one can obtain a couple of these and what kind of price
I might be looking at?

Or, would some of you close to southern NH be willing to lend us a
couple in exchange for on-air credit?

BTW: Its Channel 11, New Hampshire Public Television.


Gary
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I would suggest you just order a couple of
ring-down lines from telco ... when they go off hook, they
automatically start ringing at the other end, where they terminate in
the ACD (to in turn get passed out to the call-takers on the floor as
available) or on a phone on the desk of one of the call-takers, etc.
That would prevent any calls from those phones at all except calls
coming specifically to you. No need to take chances, and ring-downs
would not be that expensive for a few days connected locally. You see
a lot of phones like this in airports at the car rental and hotel
reservation courtesy stations.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 6 Apr 91 12:18:15 PST
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: D-I-Y Slamming


> [Moderator's Note: No, it was not a joke. Well, the part about
> converting you over to MCI was, but not the part about being able to
> do it. One of the menu choices given was 'to set up your phone with
> one plus dialing' ... and I am sure they did not mean with AT&T as the
> default carrier!    PAT]

So, now I suppose we can all go around our neighborhoods looking for
COCOTS that use sleazy AOS's and do a little 'de-sleazing'!

Nothing like a little neighborhood improvement to make your town
a more pleasant place to live.  :-) :-) :-)


David Barts  N5JRN    Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA
[e-mail]    ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #269
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07639;
          7 Apr 91 4:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22552;
          7 Apr 91 3:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02646;
          7 Apr 91 1:05 CST
Date:     Sun, 7 Apr 91 0:00:51 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #270
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 7 Apr 91 00:00:39 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 270

Inside This Issue:                         DON'T FORGET: Set Clock Forward!

    Re: Dublin Number Expansion [Dik T. Winter]
    Re: Dublin Number Expansion [H. Peter Anvin]
    Re: Dublin Number Expansion [Carl Moore]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Jim Budler]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [W. H. Sohl]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Heath Roberts]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Calling Card With no Surcharge (was: MCI Around Town) [Mark Henderson]
    Re: Caller ID RS-232 Interface Needed [Donovan Wallace]
    Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers (COCOTs Strike Again!) [Mark Anacker]
    Re: Interop 91 Conference Notice [Carl Moore]
    Re: Can I Convert A Single Line Cordless to Multi Line Use? [Doug Faunt]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Dik T. Winter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dublin Number Expansion
Date: 6 Apr 91 12:52:26 GMT
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam


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

 > This put Dublin in the unusual position of
 > having numbers both six and seven digits long in the same calling area
 > (does anywhere else have variable length local numbers?).

Yes, there are very many places where that does occur.  In Amsterdam
it was only a month ago that all six digit numbers were changed to
seven digit numbers.  Many places in Germany and Italy have variable
length numbers.  For instance, in Muenchen numbers vary from four to
eight digits.


dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland   [e-mail]

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

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dublin Number Expansion
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1991 19:49:06 GMT


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

> This put Dublin in the unusual position of
> having numbers both six and seven digits long in the same calling area
> (does anywhere else have variable length local numbers?).

I don't know if you are referring to Ireland, but this is commonplace
in my home country of Sweden.  It is rather a rule than an exception
that there are varying length local numbers, except in four-digit area
codes (due to a nine-digit limit and a five-digit minimum for the
number).

Examples:

Stockholm, 08, has seven-digit numbers if the number starts with 6 or
7, otherwise six digits.

V{ster}s, 021, has six-digit numbers if the number starts with 1 or 3
(City of V{ster}s), otherwise five-digit numbers (surrounding areas).

Actually, 020 (toll free) is the only exeption I am aware of.  All 020
numbers have the maximum possible six digits.  071, pay-per-call (like
U.S.  900) came after I left Sweden; it is likely to work the same
way.

P.S. 08 = +46 8, 021 = +46 21  etc.


hpa = H. Peter Anvin (in case you wondered) * Heja Sverige!
INTERNET:   [e-mail]   FIDONET:  1:115/989.4
HAM RADIO:  N9ITP, SM4TKN             RBBSNET:  8:970/101.4

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 18:12:24 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dublin Number Expansion


I understood the London 071/081 split to be a part of number-length
standardization; apparently, UK city codes are now to start with N
where N is not 0 or 1 (this is ignoring the leading 0 used to call
between UK areas).

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1991 03:55:22 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: You say it would be 'easier and cheaper' to get the
> informaiton by paying telco -- but the court ruling we are discussing
> said the competitors no longer have to pay telco the first nickle.

For what? The white pages? They still have to get the information into
their database: the telco can just give them a phone book and say
"have at it".  Now how much are the *tapes* worth?


[e-mail]

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

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Organization: Silvar-Lisco, Inc.
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1991 04:27:52 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: They are free to take the information, period.

Yes... That's what the court said.

> Telco cannot forbid them to rip off the information in the
> directory, nor can they force them to pay for it. You say 'telco is
> in the business of pleasing its customers'

Yes, and maybe rationality will now set in.

Scenario:

I get a phone from the LEC.

Customer Service: "Do you want your phone listing published?
          It will cost $xx.xx"

Me:    "No."

Customer Service: "OK"

Finally, the customer who wants more will pay more, and the customer
who wants less, will pay less.

Pat, I'm very happy with this decision, because it's very realistic.
The phone numbers, once assigned, belong to the customer, not the
phone company.

At some point as a result of this decision, I will be able to stop
bribing the phone company to keep my phone number private.

Cheers,


Jim Budler      [e-mail]
Silvar-Lisco, Inc.  +1.408.991.6115
703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 00:46:15 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel R.
Guilderson) writes:

> My last thought on this is that the competing directory publishers
> have to get the information somehow.  I would think that it would be
> easier and cheaper to buy the information directly from the phone
> company, probably in electronic form.  I say this because of all the
> different white page directories I have ever seen, I have never seen
> one that wasn't reformatted to fit in more advertising.  With that in
> mind, I would imagine that the cost of buying the electronic info
> would be small compared to the cost of working with a hardcopy or the
> cost of scanning in the information.

  [deleted]

> [Moderator's Note: You say it would be 'easier and cheaper' to get the
> information by paying telco -- but the court ruling we are discussing
> said the competitors no longer have to pay telco the first nickle.
> They are free to take the information, period. Telco cannot forbid
> them to rip off the information in the directory, nor can they force
> them to pay for it. You say 'telco is in the business of pleasing its
> customers' ... but what about the alternate directory people? Are they
> trying to please anyone, or just make a fast buck show up even faster?

> Since they no longer have to pay telco for the directory listings (for
> to force them to pay if they were unable to do so would be denying
> them what the court said they could have with no strings attached),
> how many of those companies do you think will actually volunteer to
> pay anything?  Do you have money you wish to give away to telco?  If I
> was in telco's place, I'd suspend directory publishing at least for
> two or three years and let the lucky benefactors of the Court's Wisdom
> wind up bankrupt and out of business, *then* start publishing
> directories again.  PAT]

  This is unlikely and unproductive for a number of potential reasons:

1.  Attempting to drive a competitor out of business is often frowned
    upon by various regulatory and securities and legal authorities.
    Can you say 'anti-trust' ? This doesn't give the competitor any
    guarantee of existence but unfair business practices are out.

2.  The absence of directories would hurt both consumers and merchants
    and potentially the phone companies themselves (except for DA of
    course, and that might be looked upon badly by the PUC's).

3.  The officers of the phone companies have a fudiciary responsibility
    to maximize profits, not act out of spite.

4.  The issue raised by the poster is that it could be more cost effective
    for the alternative directory publishers to buy the information in an
    already computerized form at a cheaper rate per entry than capturing
    it via human or automated means.

5.  Selling it would become a profit center for the telco's. If you have
    to provide it to outsiders with no protection from copyright, you
    might as well make some money on the deal.


[Moderator's Note: Well then, I would hand them a phone book --
probably one removed from service after a couple months at a pay
station with the cover defaced and half the pages missing and tell
them to have at it ... :)    PAT]

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

From: "24460-W. H. Sohl(L145" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 21:12:45 GMT
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Reply-To: "24460-W. H. Sohl" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


Pat, our Moderator said:

> [Moderator's Note: You say it would be 'easier and cheaper' to get the
> informaiton by paying telco -- but the court ruling we are discussing
> said the competitors no longer have to pay telco the first nickle.
> They are free to take the information, period. Telco cannot forbid
> them to rip off the information in the directory, nor can they force
> them to pay for it.

But, I believe, the court did not say that the telco MUST give away
the directory listings in any readily available electronic form.  The
writer to which Pat responds had pointed out it was probably cheaper
to buy the list than to "retype" or scan an existing hard copy.  I
tend to agree.  Remember, the case on which the Supreme Court rule
stemmed from the refusal of the telco to even consider selling the
data.  The plaintiffs then copied the data from existing directories.
The plaintiffs were apparently willing (and I'd guess would have
prefered) to buy an electronic list.

This is my personal view and not necessarily that 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: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Organization: NCSU CATT Prog
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1991 01:53:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel R.
Guilderson) writes:

   (see earlier messages in this issue)

>[Moderator's Note:   (and likewise, see earlier messages)


I think what the original poster meant was that as long as the
telephone company is willing to sell directory information at a
reasonable price, the third-party vendor is better off buying a
magnetic tape containing white page information from the telco than if
they read/scan the information directly from the phone book
themselves.


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

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

Date: Sat, 6 Apr 91 23:55 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Even if a directory publisher unaffiliated with the local telephone
company is free to reprint listings from the local telephone book,
those listings will still be somewhat out of date compared to those
available in the telephone company's database. The telco directory is
only published once a year, and has a cut-off date some months before
the actual publication date to allow for typesetting, printing,
binding, etc.

So a reputable competitive directory publisher may well want the
actual telco database in order to produce a relatively current book
(and to avoid the expense of re-entering the information from the
printed telco directory).  In general, can competitive directory
publishers get this information for a fee from the telco? (I suspect
that this varies between the states, as I have not seen any references
to U.S. federal policy on competitive directories.)


Nigel Allen   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I don't think telco has to sell them anything
except phone service. I certainly don't think telco would have to sell
them access to their data base or up to the minute mag tapes. I guess
by this new rule telco can't stop them from copying the directory by
hand, however.  PAT]

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

From: "Mark C. Henderson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Card With no Surcharge (was: MCI Around Town)
Date: 6 Apr 91 19:56:24 GMT
Reply-To: "Mark C. Henderson" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Computer Research Laboratory, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton OR


In article <[e-mail]> acf5![e-mail]
(jonathan white) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 258, Message 9 of 11

> [e-mail] (Bill Huttig) writes:

>>    Below is a list of carriers that offer no surcharged calling card
>> calls:

ITT/Metromedia does have a surcharge for access via their 800 number
(1-800-327-9488, I think), so if you happen to be in a part of the
U.S. where 950-0488 doesn't work, you still end up paying a surcharge.


       Mark C. Henderson, Computer Research Laboratory, Tektronix, Inc.
             MS 50-662, P.O. Box 500, Beaverton, OR 97077, U.S.A.
           INTERNET: [e-mail]      MCI MAIL: 378-4996
     Tel: [phone]  Fax: [phone]  TELEX: 6503784996MCI UW

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

From: Donovan Wallace <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID RS-232 Interface Needed
Date: 6 Apr 91 18:16:08 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


There is a company in Austin that has what you're looking for.

They have a product called "Caller ID+Plus". The complete interface is
contained in a DB-25 connector housing (RS-232) and plugs into a
serial port on a PC. They also have application software for the PC.

Here's the info:

Rochelle Communications Inc
8716 N. Mopac, Suite 200
Austin, Texas 78759

Phone: [phone]
Fax:   [phone]

By the way, the interface sells for $85.


Donovan Wallace           Mitel Corp.  Kanata, Ontario  CANADA

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

From: Mark Anacker <dsinet![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers (COCOTs Strike Again!)
Date: 3 Apr 91 17:34:34 GMT
Organization: Digital Systems Intl., Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, dsinet![e-mail]
(Mark Anacker) writes:

> 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

I gotta admit, when I called to complain about the phone, they did
finally send me a refund (a quarter taped to a form).  The carrier of
the COCOT is identified as Interwest Telecom.  They may not know how
to program a phone, but at least they paid up.  I think I'll go use
the GTE phone in that town from now on.


Mark Anacker                ...{!dsinet,!toybox}!marka
Digital Systems International, Inc.    Redmond, WA   USA    [phone]


[Moderator's Note: A COCOT proprietor here in Chicago answered my
complaint one day by sending me a check for 25 cents!.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 10:08:07 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interop 91 Conference Notice


You put an extra digit after area code 415 in the Interop number,
which is apparently 415-949-1779.


[Moderator's Note: Shame on me! This is the second year in a row I
have had a blunder with the Interop press release. I wonder if it is
some kind of psycological hangup ... sorry.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 6 Apr 91 13:57:10 -0800
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can I Convert a Single Line Cordless to Multi Line Use?


The new Radio Electronics (May, 91) has an article on building a
couple of units to use your house telephone system as an intercom,
that could easily be adapted to your function.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #270
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09543;
          7 Apr 91 5:55 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01459;
          7 Apr 91 4:17 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22552;
          7 Apr 91 3:12 CDT
Date:     Sun, 7 Apr 91 1:40:41 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #271
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 7 Apr 91 01:40:34 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 271

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Clocks; Mail Backlog; A Personal Matter [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Our Landlord Has a Charge-a-Phone [Tad Cook]
    Your Remote Access Service is Neoowwwww Ownnnnn [John Boteler]
    What Fire?? Channel 2 Uses Criss-Cross [Jens von der Heide]
    Let's Get This Straight [Lars Aronsson]
    Congress Concerned About Elderly/Telemarketing? [Carl Moore]
    Cryptography Used in Network Security [Paul Dobrovolny]
    Fax Line "Managers" [Tim Stephens]
    Two Wire to In and Out Line Signals [Ashley Salisbury]
    Looking for NON-Statistical Line Multiplexers [Geoff Goodfellow]
    Re: AT&T Digital Answering Machine [Randy Borow]
    Re: Strange Phone Calls [Tom Perrine]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 7 Apr 91 0:34:47 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Clocks; Mail Backlog; A Personal Matter


Sunday, April 7 at 2:00 AM (your local time) marks our semi-annual
tinkering with our clocks in the USA ... and as 'they' say, we spring
ahead and fall behind (one hour each time).  This is the last issue of
the Digest you will see with a CST time stamp for a few months.

Speaking of falling behind, the incoming rush of new mail to telecom
has slowed down a little, and with some dedicated effort on my part
and a few issues of the Digest on Sunday, everything should get
cleared out.  But this experience -- the past several days of *hard*
work and *long* hours to get the Digest out to you has taught me one
thing, or maybe two: Effective immediatly, I can no longer give any
acknowledgement of what is sent other than the auto-ack which goes out
to most of you. I can no longer return mail not used; nor will I be
able to take the time to do a lot of editing work.

You will have to do it.  Save copies of your articles (which you send
here) if you consider them valuable. I've been trying to publish at
least half of what comes in; I receive, on an average, 60-80 items
daily, but this past week there were a couple days with well over 100
items received each day. Combined with last weekend's fiasco, that
created a huge backlog here. I still want to publish as much as
possible -- to present as many wide and divergent viewpoints as I can
within the limits placed on me as a human being who otherwise works
8-10 hours daily at a place of gainful employment, but *something* has
to give!

 From the most prolific of you: please, only one or two items per week
if possible.  You know who I mean. To all of you: Please match up the
subject threads correctly. When you REply, use the header as it
appears in the original. Otherwise, I have to go back to the old
issues and look for the correct matching word.

Try to edit your text and check your spelling. If I must select only a
few of the several *good* articles which arrive daily, I will pick the
ones that:  are short and to the point; require little editing; use a
minimum of quoted text; and are not redundant two weeks after the
fact.  If you get behind reading, that's too bad, but don't send in
REplies to articles which appeared here two or three weeks ago without
reading everything in the thread to make sure your point has not been
made by others since.

The more YOU do to help, the more I can publish here. If the Digest
winds up taking much more of my time than it takes now, then it won't
take any time at all ... I'll close it down out of a desire to
preserve my own sanity.  Enough said.

For next: my father is quite ill. Actually, he has been ill for some
time, and this is his second stay in the VA hospital in two months.
From all indications, he'll be leaving us soon. When that time comes,
I'll be away for a few days -- perhaps a week -- and of necessity will
have to suspend the Digest for the interim.  I'll let you know, and
ask you to hold submissions until I return.


PAT

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Our Landlord Has a Charge-a-Phone
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 91 15:59:22 PST


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

> There is a diner in Los Angeles (the name escapes me) that has a phone
> at every table. They are "genuine Bell" phones and each is connected
> to CO dial tone. These are, in effect, Charge-a-Calls. You can place
> 800, 10XXX, 950, 0+ (goes AT&T), but not local calls (except as 0+).

> A group of us had dinner there a number of months ago and it was great
> entertainment playing with the phone while waiting for our meals to
> arrive!

> [Moderator's Note: On I-55 from here to St. Louis all the food/gasoline
> stops along the way have a similar arrangement. At each booth in the
> restaurant, a wall-phone is hooked to a one-way outgoing line. All
> calls from the phone must be zero-plussed or 10xxx zero-plussed with
> billing on a collect, third number or telco credit card basis.  PAT]

I got a call recently from a guy who had purchased "a box" from a
company in Florida that converted a standard cordless phone into a
coinless private pay phone.  He was planning on installing these in
truck stops, where the weary trucker would request a handset from the
waitress, who would bring it to him, and he would place credit card
calls.  The box allegedly had some credit card billing system where it
would dial up some central AOS location.  My caller was suspicious
because this service was supposed to be provided by the distributor of
the box, but the box seemed to let all calls go through.

I told him that I didn't think this scheme was a good idea.  Anyone
with a VHF scanner could sit outside the truck stop listening to the
46 MHz signal from the base unit, and easily decode the credit card
numbers.


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: Your Remote Access Service is Neoowwwww Ownnnnn
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 23:05:39 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


This CLASS offering in Florida is named 'Remote Access Service'.

It provides a remotely-variable Call*Forwarding service to
subscribers. This allows you to change the destination number to which
your calls will be forwarded from any phone, not just your own.

It uses the same prompts as the rest of the CLASS suite.

Pretty useful to someone on the go.


John Boteler   bote@csense                {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote
SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling


[Moderator's Note: Just today, I bought a Radio Shack "Duofone Call
Forwarding System (CFS-200). The local store had them on sale for $29.95!
This model requires the use of two actual phone lines -- one for
incoming calls; one to dial out -- but it is remotely programmable,
which is a nice feature.  The best part was the $29.95  :)    PAT]

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

From: Jens von der Heide <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Fire?? Channel 2 Uses Criss-Cross
Organization: Motorola Inc. Software Research & Development, Rolling Mdws, IL
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 05:45:08 GMT


    The other day my roomate received a strange call:

"Hi, I'm calling from Channel 2 News.  Could you tell me if you see a
building on fire next door ??  Are there a lot of fire trucks around??
Are you sure??  Could you look out your window ?? Well, OK, bye."

    Needless to say, there was no fire activity around.  Later
that night the mystery was explained.  We recently moved, and, kept
the same phone number.  The apartment next door to our previous
address was on fire.  Apparently, the local news station looked up our
phone in a phone directory that lists numbers by address and probably
wanted to see if the activity was worth covering.

    I don't what eventually happened, except that some former
neighbors are out of an apartment.


[e-mail]        Voice: [phone]
                 UUCP: uunet!motcid!jens

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

From: Lars Aronsson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Let's Get This Straight
Organization: Lysator Computer Club, Linkoping University, Sweden
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1991 16:51:38 GMT


This is a size 6/6 modular plug:

                      |           |
                     ||           |
                     ||   Cord    |
                     ||           |
                    +---------------+
                   /| Strain relief |
                  + |               |
                  | |    P i n s    |
                  | |  6 5 4 3 2 1  |
                  | +---------------+
                  |/               /
                  +----/     /----+
                      +-----+

This is one wiring scheme for an extension cord: 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 4-4,
5-5, 6-6. Let's call it Scheme A.

This is another wiring scheme: 1-6, 2-5, 3-4, 4-3, 5-2, 6-1. Let's
call that Scheme B.

If you're using your cords for telephones, then Scheme A and Scheme B
cords are interchangable. For some other purposes, that might not be
the case.

I would like to call Scheme A cords "straight", since every pin is
connected to a pin with the same number. Scheme B cords I would like
to call "cross-connected". The Swedish subsidary of Inmac agrees with
me.

However, a local vendor uses exactly the opposite terminology, calling
Scheme B cords "straight". The explanation is that when you look at a
jack-to-jack (female-to-female) joint, Scheme A makes the wires
physically cross while Scheme B has physically parallel (straight)
wires.

Scheme A is like shaking hands (right hand to right hand) with a
person. If you face the person, your arms physically cross your
eye-to-eye line (unless one of you is standing on her head!).

(Along the same lines, your right hand is the one where the thumb
points to the left.)

This all makes me so confused. Please tell me who is wrong and who is
right (!). We Europeans are not that familiar yet with modular jacks
and plugs. Is there any standard that defines "straight" and
"cross-connected" in this context? Or do you have a de-facto standard?
Or is there equal confusion on both sides of the Atlantic? Do you even
use the words "straight" and "cross-connected"?


Lars Aronsson, Lysator computer club, Linkoping University, Sweden
     [e-mail]    Voice phone at home [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 9:45:45 EST
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Congress Concerned About Elderly/Telemarketing?


Today, Senator H. John Heinz of Pennsylvania was to have held a
hearing in Philadelphia regarding the elderly.  One of the topics I
heard of was telemarketing scams aimed at the elderly.  I don't have
further detail on this.  (This comes to my attention via KYW
news-radio in Philadelphia; Sen. Heinz was killed yesterday in a
collision between his plane and a helicopter.)

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

Date: Thu, 4 Apr 91 14:08:24 -0500
From: Paul Dobrovolny <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cryptography Used in Network Security


I am researching the use of cryptography for authentication services.
Please pass on any available information concerning practical methods
that have been implemented. Thanks.

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

From: Tim Stephens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fax Line "Managers"
Date: 4 Apr 91 14:41:51 GMT


Does anyone have any experience (other than bad!!) with a
fax-recognition switch?  I hope I am using the correct terminology.
The idea is to be able to use a fax machine and voice on the same
line, seamlessly, thus saving the cost of another line.

Suggestions, product names anyone?


tim stephens   [e-mail]

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

From: Ashley Salisbury <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two Wire to In and Out Line Signals
Reply-To: Ashley Salisbury <[e-mail]>
Organization: City University, London
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 11:25:44 GMT


Does anyone have details of a simple circuit to convert from a
standard two wire telephone current loop circuit to a pair of
connections for signal in and signal out ... hopefully with a
reasonable degree of feed through cancellation ... ie removal of the
injected signal from the signal out from the line. No, I am not
worrying about line protection, or echo cancellation just the
conversion.


Thanks in advance,


Ashley Saulsbury

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

From: Geoff Goodfellow <fernwood![e-mail]>
Subject: Looking for NON-Statistical Line Multiplexers
Organization: Anterior Technology, Menlo Park, CA, USA
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1991 23:50:54 GMT


I'm looking for line (two or four wire) multiplexers, that would allow
me to evenly device a 9600 bps line into to two 4800 bps lines, or a
2400 baud line into two 1200 baud lines.  I recall the good ol' Bell
209A modem used to have this capability.

I CANNOT use Stat-MUX's because its flow control (XON/XOFF/whatever)
would make the line non-transparent to the protocol(s) going over over
it.  I need to lines to appear as if they each had a dedicated circuit
of their own.

Any suggestions for such equipment appreciated.

Thanks,


Geoff Goodfellow    Anterior Technology
415-328-5615   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Apr  4 08:36:16 CST 1991
Subject: Re: AT&T Digital Answering Machine


Yes, Mr. Rolfs, there ARE more than one such digital answering
machines. The newest one has the features I mentioned, since I
throughly looked it over and tried it at the store. You may have to
look around.


Randy Borow    Rolling Meadows, IL.

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

From: Tom Perrine <tots!tots.Logicon.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Phone Calls
Date: 4 Apr 91 20:46:45 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(David E. Bernholdt) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 266, Message 4 of 16

> I received a rather strange series of phone calls at my home last
> night.  I answered the phone and a synthesized female voice says
> "Please hold the line, I have a call for this number."

> After several seconds of silence, it says "I am trying to connect your
> call, please hold." (Or something to that effect.)

> This was repeated about four times, then it said "Are you still
> holding?"  and I mechanically answered "Yes".  The voice said "I'm
> sorry, but I have not been able to connect the call.  I will try again
> later," and hangs up.

> It called again, perhaps 20 minutes later.  Same drill, except this
> time I didn't answer the "Are you still holding?" question.  It said
> nothing more, and held the line until I hung up.

> The third time it called, I hung up after the first "I am trying to
> connect your call ..."  It didn't call back after that.

> I've never heard of anything like this before.  Does anybody recognize
> what it might be, besides a failure (at least in this case)?


I believe this is the latest in boiler-room technology. Instead of the
incredible expense of making a real-live person (at minimum wage, no
less!)  make each and every annoying, unwanted call, they have a
machine make the calls.

This machine sequentially walks the phone-numbers for any set of
prefixes. When it gets an answer, it *then* tries to connect you to a
real (?) sales-thug. It saves the incredibly valuable time of the
sales-thugs, at only a major annoyance to the victim.

In your case, (un?)fortunately, all the sales-thugs were busy annoying
other people.


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]


[Moderator's Note: As he explained it in his message in the last
issue, it turns out the calls were from a collection office somewhere
trying to reach him regarding his student loan.  I think it really
takes a lot of brass for those outfits to use a device like that to
waste *my time* on hold until *they* get someone free to talk to me.
When I've received automated voice calls before, I always just hang
up, and everyone should take that approach, to end this latest phone
nuisance once and for all.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #271
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13312;
          7 Apr 91 7:03 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31145;
          7 Apr 91 5:23 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01459;
          7 Apr 91 4:18 CDT
Date:     Sun, 7 Apr 91 3:20:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #272
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 7 Apr 91 03:20:07 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 272

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: New FCC Modem Tax? [R. Kevin Oberman]
    Re: New FCC Modem Tax? [Robert E. Novak]
    Re: New FCC Modem Tax? [Tad Cook]
    Re: New FCC Modem Tax? [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: New FCC Modem Tax? [Ken Abrams]
    Re: 56kbps Alternatives? [Syd Weinstein]
    Re: 56kbps Alternatives? [Peter da Silva]
    Re: The Plan: 1+Own-NPA+7D or Just 7D -- Depends Where You Are [J. Covert]
    Re: The Plan: 1+Own-NPA+7D or Just 7D -- Depends Where You Are [Carl Moore]
    Re: Request For In-Line Speed Dialer Information [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Some Callers and Answering Machines [Robert E. Zabloudil]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: New FCC Modem Tax?
Date: 4 Apr 91 19:30:19 GMT


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

> Does anyone have any up-to-date information on the new tax that is
> being considered?

This one just won't die. Back a year or so ago the FCC considered an
increase on rates charged for X.25 lines used by Compuserve, Tymenet
and other data carriers. This class of service gets a VERY favorable
rate.

While the proposal was dropped fairly quickly, several news stories
talked about an FCC proposal to raise the rates on phone lines used
for data. Many readers (who wouldn't know about what X.25 was even if
the news story used the term) assumed that this meant modems.

An urban legend was born! Now someone sees some reference to that
proposal and the whole thing starts again. I see lots of postings on a
wide variety of newsgroups about every six months. If you doubt this,
call the FCC. They do have a listed number.


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: "Robert E. Novak" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New FCC Modem Tax?
Date: 4 Apr 91 21:31:51 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, California


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

> Does anyone have any up-to-date information on the new tax that is
> being considered?

I only have negative information.  I tried the FCC Docket Information
section (202-632-7535) and asked for any docket concerning modems.
After about a ten minute wait, they said that thier database search
came up empty.

I then contacted the Common Carrier Office (202-632-6910).  The woman
I spoke to there said that they had nothing concerning modems in any
proposed Common Carrier Tariffs.


Robert E. Novak                   Mail Stop 5-10, MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
{ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!rnovak    950 DeGuigne Drive, Sunnyvale, CA  94086
[e-mail]        ([e-mail])    [phone]

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

From: hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: New FCC Modem Tax?
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 91 15:23:38 PST


No !!!  NOT AGAIN !!!

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

> Does anyone have any up-to-date information on the new tax that is
> being considered?

You're KIDDING, right?  Is this urban computer legend coming back to
haunt us AGAIN?

Well, there never was a modem tax ... but just like with the phoney
rumor that the FCC is about to ban religous broadcasting, the FCC
receives LOTS of mail on it.  Funny thing ... the folks promoting this
rumor can never supply me with and NPRM (Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking) number!


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

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New FCC Modem Tax?
Date: 5 Apr 91 16:04:43 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


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

> Does anyone have any up-to-date information on the new tax that is
> being considered?

That's one of the worst "chain letters" in telecom.  PLEASE IGNORE IT!

To summarize: Around 1987, the Reagan FCC proposed a change in telco
billing practices that would have cost on-line services about $5/hour.
The idea drew huge protest and was dropped under strong congressional
pressure.  The Bush FCC, to the best of my knowledge, disavowed the
whole mess.

The idea keeps popping up because old messages get forwarded and
people don't keep track of the age, and 1987's news loses its date and
looks new.  That's a problem with E-mail; dates can get edited out.


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: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New FCC Modem Tax?
Date: 4 Apr 91 18:10:10 GMT
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


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

> Does anyone have any up-to-date information on the new tax that is
> being considered?

I assume that this YET ANOTHER re-hash of the proposal that died about
four years ago.  At that time, a file was being passed around on all
the major nets.  It usually began something like "I heard this on
radio station WXYZ in Los Angeles yesterday.....".

Things like this seem to NEVER die since the originator didn't put a
date in the file.  Some well meaning user stumbles across the thing
years later and starts passing it around again.  I even saw the Craig
Shergold (cards to a dying boy) story crop up again last month.

A plea to the original poster:

Please provide us a little more detail on the situation you are asking
about.  If it does turn out to be the old story making the rounds
again, please get back to your source and try to stop it.


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


[Moderator's Note: And my thanks to everyone who wrote to debunk this
old UL (Urban Legend) *hopefully* one last time.  No modem tax, no
surcharge, nothing.  Please! Post these messages far and wide, and
help bring a halt to this story.  PAT]

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 56kbps Alternatives?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1991 21:20:52 GMT


Mark McWiggins <intek01![e-mail]> writes:

> My prospective employer is using a leased line for 56kbps service
> between two remote offices.  I've read the blurb for UUNET's Alternet
> service, and I got an e-mail note saying that PSInet offers something
> similar.

> Presumably either of these is much cheaper than a leased line, but
> what would one be giving up by changing from a leased line to Alternet
> or PSInet?

Ok, as a user of a 56KB leased line to connect to PREPnet (our local
NSFnet), I don't understand something here...

If your employer has a 56KB leased line as DDS or DDS-II service
between two offices, what is he running over it?  (What protocol?)  Is
it a proprietary protocol between to multiplexers? an X.25 link?  A
TCP/IP link running SLIP?, TCP/IP running PPP? TCP/IP running
something proprietary for the link?  Straight sync data?

The thing that Alternet and PSInet sell is a TCP/IP long haul service.
You still need a 56KB leased line (or faster) to go from the local
office to the nearest Alternet/PSInet Point of Presence and from the
remote office to its nearset POP.  The only savings I can see is if
the link is long haul (remote offices are far away) and the cost of
the PSI or Alternet is cheaper than the price of the direct 56KB line.

Note, you would need a router at each end of the circuit, and the
delay time would be longer under PSInet or Alternet, as in a private
56kb the delay is just two routers, with the network in place its your
two routers + as many more as they use in making up their network.

Now there is a big gain in connectivity outsite of the two offices,
but just for a private link, its not apples and apples we are
comparing here but apples and oranges.  If you are looking at PSInet,
Alternet, et al, time to also look at all the other long haul data
networks, such as Sprintnet (nee telenet), Tymnet, Compuserve, and
many many others.

Sorry to be so long, but you are opening up an entire new direction
to explore, not just replacing a simple 56kb data circuit.


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

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 56kbps Alternatives?
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1991 06:12:00 GMT


intek01![e-mail] (Mark McWiggins) writes:

> Presumably either of these is much cheaper than a leased line, but
> what would one be giving up by changing from a leased line to Alternet
> or PSInet?

About 46 kilobaud. Dialup service over a V.32 modem at 9600 bps
doesn't begin to keep up with a 56 kb leased line. If you're doing
UUCP, you could get an extra 6-8000 bps with a Trailblazer, but if
you're currently using a 56 kb line you're probably not doing UUCP.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 06:30:22 PST
From: "John R. Covert  05-Apr-1991 0904" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Plan: 1+Own-NPA+7D or Just 7D -- Depends Where You Are


>> The Washington, DC, area has the best plan: 7D is local within your
>> own NPA (whether that be 202, 703, or 301); 10D is local to one of the
>> other two NPAs; and 1 + 10D is toll, either within your own NPA or to
>> one of the other NPAs.  1 + 10D is accepted for local calls to other
>> NPAs, and the call gets routed and billed the same as if you had
>> dialed just 10D.

> This will never be possible in at least one place -- the 516 NPA is
> within the LATA from the 212 NPA, and a call carried by NY Tel.
> Dialing without the 1+, however, would lead to some sort of time-out
> scheme to decide whether one was dialing 516 as an NPA, or just the
> 212-516 exchange in 212.  From 212, incidentally, all out-of-NPA calls
> are dialed 1+, and all 0+ calls, even within 212, are dialed 0+212+7d.
> Talk about a full NPA ...

It is most certainly possible there -- today.  You should have checked
before writing: There is no 212-516 NPA.  Just as in the DC area, New
York has been careful to avoid assigning exchanges that would make
this not work.  You only lose a few exchanges; in DC there are three
that can't be used, and that's it.

BTW, "LATA" has nothing to do with it; the only thing that matters is
"Local Call."  Since nothing in 516 is local to 212 (only to 718), 212
could have a 516 exchange, but they still avoid nearby area codes in
order to prevent confusion.

The requirement that 0+ calls within your own area code must be
dialled 0+10D is in effect not just in 212, but in all the places I
mentioned.  That requirement is necessary as soon as an area code goes
to interchangeable codes.


john

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 10:00:17 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Plan: 1+Own-NPA+7D or Just 7D -- Depends on Where You Are


When it was announced in this Digest that 215 area (which includes
Philadelphia) was going to 7D (this refers to intra-NPA long
distance), there was also a note that 412, which includes Pittsburgh,
already has such calling instructions (but 412 has no N0X/N1X that I
know of).  215 not only is near NJ, it's right next door to it!
(There are local calls between 215 and NJ, at Trenton and some points
further north.)

Since when has it become necessary to consider bringing N0X/N1X to
Massachusetts?  The 617/508 split was done only 3 years ago without
N0X/N1X being in use.

Yes, I know that many calling instructions will have to change later
to accommodate areacodes being generalized from N0X/N1X to NXX.  How
soon would this begin happening (i.e. change calling instructions for
this reason, NOT because that particular area is running short of
NNX)?  And once areacodes become NXX, would the rule still be NOT to
use N0X/N1X prefixes unless NNX prefixes started running out?

For those who haven't noticed: If your area has changed its calling
instructions to accommodate N0X/N1X prefixes, it should already be
able to accommodate NXX area codes, not just N0X/N1X area codes.

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 08:05 EST
From: Macy Hallock <fmsys![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Request For In-Line Speed Dialer Information
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


[e-mail] (Joe Konstan) writes:

> I remember reading about some of the Demon Dialers of yesteryear and I
> was wondering what is still available today.

These are commonly available used now.  Seems as though a lot of them
were installed behind 1A2 systems that have now beem removed from
service.

Several brokers list them for $10-20 each.  Be sure you get the power
transformer with it.  You might also want replacement priviledges ...
Demon Dialers could be damaged by lightning comparatively easily in
many cases.

I just had two older ones I've had for years zapped.  Guess I should
take my own advice and put high speed solid state protection on my
phone lines ... even three element gas tubes don't always cut it.

For a listing of used equipment brokers, your best source is "Telecom
Gear" listings.  Last time I checked, you could still call
1-800-LIBRARY and get put on the list if you acted like a telecom
equipment seller/user.  (This is the number for Telecom Library ... and
the publishers of Teleconnect, LAN, Inbound/Outbound magazines and
other items of interest)

(Be sure to ask them to send you a book list, too, when you call ...
Harry and Jerry stock some decent titles ... and those guys are fun at
a party, too.)

Anybody have any used Mitel Smart One dialers they'd like to sell cheap?


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

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

From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Callers and Answering Machines
Date: 5 Apr 91 20:33:29 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 227, Message 8 of 13

> 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

My answering machine is sort of rinky dink (fixed length OGM, and as a
holdover from my radio days, I hate dead air, so I filled the
w-h-o-l-e OGM tape), and I tell 'em "we don't really like answering
machines ourselves, but we didn't have any choice right now, we had to
put it on, so...".

One day, someone who thought it was urgent called and hung up, called
and hung up, over and over, and filled up the whole tape while we were
out of town for the day.  She's fairly intelligent; you'd think she
would know that we would either pick up the phone and talk to her if
we were just monitoring calls (not paranoid, just can't always get
there quickly to pick it up, you know), or we would call her back as
soon as we could, or maybe we were being antisocial (after the eighth
hangup, a different adjective comes to mind).

Like you, I wonder sometimes ... I might call back a second time, if I
thought they'd forgotten me ... by the time we got back that evening
and called her, she was not home, and talking to other people we found
they had handled the situation anyway.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #272
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28444;
          7 Apr 91 16:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13916;
          7 Apr 91 14:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28918;
          7 Apr 91 13:25 CDT
Date:     Sun, 7 Apr 91 12:48:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #273
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 7 Apr 91 12:48:01 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 273

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Info Wanted on B_ISDN [Rodney Van Luinen]
    Re: Research on "Intelligent Nets" in the US [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: MCI Around Town followup [Brian Crawford]
    Re: End of the [Party] Line [Tom Coradeschi]
    Re: Caller ID Hearings in California [Al L Varney]
    Re: 411 Will Now Connect Call Direct [John Higdon]
    Re: Info on Motorola "Ultra Classic" Cell Phone Needed [John R. Covert]
    Re: INTEROP 91 Conference Notice [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    Re: Mystery Solved (was: Strange Phone Calls) [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1991 10:12:03 +1000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Info Wanted on B_ISDN.


Jim Niemann writes:

> 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?

Others have written various things about primary rate access etc.
Well, that's incorrect.  Primary rate is for normal ISDN.  B_ISDN or
Broadband ISDN is a connection oriented service at very high data
rates.  Most people regard it as having data rates in excess of 50
Mbits/sec, up to at least a couple of Gbits/sec.  It uses what is
known as ATM switching, or Asynchronous Transfer Mode Switching, based
on small data units referred to as cells, which are a fixed length.
It operates on point to point links between ATM switches, and carries
anything, for example, packet switched and isochronous data.  Routing
is performed using VCI (Virtual Circuit Identifiers).

So, the short answer is:

 A hell of a lot of research is being done.  Most of it in development
of ATM switches that work well.  A lot of work is being done in deciding
just what services should be offered, and people are working on
standardization.  You could possibly find someone who knows someone
who has a prototype ATM switch, and it is possible (after AT&T's
announcement of the BNS2000 cell switch) that AT&T might have something.
Don't hold your breath though, because as I understand it, AT&T has
started and stopped work on ATM switches at least twice, and the BNS2000
*is* a fast packet switch than can (might?) use ATM.  I would guess
that you don't have lots of options in getting a prototype switch.
As for more information, well, a lot of papers have been written on
this, and there are a couple of standards, published by CCITT.  The
reference numbers elude me at present.......

In the meantime, there's always our 802.6 ;-)

Any more queries, direct them to me at [e-mail]
If that doesn't work, tack @munnari.mu.oz.au on the end.

Cheers,

Rodney Van Luinen   QPSX Communications Pty Ltd
33 Richardson St WEST PERTH   WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Research on "Intelligent Nets" in the US
Date: 5 Apr 91 01:15:55 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (Dr Sabine Thuermel) writes:

> We at Siemens, Munich are doing research on intelligent networks. I
> would like to get into contact with US universities working in the
> same field.  I am grateful for any pointers.

Have you considered the risks inherent in an intelligent network?  I
for one don't want to have an uppity switch tell me that it doesn't
think it's a good time to call mom!  And what if it gets upset with
you and routes all your calls to a beachside resort in Fiji?  ;^)


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

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Around Town Followup
Date: 5 Apr 91 13:16:51 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ


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

> In response to a recent query, the ITT "Longer Distance"
> service-questions 800 number *was* 1 800 221 4064 (ages ago, when they
> sent me my ITT LD card).  Hope that's still valid.

When I picked up ITT calling card service three years ago, their rates
did not include a fee (monthly or per call).  In addition, their rates
were the same as the direct dial 1+ people had, and those were cheaper
than anyone I knew (ATT, MCI, Sprint, Western Union, etc.).  The
rates, if I remember for cross-country were about 12 or 13
cents/minute back then.

But, alas, the firm has been caught up in a merger/buy-out fever since
then:

ITT was bought out by some company I can remember, kept the "New
Name"-ITT.  Then, Metromedia bought them out, and it was called
Metromedia-ITT, now this month's bill dropped Metromedia completely.

Their calling card rates are now higher than their direct dial, at
18/19 cents night rate cross-country, as opposed to 12 cents/minute 1+.
Still, in comparison OK.

Did someone post an even less expensive alternative to this for
residential use?  Please pass this on, as I can't find the old message
here.

Thanks.

Brian Crawford            INTERNET (current):   [e-mail]
PO Box 804                         (permanent): [e-mail]
Tempe, Arizona  85280     FidoNet:              1:114/15.12
USA                       Amateur:              KL7JDQ

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 9:09:26 EST
From: Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: End of the [Party] Line
Organization: Electric Armaments Div, US Army Armament RDE Center


Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]> writes:

> TELECOM Digest vol 11 issue 264 msg 1 reprinted an AP wire service
> story submitted by Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
> about the end of party line service in Woodbury, Connecticut.

> I enjoyed the story, but would like to make a couple of technical
> comments. I wish there were a way to get them back to Ms Cappiello of
> AP.

>> By JANET L. CAPPIELLO,  Associated Press Writer

[...]

> problems.  It disturbs me when businesses deliberately tell lies to
> regulatory agencies. (It also disturbs me that we set up regulatory
> agencies that aren't technically competent to see through such fibs).

[...]

   While not explicitly telecom related, this certainly relates to
those wonderful regulatory agencies we've all come to know and love.

   I have a good friend whose wife is a lawyer with the Texas Public
Utilities Commission (or whatever they call it there). She works
telecom issues, and was putting together a document relating to a case
she was on.

   The PC she uses does not have the ability to use symbolic
typefaces, and she had to use the Greek mu as a modifier to a quantity
(like mu-volts).  Not being able to use the symbol itself, she
intended to use the word micro-, instead, which she was _pretty sure_
meant the same thing.

   Now, she's a lawyer, so Greek symbols are, well, Greek to her, and
she really wanted to be sure that mu really meant micro-. So, she
called one of the engineers on the PUC staff. He's there to provide
the legal staff with technical support. His response when asked just
what mu is used to signify, ran something like "Well, I'm not really
sure that they've standardized that yet.". [Insert look of disbelief
here.]

   Needless to say, this lawyer found his statement a little difficult
to believe. She ended up ringing her husband (a real engineer) at
work, and asking him. Makes you kind of wonder what kind of engineers
work for public utilities commissions, doesn't it?

   For the record: I too am an engineer (ME by education, holding an
EE position). Mu means micro- means 1E-6.


                tom coradeschi    <+>    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri,  5 Apr 91 13:26:52 CST
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Hearings in California
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


       To block presentation of calling number,

> Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Dial *67 from almost any Pacific Bell ESS-served line and you will
>> hear a confirmation tone followed by dial tone.

     And [e-mail] (Bob Yazz) responds:

> On my DMS-100 line in San Diego, I get a CPC disconnect and the
> DMS-100 "catch-all" recording -- "We're sorry, your call did not go
> thru".  A couple of times the equipment got confused ....

     But ... Jim specifically said "ESS-served" line.  Strictly
speaking, ESS(tm) is a Trademark of AT&T, and it is unlikely the
DMS-100 can legally be called an "ESS".  On the other hand, Jim
probably meant an "Electronic Switch-served" line or a SPC (Stored
Program Control) switch.

> Could be because I'm on DMS-100 or because I'm in San Diego and the
> CLID trials are planned for LA and SF.

     All of the above; the DMS probably doesn't have the right "BCS
release" to support the feature, and you are not located in one of the
two "test" areas.  Even with the right software, the assignment of
"*67" to a feature is office-specific.  It should not confuse the
equipment in any case....

   Two other comments:

   Someone asked if No. 1 ESS(tm) could do CallerID.  No.  Nor does it
speak SS7 (it will do CCIS6 however).  Nor does it do Cancel Call
Waiting.

   Note that SS7 (or CCIS6) is only needed to make CallerID work
between switches.  CLASS capabilities within a single switch are
certainly possible in an "island" environment, sort of like
single-switch ISDN.  There are several non-SS7 single-switch CLASS
offices in small single-switch communities.


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems

  Disclaimer:  I don't speak for AT&T or any part thereof, nor am I
  part of the "Trademark" compliance group.

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

Date: Sat, 6 Apr 91 12:51 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: 411 Will Now Connect Call Direct


portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail] (Stephen Fleming) writes:

> Just called local information (411) in northern Virginia.  Got a new
> recording: "You may be connected to this number for an additional
> charge of 30 cents.  The number is: xxx"

> Nice.  Very nice.  Especially when I'm in my car trying to juggle
> pencil and paper.  Should get some use.  (Disclaimer: for all I know,
> NT invented this service, but *I've* never encountered it before!)

That was precisely my initial reaction when I got that identical
message on my cellular phone while negotiating traffic in downtown San
Francisco. While under siege from assault taxis and attack MUNI
vehicles, it was very convenient to press one key and be connected to
the party I was calling (in this case, a restaurant to make
reservations).

But there is a side effect. Remember how telcos admonished and
implored DA callers to WRITE IT DOWN so that additional calls to DA
would not be necessary? That was back in the days of free DA. Now that
the service apparently pays its own way, why not add (at extra cost,
mind you) a little convenience feature that virtually assures future
inquiries for the same number?


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

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

Date: Sat, 6 Apr 91 20:41:39 PST
From: "John R. Covert  06-Apr-1991 2334" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Info on Motorola "Ultra Classic" Cell Phone Needed


> I just got the above mentioned phone.  I'm looking for a way to outfit
> it with an RJ-11 jack.  When you remove the battery there are some
> contacts that are obviously there for something (the battery
> connections are at the other end so they are not for power).  Does
> anyone know what they are?

Forget it; there's no way to produce an RJ-11 jack on that phone.

The contacts you are referring to provide two functions: They connect
the phone to the external car booster unit, and they connect the phone
to test equipment.

You can get options that allow you to hook up an external speaker and
mike, but nothing that will simulate an RJ-11.  Even when you hook
Motorola phones up to the external 3 Watt unit, you still do all
control functions using the buttons on the phone.

The Ultra-Classic is a nice phone.  Selling for $495 here in Boston.
In fact, I'm planning to buy one if I can find someone in the Boston
area to buy my Nokia P-30 (real cheap) and take the 4 month service
contract.  I'll even buy the P-30 back at the end of the contract if
whoever buys it decides cellular isn't worth keeping.


john

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

Date: Sun, 7 Apr 91 7:36:59 PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: INTEROP 91 Conference Notice


The poster is correct about the extra digit after the area code, but
please note that the number in error is the *FAX* number, so don't try
calling it to speak to someone!

Once again:  1-800-INTEROP  or 1-415-941-3399    ;voice
                               1-415-949-1779    ;FAX

Also, in case anyone cares, the conference is always in CAPS, i.e.,
INTEROP 91, while the company is always in mixed case, i.e., Interop,
Inc.


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions -- The Interoperability Report
Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, USA
Phone: [phone]  FAX: [phone]  Email: [e-mail]
Direct:[phone]

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

Date: Sun, 7 Apr 91 00:57 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Mystery Solved (was: Strange Phone Calls)


"David E. Bernholdt" <bernhold@red8> writes:

> She reacted quite calmly when I said that I would hang up on future
> calls which didn't identify the caller -- her only concern was to be
> sure that I _would_ speak to a human if everything worked as it was
> intended to.

At the risk of sounding exceedingly arrogant (too late, Higdon, the
time for that concern is long past), I usually give very short shrift
to people whose SECRETARIES place calls for them. Nothing, but nothing,
is more annoying than, "Mr. Higdon, please." "Speaking." "Mr. Smith is
calling. Can you hold please? [thunk/elevator music]"

In such cases I hang up as quickly as possible. In my work it is a fact
of life that a number of very busy people on very tight schedules call
me routinely and somehow manage to place the calls using their own
fingers on their own dials. Sometimes they even use their own voices to
leave messages. Using a secretary to waste the time of the CALLEE ranks
up toward the top of the rudeness scale.

I might accept such a call from the President of the United States.
Short of that, my time is just as valuable as that of anyone else.

And on a related note:

David Lesher <[e-mail]> writes:

> We got hit by the {Miami Herald's} Telesleeze dialer yesterday.

> Once you're on the list, unsolicited telephone sales calls can not be
> made to you except ... by a newspaper publisher or his agent or employee
> in connection with his business.

Since I called Pac*Bell, threatened the {San Jose Mercury} with legal
action, and generally promised a stink that would not clear for a long
time, there have been no more calls from Harassment Central. But you
can believe that if one single call does come in, I will do everything
I can think of (including a few things that may not be mentioned here)
to put those people out of business.

> John Hignon, I suggest that you do NOT move to Florida.

While I did some communications work in Jacksonville and had a very
pleasant time, there are a number of reasons I would not move to
Florida.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #273
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01698;
          7 Apr 91 18:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14958;
          7 Apr 91 16:41 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15889;
          7 Apr 91 15:31 CDT
Date:     Sun, 7 Apr 91 14:39:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #274
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 7 Apr 91 14:39:12 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 274

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Loop Checker Lines and the Human Imagination [A. E. Mossberg]
    Re: Internet <-> Envoy 100 Gateway - Instructions [Nigel Allen]
    Re: 56kbps Alternatives? [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Dealing Aggressively With Phone Harrassment [Randy Borow]
    Re: Bell of PA's Guardian Service [Kevin Brown]
    Re: Eight-Party and Ten-Party Ringing in the Bell System [Nigel Allen]
    Return to the Land of Selective Ringing [Nigel Allen]
    Cellular Phones for $29 [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "a.e.mossberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loop Checker Lines and the Human Imagination
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 91 20:09:31 GMT
Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science


In <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail] (Larry
Lippman) writes:

> Needless to say, loop checker test lines have *NO* utility in the
> detection and location of eavesdropping devices on a telephone >line.

>    The human imagination has no bounds, eh? :-)

One time someone told me, in the strictest confidence, if I swore not
to reveal the number to anyone else, that they would give me a number
that I could call and it would let me know if my line was tapped.
Well, I was very dubious and had a strong suspicion what it would turn
out to be, but played along anyway.  "Okay, here it is. Now you call
and if it cycles through a bunch of frequencies your line is okay, but
if the number is busy, that means your line is tapped!"

This person, in Miami, had regularly been calling this number in
California to check his line. No, I didn't call it, and no, I
didn't tell him he was an idiot.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 91 21:50 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Internet<->Envoy 100 Gateway - Instructions.
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue


Forwarded from newsgroups can.general and can.uucp.  Any questions
should be directed to the original poster, [e-mail] (Sean
Doran).

  From: [e-mail] (Sean Doran)
  Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
  Subject: Re: Internet<->Envoy 100 Gateway - Instructions.
  Summary: Please be careful of NASAMAIL/Internet gateway usage
  Reply-To: [e-mail]
  Organization: Telecom Canada ICS User Group, Envoy 100/iNet 2000


In an article (Message-Id: <[e-mail]>),
[e-mail] (Greg A. Woods) wrote:

Agreed, although the damage done was in can.general, and this probably
also belongs there.

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

>> to post the following info.  I've used it a couple of times and it
>> seems to work.

The fact that this gateway is known at all is generally my fault (I
"discovered" that the NASAMAIL <-> Internet gateway could also handle
Envoy 100 traffic, and brought it to the attention of the NASAMAIL
people and to Telecom Canada.  The latter don't care (or understand)
while the former is edgy that there are so few controls on the
gateway's use, and I expect that wide knowledge of the gateway could
lead to overuse or misuse of it.  Either of those two problems will
force NASA to stop mail travelling to Telecom Canada from the gateway,
just like Sprint Mail did.

However, the normal variety of shortish Internet-acceptable mail
(excluding mailing lists and UUENCODED anything) is generally
considered OK.

>> To reach someone with an Envoy account, send your message with the
>> following address in the "To:" field:

>>      /ID=envoy_id/S=last_name/G=first_name/I=F/SITE=TELECOM.CANADA/
>>      @GEMINI.ARC.NASA.GOV

Neither the GivenName field nor the Initial field is necessary, and
the Surname field need not always correspond to reality.  For example,
my signature records the ICS.TEST/ICS.BOARD/ICS.USER.GROUP account,
which is my 'home' on Envoy 100.

> This looks like some form of X.400 address.

It is a NASAMAIL address, and NASAMAIL is a PRMD within the
SprintMail/TELEMAIL ADMD.  Both NASAMAIL and TELEMAIL use a mutant
X.400(84) MTA, and Telecom Canada uses an old but real X.400(84) MTA.
Neither Telecom nor TELEMAIL are presently reachable from COSINE, RARE
or the other "Experimental" X.400 "networks" that can speak to the
Internet.

> We have had
> mail bounce when sending to gateways into Banyan systems, because
> Banyan Id's have '@'s in them (i.e. "/ID=xyz@dept@corp").  I have not
> yet experimented with possible ways of quoting the mailbox field.

See RFC 987 et prec, the various lists like mhsnews or talk to Steve
Kille at UCL.  "Quoting" of non PrintableString characters is
commonplace, and can be done through the NASAMAIL gateway using
standard RFC 987 encodings.

>> 1)    Send their Envoy message to the following address:

>>           [INTERNETMAIL@NASA]NASAMAIL/TELEMAIL/US

No.  It's [Internet Mail@NASA]NASAMAIL/TELEMAIL/US.  The "Internet"
part is the Given Name, and is optional.  Using the one word will
cause an expensive (ca. 45 cents U.S. per kilocharacter, with at least
one unit) bounce to you and to the gateway's Admin.

> So, does NASA pay for this gateway, or are the charges propogated back
> to the Envoy user?

Both.  CCITT-regulated commercial X.400 traffic is billed to the
originator.  Therefore, sending mail outbound from Envoy via the
NASAMAIL, ATTMAIL or SprintMail gateways costs only the Envoy user.
Inbound traffic to Envoy from the Internet via the NASAMAIL gateway is
paid for by NASA, with a grant from the U.S. National Science
Foundation.  All traffic must meet "acceptable purpose" guidelines set
out by the NSF, and anything else is in violation of both American and
Canadian Law.

That means that if you send "commercial" or generally non-research-
related material through the Gateway, and you are caught, you will be
talked to by both Nasamail and Telecom Canada.  Given the amount of
money that NASA is spending on the Gateway, and given that it is
generally meant to be a gateway exclusively between the Internet and
the NASAMAIL PRMD, I think the restrictions are reasonable, and urge
you to respect it.

If you are using the gateway and want to make sure that what you are
sending through it to Envoy is OK, ask [e-mail]
_before_ you send it.

> If this gateway was actually run by Telemail or Telecom Canada, I
> would expect something smarter that could look up envoy_id's from the
> user's full name, just the same as smail can with fullnames.

The Gateway is run by NASA and the NSF.  The gateway between
SprintMail's and Telecom Canada's ADMDs does not follow CCITT specs,
and has difficulty with Probe MPDUs, PN lookups and so forth.

> Any other way, IMHO, is just a hack!

Envoy 100 is just a hack.  The gateway is certainly a hack, and an
ugly one.  (It is loosely based on the CMR, which is described in an
RFC.)  The fact that the gateway can be used to send Internet messages
to and from Envoy 100 is a BUG, not a feature, and will be squashed if
it causes problems.

>> 2)   The first line of text in their message must be:

>>           To: your_user_id@your_address

> Ah-ha!  Hand-crafting the essential part of the RFC-822 header!

Exactly.  The To: line is fully RFC-822, and can handle anything that
the average sendmail can, including multiple recipients on multiple
lines.


> Greg A. Woods
> woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP    ECI and UniForum Canada
> [phone] [h]  [phone] [w]  VE3TCP    Toronto, Ontario CANADA

Sean Doran <[e-mail]>  The Law Society of Upper Canada
also [e-mail]   Young Liberals of Canada/Parti Liberal du Canada
and  /C=CANADA/ADMD=TELECOM.CANADA/ID=ICS.TEST/S=TESTGROUP/@nasamail.nasa.gov

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 56kbps Alternatives?
Date: 7 Apr 91 11:34:42 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, intek01![e-mail]
(Mark McWiggins) writes:

> My prospective employer is using a leased line for 56kbps service
> between two remote offices.  I've read the blurb for UUNET's Alternet
> service, and I got an e-mail note saying that PSInet offers something
> similar.
> Presumably either of these is much cheaper than a leased line, but

Using Alternet or PSI get you Internet connectivity, but WILL cost you
enough monthly with the necessary telco lines that you can buy a coast
to coast DDS-II lines for less. The DDS-II line will let you put
ANYTHING ove it that fits. You can put several compressed voice
channels and assorted data. You can use an Enet bridge that includes a
compressor. You can bridge ALL the protocals on your Enet, but you
sure can't if you use the TCP/IP only PSI or Alternet.

I am not so sure PSI or Alternet do this, but NEARNET here in Boston
gets you to PAY for ALL the necessary Cisco equipment, and THEY get to
OWN it. Watch your local Internet peddler's contract carefully - That
is ~$10k you just gave away.

With two sites, go with point to point DDS-II, and play cute and order
56kb with secondary channel, get good CSU/DSUs that also do 64kb, flip
the knobs to 64 kb, and use it.

If you want internet connectivity, add it at ONE site, but beware of
contracts that may try to prohibit you from using it elsewhere or
sharing news with your UUCP dialup friends. Read the fine print in
anything PSI sends you.

FRAME RELAY is here, and I am about to post a note about it. I doubt
that for two sites it makes any sense, buy just maybe you should check
it out.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Apr  5 08:46:11 CST 1991
Subject: Re: Dealing Aggressively with Phone Harassment


Mr. Riba ought not to think my comments were ageist or homophobic. As
Pat remarked, I was indeed VERY surprised that a person of his age
would stoop to such childish phone games. I honestly expected the
perpetrators to be some immature college students; instead, it was an
immature middle-aged man. And no, it wouldn't be different to me if it
WAS a 20-year-old female who was behind it. The type of harassment
would probably just have been slightly different. Regardless, it was
perverted and annoying.

The only reason that I believed it was someone of a different
persuasion was primarily because down on campus, I was active in
certain organizations which basically were diametrically opposed to
what his type espoused. Thus there were some people who thought the
best way to make their point was to harass the hell out of me.

Well, it was I who had the last laugh that time.


Randy Borow   AT&T Communications    Rolling Meadows, IL.

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

From: Kevin Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell of PA's Guardian Service
Date: 6 Apr 91 14:14:37 GMT


X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 247, Message 4 of 6

>   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

    I believe you are the one not aware of that "certain
information". Basic jack repair is covered under the wire maintenance
plan, $ .50 /month.  The guardian service you're speaking of includes
offering a loaner set if the problem is in your CPE.

> [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.]

    It doesn't mention it in the add because it's not true.  Under
the Guardian plan there is no charge regardless of where the problem
is.  If it's in the jack, Bell of Pa. repairs it free of charge, If it
is in your equipment, Bell will leave you a loaner set until yours is
repaired.  The only time the $56 charge is given is if you do not have
a maintenance plan or just have wire maintenance plan and the problem
is in YOUR equipment.

    I'm not saying the plan is a good idea, it's pretty easy to
determine if the trouble is in your phone set or in the lines. Please,
before you start flaming the local telco's make sure your story is
accurate.


Kevin Brown   Box 72  Moravian College, Bethlehem PA 18018
CSNET/INTERNET: [e-mail]   UUCP...!rutgers!liberty!batman!brownK

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

Date: Thu, 4 Apr 91 21:40 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Eight-Party and Ten-Party Ringing in the Bell System
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto


Larry Lippman writes in telecom11.257.1:

> It's not at all a bit of lore.  While it is indeed true that
> the Bell System maintained a wide diversity of non-WECo CO
> apparatus in telephone companies which they had acquired, this
> has little bearing upon the present discussion.

I thought that the Bell System stopped taking over independent
telephone companies in 1913 or so, pursuant to something called the
Kingsbury Commitment, essentially a letter from an AT&T executive or
lawyer named Kingsbury to the anti-trust officials of the U.S. Justice
Department.

Were there exceptions to this rule that allowed the Bell System to
continue to acquire independent telcos, or am I just confused?

In Canada, most small telephone companies were eventually swallowed up
by Bell Canada or one of the other large telephone companies, so that
several provinces only have a single telephone company.


Nigel Allen   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: There have been various court cases involving AT&T
over the years, and there was one case (I forget the year) which said
AT&T could not buy any more independent telcos except under certain
strict conditions: if the independent telco was bankrupt or otherwise
unable to provide service and about to suspend operations then AT&T
*had* to take over ... nice fair arrangement, eh?  About twenty years
ago, the Chicago City Council was trying to talk IBT into purchasing
the Chicago portion of Centel, a mostly suburban telco serving only a
tiny slice of Chicago on the northwest side. IBT was inclined to do
so, but the earlier court ruling forbade it.    PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Apr 91 00:10 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Return to the Land of Selective Ringing
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


A further note about party lines:

Bell Canada offers two-party service within urban areas for somewhat
less Bell Canada offers two-party residential service within urban
areas for somewhat less than regular service.

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)
requires Bell Canada to offer two-party service as a lower-priced
alternative.  Anybody can get it, unlike lifeline service in some U.S.
states, which is only available to specific low-income groups.
However, I suspect many people would quickly get frustrated with
having to share a party line with someone else.

(A footnote: A while ago, someone in Toronto was running a rather
juvenile BBS that he called "The Party Line". I use a different
password on each BBS I call, and I try to link it in some way to the
name of the BBS. So for a password on "The Party Line", I chose the
acronym of the Party of Labor of Albania.  I doubt that the sysop
recognized it.)


Nigel Allen   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 7 Apr 91 14:31:59 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phones for $29


Has the bottom dropped out of the cellular phone market? I cannot
imagine it has, yet consider these pending offers in Chicago from
Ameritech and Cellular One:

Cellular phones for $29 at the Ace Hardware chain. Or, should you want
something a little more fancy, the Motorola bag phone, with an
Ameritech label on the front of it for $49. Minimum commitment to
Ameritech is six months.

And what do you have to pay per month? For $29, you get 40 minutes of
time to use day or night as you wish ... additional non-prime minutes
are 4 (yes, four) cents each!  Prime minutes are 40 cents each.
Cellular One has the same offer, and in theirs you get the first
thirty days of non-prime time free. All the non-prime usage you want
at no charge.

In both the Cellular One and Ameritech offers, the $29 also gets you
two months of custom calling free.  Those guys must really be scraping
for new customers!


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #274
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20617;
          8 Apr 91 4:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24416;
          8 Apr 91 2:47 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12047;
          8 Apr 91 1:42 CDT
Date:     Mon, 8 Apr 91 1:18:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #275
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 8 Apr 91 01:17:53 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 275

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Caller ID Hearings in California [Jeff Sicherman]
    FRAME RELAY - You Can Order Today [Barton F. Bruce]
    Deposit Five Cents Please! Recording [Clint Fleckenstein]
    Residential ISDN Survey [Steve Gaarder]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 7 Apr 91 00:50:35 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Hearings in California
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  April 1 at 2 PM I attended the California PUC hearing held in the
Anaheim city council chambers. Another hearing was held at 7 PM which
I did not attend.  The official representatives at the hearing
included a member of the PUC, an administrative judge (I think),
representatives of the phone companies seeking authorization to
provide the CLASS services (Pacific Bell, Contel of California, and
GTE California), and one from TURN (Toward Utility Rate Normalization -
a consumer advocacy group). The latter sat as a panel in front of
the PUC officials and were there to answer questions from the public
and not as advocates for the organizations they represented. [In fact,
a minor disagreement erupted between the PacBell and TURN persons
after an answer to a question resulted in the TURN rep addressing the
PacBell rep who then complained that this was not an evidentiary
hearing ... Now children :-) ]

  All the represented parties had material describing and defending
their positions which were handed out upon entering the hearing. The
contents were predictable: the phone companies wanted only per-call
blocking and the consumer groups wanted free per-line blocking. The
latter was based upon the already existing privacy afforded by the
current arrangement of no Caller-ID. The phone companies' view was
that per-call blocking guaranteed everyone's rights, including the
call recipient's.

  PacBell presented a rather intricate argument to the effect that
per-call blocking signalled to the callee that the caller is
intentionally withholding his identity whereas per-line blocking only
tells that the caller 'happens' to subscribe to per-line blocking and
that the callee cannot discern anything about the caller's intent and
must answer the call to determine if it is a party who he wishes to
speak with. [ Ignoring what it does say: the caller has a strong
desire for privacy ] it's really the old economic issue: prevalent
call blocking lowers the value of the service to potential Caller-ID
subscribers.

  PacBell also claimed that five years of market research showed that
per-call blocking met the needs of _all_ its customers and that
studies showed that per-call blocking satisfied the concerns of nine
out of ten of customers and that per-line blocking only increased
satisfaction by one percent.  No details of the studies to gauge
validity were given. They also claimed that a Rochester, NY Caller-ID
trial appeared to support their contentions about the sufficiency of
per-call blocking.

  The PUC itself has a Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) whose
purpose is to represent the interests of utility customers both within
and before the PUC.  It had its own handout describing the basic CLASS
services, blocking options, proposed schedule for implementation by
the companies, proposed rates, and its position on the offering of
CLASS services.

  Briefly, though it has not issued a report or completed an
evaluation, it protested the PacBell application and proposed that
public participation hearing be held (hence this one) and that market
trials be held for six months including the various blocking options
to be followed by a survey of the services and blocking options:
per-call with no charge, per-call unblocking (blocking default),
per-line blocking with no unblocking, and per-call blocking with
operator assistance. Note that there is a 1989 law in California
requiring that callers be allowed to block the display of their
numbers on an individual basis (individual subscriber, not individual
call, I think). Also, the California constitution explicitly cites a
right to privacy.

  I will not recount all the issues that were addressed since all
have been advanced at one time or another during the discussions here
and in the privacy group. However, it was interesting what tone and
focus the speakers took. About half the individuals who spoke were
senior citizens. This probably reflects the time of the meeting -
early afternoon. Many did not have a firm grasp of the more technical
details of Caller-ID or the other CLASS services but had well thought
out views on the privacy issues and the costs involved. They also
pointed out that many of the benefits of Caller-ID would not be
available to the public at large, including those on fixed and small
incomes who could not afford either the monthly charges or the
necessary equipment. In particular, those on Lifeline service - a
minimal rate, subsidized form of service for low-income subscribers -
could not obtain any advanced service features, CLASS included,
without losing their lifeline status.

  Many of the more dire possibilities were not of interest to most
speakers, though there were featured in the consumer group position
papers. The major objection to Caller-ID in general was that it would
give telemarketers and other commercial 'consumers' and publishers of
phone number information access to their phone numbers. This would be
true even though many had PAID for unlisted phone numbers precisely to
reduce this. Per-call blocking would require them to take extra action
every call to enforce a protection they had already paid the phone
company for. Many pointed out that it was impractical to expect many
of the most vulnerable - children and some elderly or impaired - to
remember to dial the blocking code every time.

  A major argument of the phone companies was that harassing phone
calls had declined significantly in areas which had Caller-ID and it
was widely known to the public. Speakers pointed out that the proposed
Call Trace would provide many of the same protections afforded for
that purpose without the liabilities.  Nearly all speakers were
outraged that the companies were proposing a $10 per use charge for
call trace. Most pointed out that since this information is made
available to law enforcement only (at customer's request only) and is
not made available to the customer, it should be free as other
harassment-prevention services are now. PacBell's position is that the
high charge is necessary to prevent overuse [Why would someone overuse
something they can't get any direct benefit from?]

  One speaker spoke in defense of the phone company position with a
long list of statistics from studies and experience in other parts of
the country that minimized most privacy concerns. At the beginning of
his presentation he said that he had no connection with either the
consumer groups or the companies.  After he was through, the
administrative judge questioned him further at which time he revealed
he worked for a company that developed/marketed Caller-ID type devices
(potentially?). I'm not sure whether this reflected knowledge or just
suspicion on the part of the judge; at least two previous hearing were
held in northern California on March 27 and 28, 1991.

  The issue of existing ANI-delivery to some 800 and 900 services was
brought up and was a surprise to many. The PacBell rep pointed out
this was a matter under the control of long distance carriers and
governed by FCC Tariff.

  I and another individual proposed that both per-call and per-line
blocking be denied to business line subscribers as a way of
discouraging annoying and anonymous telemarketing; which would defeat
many of the potential benefits of Caller-ID. An analogy to third class
(bulk/junk) mail was made by some. [ Note that third class mail must
have a return address.]

  Block-blocking came up only once but it was getting late (near the
five o'clock end to the three-hour hearing) and was confusing to some.

  I would be interested in hearing about the content of other hearings.

BTW: After the hearing adjourned for dinner time, I went up to
     talk briefly to the PacBell reps about some of the issues
     and the fact that bill inserts were not adequate means to
     inform and stimulate public discussion (perhaps they know
     that !) and that news media needed to be used, especially
     TV where everyone gets their information suited to modern
     attention spans.

OB John Higdon type comment:

     In the discussion with the PacBell reps the issue of their
     (company, not personal) credibility and public-interest
     arose. I raised the example of the long delayed removal of
     touch-tone fees and ZUM extension LONG after the rate ruling
     that went in their favor in return for such changes. She at
     first tried to claim it was due to regulatory requirements
     and then backed off this when challenged and then more-or-
     less shrugged.


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FRAME RELAY - You Can Order Today
Date: 7 Apr 91 11:36:50 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


At last! there is now a signigicant and different way to connect ALL
your company's scattered LANs into a big WAN.

Frame relay is here and you can order it. Some thought Sprint would be
first later this year, but WilTel has been beta testing it with some
LARGE customers, and has now announced its general availability.

The actual switches are not yet in all their POPs, but they will bear
the expense of back-hauling your access lines from a switch to the POP
near you.

What is frame relay? Think of a FAST efficient and cheap (and no
packet charges) x.25 network. Your sites will all be part of a CUG
(Closed Users Group) so, though you are on a public net, you traffic
is on your virtual private net.

You need Enet routers that can handle frame relay. Cisco's CAN today.
You need an approved T1 CSU (Datalink's is today). You get to use the
rest of the T1's DS0s for any other leased line type access they can
sell you, since you won't be using all of it for frame relay.

Note well that this is distance insensitive, and look at the pricing!

They are offering two 'port connection' speeds - 256 kbps, and 1024
mbps.  These are obviously four and sixteen DS0s out of the T1 access
pipe. The approved CSUs let you gain access to the other DS0s on a
seperate port.

Their service is provided in PVCs (Permanent Virtual Circuits) between
your sites. These PVC have a nominal speed, BUT can support bursts up
to the Port Connection speed. The idea here is that you are paying for
some average amount of transport, but can get peaks that will be
carried. Many companies buy leased lines that vastly exceed their
average load just to cater to the bursty needs of their WAN. This
*may* solve some of these problems at lower cost.

The 'Port Connection' (the ONE physical connection to your cisco box )
supports various lower speed PVCs to many remote sites. Each nominal
PVC speed is also some number of DS0s (64 kb - 1 T1 time slot) of
bandwidth. I am making a N x DS0 column below, because that number
does figure into pricing.

Port Connection         PVC speed        N x DS0

256 Kbps                56/64 Kbps       1
                        128 Kbps         2

1.024 Mbps              56/64 Kbps       1
                        128 Kbps         2
                        256              4
                        512              8

This is per site pricing, NO local access lines, etc included. It is
based on the Port Connection speed, and the total of N x DS0s of PVC
bandwidth terminating there. N.B. that you need not subscribe to PVCs
between all possible nodes, and that, depending on traffic, you may
implement anything between a simple star to a full mesh topology. Each
PVC can be whatever speed is needed.

Port Connection Size:   256 K           1.024 Mbps
                        -----           ----------
Total DS0s of PVCs        $                  $

1                         635                1535
2                         920                1820
3                        1062                2105
4                        1176                2390
5                        1262                2675
6                        1347                2960
7                        1404                3245
8                        1461                3530

As an example, three nodes A, B, C with A being the central site with
very little traffic between B and C could all use 256 K Ports; A would
use two 64k PVCs ($920), and the two other sites would only have a 64k
PVC to A for $635 each or total for all 3 sites of $2190. If there
needed to be a PVC between B and C, each site would pay $920 for $2760
total.

If your sites are Boston, NYC, and Albany, these prices are terrible
compared to leased 64kb DDS-II lines, but with greater distances, many
more PVCs, and enjoying the benefits of the burst capability, this
sort of offering could look very attractive. Remember also that each
site ONLY needs one high speed serial port into their cisco, not one
for each remote served by a PVC. This is a big savings in cisco
hardware.

This is based on my phone notes after talking to a WilTel sales
critter, and could easily contain many errors, but does give some feel
for the offering. I think this was officially announced last Monday.
Friday I let my Sprint saleswoman go on in detail about how they were
going to be first with frame relay much later this year. I then told
her about WilTel ...

Usual disclaimers: I have NO $ connections to any above companies (not
even as a customer - yet). This is just good stuff we all will need to
know soon.

WilTel is at 1.800.642.2299 - tell them the price is still too high.

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

From: Clint Fleckenstein <plains![e-mail]>
Subject: Deposit Five Cents Please! Recording
Date: 8 Apr 91 00:41:34 GMT
Organization: AlterNet RELAY Network


I used to know this, but lost my Post-It note.  Anyone know this?

There is a number (I think it's in the 313 area code) that you can
dial, free of charge, which connects you to the recording that
instructs you to deposit five cents.

If you know this number (or other such numbers) please leave me
E-mail.


Clint Fleckenstein              [e-mail]
Meyer Broadcasting Corp.        uunet!plains!fleckens
KFYR TV-5, Bismarck ND          fleckens@PLAINS (Bitnet)

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

Date: Sun, 7 Apr 91 21:30:22 EDT
From: Steve Gaarder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Residential ISDN Survey


This evening I got a call from Columbia Information Systems, who are,
it seems, conducting a survey of interest in "new telecommunications
services." As the survey person described them, it was clear that she
was talking about a residential version of ISDN, though she did not
recognize the term.  (ISDN provides two bidirectional digital
data/voice channels on one pair.) Basically, what the unknown
commissioners of the survey seem to be assessing interest in are four
flavors of ISDN: a basic service, which provides two voice line
capability and all sorts of special features for $40 "more than you
are paying now." A version with a digital data interface would be $50.
There were two other versions: one which would let you control your
home "energy management" (heating, lighting, etc) remotely for $50,
and the same thing for a security system for $45.  A version
encompassing all of the above would be $60 (more than POTS).

ISDN requires an interface unit at the demark; it would lease for
$22/month or sell for $700.  I'm not sure whether the lease price is
included in the rates quoted above, but I think so.  I asked her what
geographical area was being surveyed; she didn't know, but said that
was calling numbers all over the eastern time zone.


Steve Gaarder   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #275
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21427;
          9 Apr 91 3:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18113;
          9 Apr 91 1:59 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20269;
          9 Apr 91 0:54 CDT
Date:     Tue, 9 Apr 91 0:00:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #276
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 9 Apr 91 00:00:02 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 276

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Mystery Solved (was: Strange Phone Calls) [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Mystery Solved (was: Strange Phone Calls) [Tom Reingold]
    Re: Dublin Number Expansion [John Slater]
    Re: Dublin Number Expansion [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: I Have AT&T and I Can't Call Home [Randy Borow]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Randy Borow]
    Re: Looking for NON-Statistical Line Multiplexers [Mike Johnston]
    Re: 56kbps Alternatives? [Barry Margolin]
    Re: Strange Phone Calls [Paul S. Sawyer]
    Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers [H. Peter Anvin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mystery Solved (was: Strange Phone Calls)
Date: 8 Apr 91 14:05:56 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail].
com> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 273, Message 9 of 9

> At the risk of sounding exceedingly arrogant (too late, Higdon, the
> time for that concern is long past), I usually give very short shrift
> to people whose SECRETARIES place calls for them. Nothing, but nothing,
> is more annoying than, "Mr. Higdon, please." "Speaking." "Mr. Smith is
> calling. Can you hold please? [thunk/elevator music]"

> In such cases I hang up as quickly as possible. In my work it is a fact
> of life that a number of very busy people on very tight schedules call
> me routinely and somehow manage to place the calls using their own
> fingers on their own dials. Sometimes they even use their own voices to
> leave messages. Using a secretary to waste the time of the CALLEE ranks
> up toward the top of the rudeness scale.

    I couldn't agree more. My opinion of these people who inflate
their self importance by having minions dial is way down there with
pimps. I once did some work for a quadraplegic business executive. He
dialled his own calls. He lays on his back and with a head set on his
head, uses a "suck and piff" tube to select lines and dial numbers.

    But for me the final indication that people waste everyone's
time by getting minions to dial was witnessed at Paramount Studios.
An, "Entertainment Industry Executive", shouted from his office to the
secretary's ante-room to "Call Harry Dash". The secretary dialed the
call and put the poor bugger on the other end on hold. Then she told
Mr. "Executive" that the call was "On line three".  So what did Mr.
busy, important executive do? He stopped playing with his yo-yo and
picked up the phone.

    I could go on for days about waste, stupidity, ignorance and
bad manners on the phone but won't bore anyone further.


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

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

From: Tom Reingold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mystery Solved (was: Strange Phone Calls)
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1991 06:50:33 GMT


Here are two anecdotes, if you care to read them.

I worked at Bellcore where someone had built an experimental phone
switch that ran on a UNIX system and was therefore programmable in the
way I know best.  For outgoing calls, it could read a text file and
speak through a DECTALK.

I used this to deal with a bureaucracy: I needed to call the state
Department of Motor Vehicles, and as is so in every state, the line
was eternally busy.  After 5:00 pm on the dot, there was no answer.
So I had the switch retry every three minutes or so.  When it got
through, it said, "Hello, hello?  Is this the department of motor
vehicles?  I have someone on the line who wants to talk with you."
Then it connected me.

I usually find this practice -- even with secretaries -- rude, but I
feel less guilt in dealing with the DMV.

Everyone in my workgroup got an automated ad, saying that if we called
a certain 800 number, we would win a free vacation.  It was really
obnoxious.  This was before 900 numbers existed, though.  So I had the
phone switch call the 800 number every 90 seconds for about 90
minutes.  I had it say something to the effect that the purpose of the
call was to make them realize how annoying automated phone calls are
and that I sincerely hope that the proprietor consider another line of
business.  I also implied that his offer was not legitimate.

After the 90 minutes, I called and got a woman's voice.  She sounded
tired.  I asked, "Have you been getting my automated messages?"  She
paused silently, then said sharply, "Hold on a minute."  I got a man
who cursed me out in the most vile and obscene language you can
imagine.  He claimed that his business was legitimate and that he was
having the phone company trace the calls.  Wouldn't it have been funny
if he had found out that the "phone company" had made the calls?  He
also tried to point out that I had only been called once.  Of course I
pointed out that the total accumulated inconvenience he had caused to
many people was probably quite large, so his argument wasn't very
strong.  It's sort of like stealing a tenth of a penny from everyone's
bank account and making millions of dollars.  Can you argue that it
cost no one a significant amount therefore your deed is insignificant?

Anyway, nothing was resolved, and my mean streak was satisfied, for
better or worse.

Tom Reingold   [e-mail]  OR  ...!princeton!samadams!tr


[Moderator's Note: Would it have been funny if he found out the phone
company was making the calls?  No, I think not. Your employer might
well have gotten sued and you might well have gotten fired, especially
if your employer got sued.  Out the door on your ass in a manner of
speaking.  His individual calls to individual phone numbers might well
have been obnoxious; they were most likely not illegal. Your repeated
telephone calls, intended to harrass, were illegal. People who do
these things always lose in court. Do you remember the case involving
the very hostile fellow a few years ago who set his computer and modem
to call Jerry Falwell's 800 number once a minute for about a month?

Once a minute, around the clock, Falwell's automatic call distributor
would hand out a call to a 'counselor standing by to speak with you'
which was nothing but dead silence. Modems, after all, have nothing to
say to anyone, and they don't even start squealing until they hear
another of their kind on the line.  Some 43,000 calls and about
$12,000 - $15,000 later, when the problem was identified (the local
Bell and the director of telecom for Falwell's organization both
originally thought the problem was a faulty circuit in the ACD or a
piece of bad equipment in the CO), they traced the calls and caught
the turkey .... he got sued for $50,000 (actual plus punitive) and
Falwell won the case. Telco wound up writing it off as goodwill, but
they were screaming for blood also where the 'mad dialer' was
concerned.  I'd take care if I were you. It could get messy.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 91 12:44:33 BST
From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dublin Number Expansion


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

> It makes me wonder why British Telecom split London from 01 into 071
> and 081. Why not just add a digit? And if eight digit numbers are too
> long, why not split into 017 and 018 leaving more room for expansion.
> Or even split 01 DXX XXXX into ten areas 01D DXX XXXX removing the
> need for the tables to convert old number to new area.

And why didn't they split it several dozen other ways too? My
favourite would have been north and south of the river, which would
make it a lot easier to find the new number as most people know which
side of the river a given address is on, from the postcode.

Still, they did it and that's an end to it. Except that it isn't:
there are medium-term plans to add an extra digit to every phone
number in the country, and longer-term plans to rehash the entire
system, with lifetime phone numbers (see an earlier thread) and other
wondrous things, no doubt.

I believe the reason BT didn't choose the "017 & 018" option is that
they preferred to keep the entire "01..." sequence clear for as yet
unspecified future use. This might well include implementation of some
of the schemes mentioned above, I speculate.


John Slater  Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office
My email address is [e-mail], despite what it might say above.

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dublin Number Expansion
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 91 00:04:49 GMT


[e-mail] (Charles Bryant) writes:

> (does anywhere else have variable length local numbers?).

Yes - Sydney Australia. Up until last year we had five, six and seven
digit numbers in the 02 area code. For example - from the Government
page of the phone book:

  2 0521    Trafficking-Law Enforcement
 29 2622    Bus Travel
240 2111    Boat Moorings

With the closure of the old Dalley exchange (205xx) Telecom also
deleted the last five digit numbers (according to a newspaper
article).

More usually - if the STD area code is 0xx then numbers are nx xxxx
and in capital cities (STD code 0n) the numbers are nxx xxxx.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Apr  8 09:49:09 CDT 1991
Subject: Re: I Have AT&T and I Can't Call Home


I experienced the same problem while I was a student at the University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign years ago. The campus had just
converted their telecommunications system to their own private
network, so to speak, with PIN codes, etc. When my PIN went kaput, I
called AT&T and got the same befuddled response you did Chris. I
couldn't really blame them, though, since I found out that it was the
University itself which controlled such things.  Apparently, the
school did so to enable them to be able to control their network.

I would suggest you press your university's telecommunications
department for assistance. They SHOULD be the ones who can help you.


Randy Borow     AT&T Communications        Rolling Meadows, IL

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Apr  8 14:27:50 CDT 1991
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable


Jim Bubler wrote that a phone number once assigned belongs to a
customer.  While I am on his side, his statement isn't true. Telephone
numbers remain the property of telco and can be changed at their whim,
etc. Sorry, Jim, but we basically have no rights, so to speak, when it
comes to "our" phone numbers.


Randy Borow             AT&T Communications             Rolling Meadows, IL.


[Moderator's Note: You are quite correct. Every phone book says it in
these words, more or less, "Whenever, in the conduct of its business,
the Company finds it desirable to change the number, etc ..."   PAT]

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

From: Mike Johnston <slcpi!admin8779.shearson.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking for NON-Statistical Line Multiplexers
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Date: 7 Apr 91 15:54:34


In article <[e-mail]> fernwood![e-mail].c
om (Geoff Goodfellow) writes:

> I'm looking for line (two or four wire) multiplexers, that would allow
> me to evenly device a 9600 bps line into to two 4800 bps lines, or a
> 2400 baud line into two 1200 baud lines.  I recall the good ol' Bell
> 209A modem used to have this capability.

> I CANNOT use Stat-MUX's because its flow control (XON/XOFF/whatever)
> would make the line non-transparent to the protocol(s) going over over
> it.  I need to lines to appear as if they each had a dedicated circuit
> of their own.

You *can* use Stat-MUX's or at least Micoms. The Micombox 2's we used
to use were configurable enough to where you could just disable
XON/XOFF flow control along with about a zillion other parameters. We
used about 20 of them to remote field locations. Each could be
upgraded to 16 ports apiece and all ran up to 9600 baud.

I ran into my problem when I attempted to use GNU Emacs remotely over
the multiplexed lines. As you may know Emacs doesn't like XON/XOFF *at
all*.  Never mind that I was the only person out of 80 who used Emacs.
I changed all the units over. (It's good to be the king). All of our
tubes ran fine without it. These boxes where, if I recall correctly,
four wire units and supported RTS/CTS flow control.


Michael R. Johnston    [e-mail] || [e-mail]
System Administrator        UUCP:     uunet!slcpi!mjohnsto
Lehman Brothers Inc.        Phone:    [phone]

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

From: Barry Margolin <think![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 56kbps Alternatives?
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 91 05:44:46 GMT


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

> I am not so sure PSI or Alternet do this, but NEARNET here in Boston
> gets you to PAY for ALL the necessary Cisco equipment, and THEY get to
> OWN it. Watch your local Internet peddler's contract carefully - That
> is ~$10k you just gave away.

It's not quite that bad.  I believe that if you cancel your NEARnet
membership the equipment you paid for is transfered to you.  NEARnet
retains ownership while you're a member so that they can consolidate
all the maintenance and management issues.


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

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

From: "Paul S. Sawyer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Phone Calls
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 91 16:23:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Our Moderator comments:

> When I've received automated voice calls before, I always just hang
> up, and everyone should take that approach, to end this latest phone
> nuisance once and for all.  PAT]

I usually put them on hold, so as to waste THEIR time and money;
sometimes (when things are REAL dull ...) I put them on the speaker,
with the transmitter muted, with varying amusing results ... once
during a party someone called and asked for the "head of the house"
(whatever that is ... B-) so I said "I'll get him", and put the
speakerphone on while we all told anecdotes about companies that use
telemarketing while the speaker kept yelling for attention.

Come to think of it, that's the only good use I've found for the
speakerphone!


Paul S. Sawyer             {uunet,attmail}!unhtel!paul    [e-mail]
UNH CIS - - Telecommunications and Network Services      VOX: [phone]
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523                        FAX: [phone]

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

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1991 15:37:27 GMT


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

> [Moderator's Note: A COCOT proprietor here in Chicago answered my
> complaint one day by sending me a check for 25 cents!.   PAT]

That isn't something just COCOT proprietors do. I have at least two
friends -- also here in Chicago (suburbs) -- that have had the same
experience with Illinois Bell: a refund check for $0.25!


hpa = H. Peter Anvin (in case you wondered) * Heja Sverige!
INTERNET:   [e-mail]   FIDONET:  1:115/989.4
HAM RADIO:  N9ITP, SM4TKN             RBBSNET:  8:970/101.4


[Moderator's Note: Well, but at least with the IBT refund coupons (I
refuse to call them checks!) you can redeem them with your phone bill.
They say that on the front of the piece of paper. I would be
embarassed to send them a COCOT refund coupon along with my phone bill
payment, although I guess I could.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #276
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23519;
          9 Apr 91 4:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31373;
          9 Apr 91 3:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18113;
          9 Apr 91 1:59 CDT
Date:     Tue, 9 Apr 91 1:05:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #277
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 9 Apr 91 01:05:07 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 277

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    "Rube Goldberg" CO Installations and Colored Telephones [Larry Lippman]
    Albania: Privatization Plans? [Nigel Allen]
    Separate "City" Code for Mobile Phones [Carl Moore]
    My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack [TELECOM Moderator]
    International Misdialing [David E. A. Wilson]
    Billed Busy Signals [Jack Rickard]
    Another Kind of Selective Ringing [Mike Coleman]
    Re: Is There a Selective Ringing Blocker? [Michael P. Deignan]
    Telecom Humor (Lawyers) [Douglas W. Martin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: "Rube Goldberg" CO Installations & Colored Telephones
Date: 8 Apr 91 23:30:54 EST (Mon)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Donald E. Kimberlin) writes:

> As to frequency-selective ringers, I came along late in the territory
> of an Independent that seemed to have bought its equipment from
> wherever there was some that week.  You could go into one house and
> find and Automatic Electric phone; a WECo in the next, and a Stromberg
> in the third ... plus assorted cats and dogs from time to time.

    Ain't that the truth!  Some of the Rube Goldberg installations
I have seen in small independent operating telephone companies boggle
the mind.

    A common source of telephones, components and wiring supplies
during the 1950's was World War II surplus!  In the early 1970's I did
some consulting work for an independent telephone company who had a
variety of troubles, not the least of which was trouble between some
N1 carrier that they had installed between two of their CO's several
years earlier.  They had excessive transmission loss between the CO's
and were unable to maintain line equalization for any period of time.
It turns out that to save money, they had run some of the carrier
circuit using buried "spiral-four" cable that was war surplus from
1945.  The cable was rubber-insulated and its dielectric was badly
deteriorated.  They sure were upset when I told them it was the source
of their trouble and had to be dug up and replaced with a more "state
of the art" cable!

    One of the more memorable independent telephone companies
which actually used war surplus telephone apparatus was the Germantown
Telephone Company in Germantown, NY (located along the Hudson River
somewhat south of Albany).  The telephone company was owned by the
Bohnsack family, who also owned quite a bit of Germantown (or so it
seemed). :-) In all fairness, I must first point out that in 1978 they
obtained REA financing, axed their old CO apparatus and installed
Stromberg-Carlson electronic Crossreed apparatus.  Their old CO was a
sight to behold, however, put together by Walter Bohnsack over the
years using an extensive amount of war surplus.  The first clue that
his CO was "different" was the use of grocery store-variety light
bulbs as ringing lead ballast lamps!

    Obtaining copious quantities of war surplus was easy for
Walter Bohnsack since he also ran a used telephone apparatus company
called Bohnsack Equipment Company (BECO).  Some readers may recognize
this name from their surplus catalogs from years past.

    I usually don't mention on the Net the names of specific
people and telephone companies I have known and dealt with, but I have
made an exception here since I don't believe the Bohnsacks would mind
and since some readers may have heard of their used telephone
apparatus sales company.

> Reminiscent of that time, when WECo built a pink Princess telephone,
> AT&T was so proud, they ran an double-page color ad about how modern
> they were in {Life Magazine}.  One of my neighbors remarked to their
> chum who worked for "the phone company" how classy that looked.  ...
> But then, it was a different time and a different society, wasn't it?

    Ah, yes, colored telephones.  When one now considers the
logistics and expense of maintaining stocks of appropriately colored
components and cords, it does seem a little silly.  I remember how
disappointed I was in the early 1970's when colored 500-type sets
starting arriving with "neutral" slate station cords instead of those
with the matching color.

    Horrors! - what American tradition will they eliminate next? :-)

> And, thanks Larry, for telling me what a "pole-changer" was for.  I
> saw old references to them, but never in a context that explained what
> their function was.  They must have been very archaic, for by the time
> this kid came along, all the offices I saw had motor generators for
> ringing current.  I guess they were more maintenance free.  I can only
> guess pole-changers went out before WW II.

    In my travels with independent operating telephone companies
during the early 1970's, I saw still in service a few ancient AC line
operated 20 Hz ringing power plants that used pole changers.  They
were used with 1A key telephone systems and were manufactured by a
company under the tradename "Tele-Ring".  I can't remember the name of
the manufacturer, though.


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: Mon, 8 Apr 91 01:13 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Albania: Privatization Plans?
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada


A two-paragraph news story from Reuters says that Albania's Communist
government is planning to privatize some government-owned companies,
but does not explictly mentioned telecommunications operations or
telecommunications manufacturing. I expect that telecommunications
will remain in government hands unless the communists lose power.

Here's the story, as it appeared in {The Globe and Mail}, April 6, 1991:

Albania Reveals Plan to Privatize

TIRANA (Reuters) -- Albania's Communist rulers, struggling with
Europe's pooest economy, said they will announce an extensive
privatization plan before the end of the month and legalize joint
ventures with foreign companies, the Community daily Zeri i Popullit
said yesterday [April 5].

   It said the move will permit the creation of co-operative
enterprises, joint ventures and joint-stock companies financied either
by private capital or by loans for the state.


Nigel Allen   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 91 16:26:14 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Separate "City" Code for Mobile Phones


I recently noticed a city code 836 in the UK for mobile phones.  How
long has this been around?

In country code 1, area code 917 is proposed to serve only cellular
and mobile in New York City area (at least part of such cellular and
mobile are currently in area 212).  Bronx had been proposed to go into
917, then that got changed to Bronx-proposed-to-go-into-718, leaving
917 with no proposed land-lines.

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

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 91 14:23:50 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack


Over the weekend I bought a CPS-200 Call Forwarding System from Radio
Shack.  At the local store here, they had one left, marked down to
$29.95, and I thought that price alone made it worthwhile.

This unit does require two actual phone lines; one to accept calls,
and the other to forward the call. Since I have 'genuine' call
forwarding from Illinois Bell, I won't need it a lot, but one good use
came to mind: I'll use it to remotely turn on call forwarding on my
main line!

The device takes calls on (relative to it) 'line 1' and forwards the
call on (relative to it) 'line 2'.  You call on the device's 'line 2'
to remotely make changes in the forwarded number and turn the device
on or off.  Device line 1/2  < = > 2/1 on my phones. So I call on
device line 2 (my phone line 1) and it answers after 17 rings. I tell
it to 'forward' my calls to 1172-new-number. I hang up and call back
on device line 1 (my phone line 2) and my call forces the device to
dial out on phone line 1 '1172-new-number'.  Presto, forwarding has
been established, and subsequent calls to my phone line 1 go to
wherever the forwarding (1172) said to go. The only problem is I
cannot change that number or cancel forwarding since after forwarding
has been established, telco controls my line and I can't get near the
device (via phone line 1 / device line 2) until I come home and kill
it with 1173.  Let me work on this scheme a little longer.


PAT

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Misdialing
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 91 23:13:55 GMT


 From the {Sydney Morning Herald} (Column 8),  April 8:

    The other morning, about 4 o'clock, Philippa Holly, of Oatley,
was woken by the phone. The caller, in Spain, was trying to get a
company in Minneapolis, Minnesota. After persuading the caller that
Oatley wasn't in Minnesota, she went back to bed, but five minutes
later he came on for the same number. Philippa has since found out
that the area code for Minneapolis is 612 - the caller had omitted the
1 for the United States, so 61 got him Australia, the 2 the Sydney
area, and the rest the Oatley number.

    Column 8 can report having been continually called by someone
in Boulogne trying to dial a number in Manchester, whose code on the
British system is 61. As always with this sort of wrong number, the
calls came in the dead of night. Are there any other area codes, when
wrongly dialed, start bells ringing out here?

(Then in the same column on April 9):

    There are more possibilities of mis-dialed calls coming to
Australia than we thought. Australia's international code is 61, and a
2 after that puts the caller into the Sydney network. There are,
according to Paul Gray, of Woollahra, 235 places in the US with area
codes starting with 61, including all Minnesota starting with 612. Tom
Hubbard, of Girraween, lists Basle, Benghazi, Brasilia, Ljubljana
(Yugoslavia), Ottawa, Patrai (Greece), Posnan (Poland), Windhoek
(Namibia), Limerick and Madan (Indonesia), as well as Manchester, as
having local codes starting with 61.


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


[Moderator's Note: I think the columnist meant to say 'there are 235
places in the world with area codes starting with 61' ... there
certainly are not that many area codes in the USA like that. Even so,
is his comment correct? ... I've not counted them all to see.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 08 Apr 91 14:22:38 GMT
From: Jack Rickard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billed Busy Signals


I've had continuing problems with both Sprint and Telecom*USA over the
past year regarding multiple billing entries for busy signals.  I use
a modem and automated mailing software to contact other systems
through Fidonet.  If the modem receives a busy signal, it makes
another attempt a minute or so later.

On the bill, I routinely find a series of calls to the same number,
spaced two minutes apart, each billed for a minute.  The final call of
the series of course, is several minutes in duration indicating I did
finally connect.  I've monitored the system and it is working
perfectly.  But in the course of a month I accumulate forty or fifty
of these one minute billed entries at twelve cents each.

I recently spoke with a gentleman from Telephone Express.  He avows
that this is a by-product of software switching and that their use of
DMS-250 switches would eliminate these billing entries.  Anyone know
the straight scoop on this little problem and how I can eliminate it?


Jack Rickard
IDIC Fan Group            Net 104 UFGate:  1:104/2@FidoNet
14249 E Kansas Pl. #203   UseNet/FidoNet Gateway for Net 104
Aurora, CO 80012          AKA: z200.n5000.f400.metronet.org
[phone] (data)      [phone] (voice)


[Moderator's Note: You can't eliminate it by yourself. Only your long
distance carrier can do so.  The problem you describe is common with
any telecom organization unable/unwilling to obtain 'answer supervision'
 from the serving local telco. The 'supervision' detirmines when a
call has been answered, or if it was answered.  AT&T and the Bells
have it, most of the others do not.   PAT]

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

From: Mike Coleman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Kind of Selective Ringing
Organization: Twin Sun, Inc
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1991 01:16:29 GMT


In alt.privacy, [e-mail] (Lig Lury Jr.) writes:

> These already exist.  You dial, then must supply a code sequence before
> the phone will ring.  The caller's name appears on a display so you can
> decide whether or not to answer.  I'm not sure when it was I saw heard of
> this device, but it was long before all this talk about Caller ID.

Does anyone know if these are available in any kind of affordable form
(i.e., not part of a huge phone system)?

This sort of thing strikes me as being considerably more useful than
Caller ID.  In its simplest (but still useful) form, it could just
ring a bell (or something) when hearing a short touch-tone sequence.
An outgoing message would be nice, too.

The technology of telecommunications seems to excel at dreaming up
capabilities which irritate the hell out of the little guy (Caller ID
included here).  How about something that works in his favor?


Mike Coleman

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

From: "Michael P. Deignan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is There a Selective Ringing Blocker?
Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI  02917
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1991 23:32:26 GMT


[e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

> This is why there is a "normal" output ... that is the one you
> hook your telephone to, and it only rings when someone dials
> your "normal" phone number.

Maybe I'm confusing the issue here. In my area, you can have three
phone numbers ring at the same locale:


    NET Gives Me:        I use it for:
    --------------------    ---------------
    a. Short-Short ring    -> fax
    b. Normal ring         -> dial-in modem
    c. Long ring         -> voice


Of course, I can switch the [b] and [c] usage around if need be.
However, Hello's device only allows you to split [a] and [b]. Now,
I've also got [c] ringing ... But, since Hello only splits the line
twice, I have to split the line coming from the wall ... ie:

                            /-- fax (short-short)
             /----> hello direct box ---
wall -- 2-in-one splitter                \-- modem (normal)
             \----> voice phone (long)


So ... regardless of which ring I'm actually getting, the phone will
ring.  Very annoying, especially if it is three in the morning, and
it is just a fax.

What I need to do is "block" the phone from ringing unless its a
"long" ring.

Or, I could use a three-way call director, if anyone has one of those.

The above setup is tenative, so I can always play around with it more
(ie: make the "voice" the short-short if I really had to.) But, that
in itself makes more problems.

I COULD switch the modem and the voice phone, but then the modem will
"answer" the phone unless I get to the phone in time, since the modem
just detects a ring and picks up as needed. That's why I've got the
fax and modem on the ring detector, so the wrong device won't pick up.

Clearer, or did I just make it more confusing?


Michael P. Deignan          Domain: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd    Telebit: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 91 15:53:41 PDT
From: "Douglas W. Martin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Humor (Lawyers)


After successfully passing the bar exam, a man opened his own law
office. He was sitting idle at his desk when his secretary announced
that a Mr. Jones had arrived to see him. "Show him right in!" our
lawyer replied. As Mr. Jones was being ushered in our lawyer had an
idea. He quickly picks up the phone and shouts into it "..and you tell
them that we won't accept less then fifty thousand dollars, and don't
even call me until you agree to that amount!"  Slamming the phone down
he stood up and greeted Mr. Jones; "Good Morning, Mr.  Jones, what can
I do for you?"

"I'm from the phone company" Mr. Jones replied, "I'm here to connect
your phone."


Doug Martin     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for a delightful close to this issue!   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #277
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01343;
          10 Apr 91 13:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12726;
          10 Apr 91 12:00 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07864;
          10 Apr 91 10:52 CDT
Date:     Wed, 10 Apr 91 10:12:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #278
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 10 Apr 91 10:12:12 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 278

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack [Michael Coleman]
    Re: My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack [Tim Irvin]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Robert E. Zabloudil]
    Re: Multi-Line Ringer Sought [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Hidgon an Expert on 2600 Hz? [Mark D. Studebaker]
    Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905 [Alex Pournelle]
    Re: Dublin Number Expansion [Tim Oldham]
    Re: Cellular Phones for $29 [Randy Borow]
    Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta [David Gast]
    Re: Telephones in Taverns and Restaurants [Darren Alex Griffiths]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Coleman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date:  9 Apr 91 19:21:46 GMT


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:

> So I call on
> device line 2 (my phone line 1) and it answers after 17 rings. I tell
> it to 'forward' my calls to 1172-new-number. I hang up and call back

So...  What's your phone number, Mr. Townson?  ;-)


[Moderator's Note: Many people know my number -- and some say they've
got my number (!) :) ... but the catch is, if anyone answers within 17
rings the deal is off, and when it does answer, you need my password.
Then, it would help if you knew the number of the second line so you
could dial it and activate the first line.   PAT]

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

From: Tim Irvin <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 91 09:18:15 -0500


In TELECOM Digest V11 #277, Moderator writes:

> The device takes calls on (relative to it) 'line 1' and forwards the
> call on (relative to it) 'line 2'.  You call on the device's 'line 2'
> to remotely make changes in the forwarded number and turn the device
> on or off.  Device line 1/2  < = > 2/1 on my phones. So I call on
> device line 2 (my phone line 1) and it answers after 17 rings. I tell
> it to 'forward' my calls to 1172-new-number. I hang up and call back
> on device line 1 (my phone line 2) and my call forces the device to
> dial out on phone line 1 '1172-new-number'.  Presto, forwarding has
> been established, and subsequent calls to my phone line 1 go to
> wherever the forwarding (1172) said to go. The only problem is I
> cannot change that number or cancel forwarding since after forwarding
> has been established, telco controls my line and I can't get near the
> device (via phone line 1 / device line 2) until I come home and kill
> it with 1173.  Let me work on this scheme a little longer.

I can see only one way around this, and that requires that IBT and NET
have the same features.  If you get a distinctive ringing feature on
your "phone line 1/device line 2", and have IBT Call Forwarding
activated to only work on your Main number (not your distinctive ring
number).  Then to cancel Call Forwarding, call your distinctive ring
number, which will ring through to the Ripoff Shack box and your off
and running.  And since your distinctive ring number will "ring-ring",
you will only have to wait nine rings (actually 8-1/2 :) -- an added
bonus.

Tim Irvin

[Moderator's Note: Bravo! You found the solution, and yes, I do have
a distinctive (short double-ring) number attached to my first line and
no, it is not set to forward when the main line is forwarded. I have
not yet tested to see if your theory of it 'answering in half the
time' is valid.    PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 09 Apr 91 14:04 PDT
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable


It would appear to me that the LEC makes no money on the distribution
of white pages, as they cost nothing to the local subscriber, and
contain no paid advertising. To the contrary, the LEC apparently does
so as a public service to the users of their service. Perhaps
initially upon the introduction of charge for DA, the LEC might have
argued before the PUC that the availability of white pages would keep
directory service free for those not too lazy to use them. Aside from
that, and the introductory information on service ordering, etc. I
don't see the LEC having a whole lot of use for them. Certainly the
availability of white pages cuts DA revenue somewhat, but I doubt that
much regular traffic would be lost without the directory. I know some
LEC's are very stingy with the distribution of the directory, perhaps
to limit publication runs, or increase DA use.  (Especially GTE!!)

Although I would hate to see it happen, perhaps Pat's suggestion about
LEC's stopping their white pages publication might be taken seriously
by some LECs facing stiff competition in the yellow/white business.
The various retreads would _have_ to buy the white tapes from the LEC,
providing revenue there, and the directories would still be made
available through those other publishers. Here in LA we are hit with I
believe at least four different yellow pages ripoffs, one of which is
PacBell including white pages, covering neighborhoods that aren't
their own turf. I wonder if there is some regulation requiring the LEC
to publish directories. For if not, I can see some LEC's dropping the
white pages as soon as someone else shows up to take up the slack.


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

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

From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Date: 9 Apr 91 14:20:25 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


I suppose what the phone company could arrange to do is copy their
database as of the closing date of the directory, and then "sell"
competitors copies of THOSE tapes when requested.  Assuming, of
course, that the price would be set to cover "postage and handling"
only, in keeping with the court decision.

Our newsfeed was down, so I didn't see the original posting.  I
imagine, though, that the above would comply with the letter of the
court's ruling.

Opinions, of course, strictly my own.

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multi-Line Ringer Sought
Date: 10 Apr 91 02:16:45 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rod
Erickson, x2505) writes:

> I'm looking for a ringer which can be connected to three or more phone
> lines, providing distinctive ringing for each.

> Does such a device exist?

    Yes, it does. One such device is the Viking Electronics PA-2A.
It takes up to six incoming CO lines and emits an "adjustable loud
Warble"

    Cost about $86.00 at your local telephone parts distributor.


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

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

From: "Mark D. Studebaker(813" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hidgon an Expert on 2600 Hz?
Reply-To: "Mark D. Studebaker(813" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1991 17:41:56 GMT


The new "Notes on the Network" is just out from Bellcore for $395.
"Over 1050 pages and 385 graphic depictions, including ... CCS, CLASS,
updated numbering plan considerations, and synchronization.  Over 80%
of the material is presented for the first time in this issue."

Order from Bellcore:
800-521-CORE
or 908-699-5800.

"BOC Notes on the LEC Networks - 1990"
SR-TSV-002275.


mark

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

From: Alex Pournelle <elroy!grian![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1991 05:24:20 GMT


[e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tony
> Harminc) writes:

> The plan is to use seven digits for all intra-NPA calls, and 1 + ten
> digits for all inter-NPA calls.  No timeouts, no ambiguity, and no
> sure way to tell the difference between local and toll calls
> intra-NPA.  Any NXX number can then be used as an area code, and as an
> exchange prefix within any area code.  In the interest of user-
> friendliness, Bellcore recommends not assigning the same NXX as an
> area code and as a prefix within the area code.  (So we won't have a
> 201-201 central office in Northern NJ.)

At least in Pac*Swell's southern area, this isn't QUITE true: there
*IS* a 213-213 exchange; actually, a "psuedo-exchange"; the Big Book
of Prefixes (Higdon will doubtless give out the real name:-) for the
L.A.  LATA lists 213-213 as "Pseudo-POTS for local 800 service" or
something.  The indication I got was that it wasn't a "public"
exchange, but one for phones the Great Unwashed should never see.

Yes, there was also a 213-818, an 818-818 and an 818-213 as I recall.
I think they had the same kind of designations.


Not a phone-weeny, just leafing through my roommate's stuff,

Alex Pournelle, freelance thinker
Also: Workman & Associates, Data recovery for PCs, Macs, others
...elroy!grian!alex; BIX: alex; voice: [phone]
fax: [phone]    bbs: 791-1013; 8N1 24/12/3  BIX: alex

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

From: Tim Oldham <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 15:35:19 BST
Subject: Re: Dublin Number Expansion
Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK


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

> I believe the reason BT didn't choose the "017 & 018" option is that
> they preferred to keep the entire "01..." sequence clear for as yet
> unspecified future use. This might well include implementation of some
> of the schemes mentioned above, I speculate.

I believe (and I don't speak for my employer on this) that as 01 is
already the international dialling sequence (eg the USA is 0101), 017
and 018 were out of the question, or just plain confusing.

London was split as it was (Central/Outer) because Central London has
a much higher growth rate of demand for numbers. For example, there is
a high concentration of companies in Central London, and a lot of them
are extending their fax and direct-dial facilities as they grow and/or
replace their PABXs. Mercury were also demanding more numbers.

While BT put forward the recommendation, paid for the advertising to
make it a success, and in so doing provided more numbers for Mercury
to use, Oftel (the UK Telecomms regulator) had to approve the plan.

I would also dispute John's claim that most people know which London
districts are North or South of the river.

I don't speak for BT on any of this.


Tim Oldham, BT Group Computing Services
[e-mail]   ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Apr  8 16:48:32 CDT 1991
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones for $29


Now, Pat, do you really think Cellular One and Ameritech Mobile are
truly scraping for customers? On the contrary, I believe they are
simply trying to rope the customers in: make great offers (short-term,
they're great deals), but make subscribers commit to a time period of
service (long-term, costly to customers but $$$ for the cellular
companies).

I've noticed here in Chicago's suburbs that within the last 12 months,
I have seen more and more cars with those recognizable cellular
antennas protruding from the back of their vehicles. It's obvious that
mobile phones are no longer considered a luxury for the rich only, but
a necessity or desired tool for the not-so-rich (like myself -- do you
know how many times my old car has broken down and the phone has saved
the day?).


Randy Borow   AT&T Communications   Rolling Meadows, IL.

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

Date: Mon, 8 Apr 91 21:44:06 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta


Robert Jacobson wrote:

> 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.

The Moderator moderated:

> What about in places like New Jersey, where Caller*ID has been a
> reality now for about a year?

I was at one of the CPUC Caller ID hearings.  Sure enough one of the
phone companies was there spouting off information from a small test
in rural Kentucky (this is LA!) that lasted about one month.  Of
course, when one of the people in the audience asked to see the test
questions, the test results, and the like to verify that the test
actually proved what the company said it did, he was told that the
information is not available to the public.  (It is apparently
available to participants in the formal hearings, however).

Mr Jacobson, of course, is correct.  Most businesses do not have
devices to trap the incoming phone numbers at the present time, but
per other messages "Caller ID RS-232 Interface Needed" we know that
they are available.  Additionally, the value of the information will
come as companies know not just one call, but hundreds of calls.  When
they can say "Oh, it's just Bill, he never buys, let's not answer the
phone" or "It's Sam from redlined area Y, no need to answer," etc.
Additionally, these people will not necessarily be calling you from
intra-LATA phones, so if you have been ignoring out of area calls
during dinner, you don't know if Radio Shack (or someone Radio Shacked
disseminated the information to) has been calling you.  Finally, you
should not necessarily expect that these people will only call you up,
they can also send junk mail, send you junk mail with different
prices/specials, or adjust the prices at the store.  In most respects,
you cannot know how the information about you was used.


David Gast   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: There was one thing I was mistaken about. In New
Jersey, Caller-ID has not been around a year; it has been around for
about three years. Still, no horror stories.   PAT]

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

From: Darren Alex Griffiths <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephones in Taverns and Restaurants
Date: 9 Apr 91 22:01:35 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


In article <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail]
(Larry Lippman) writes:

>    I don't know if they are still in business, but during the
> 1970's in Hartford, CT there was a tavern called "The Dialtone Lounge"
> that had a telephone at every table and booth.  While there was no
> outside line access, one could call in orders and call from one table
> to another.  Calling from table to table was a great way to initiate
> conversations with the opposite sex, and probably accounted for the
> popularity of the establishment! :-)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think calling up a pretty girl who
happens to be sitting across from me is a great way of picking her up.
I suppose if I already knew someone and was intimidated to see her in
person I might call her at home (although I've never been in that
situation of-course :-) ) but other than that I think I would just
walk up an say hello, buy her a drink or "accidently" spill chocalate
ice-cream on her new white blouse as a way of starting a conversation.
Perhaps someone could comment on why people feel more comfortable
talking on the phone in establishments like that, I can certainly
understand preferring to talk to someone on the phone, but when there
in the same room it's wierd.

There is a similar place in a central California town called King City
(also known as speedo trap alley) on highway 101.  An old girlfriend
once called me from there (I was in Berkeley not at the bar) but it
took me about a year to find it on my trips down to Santa Barbara
afterwards.  I haven't been there in quite awhile but the last time I
visited it all the phones were GTE (ick!!) and it was designed for
truckers, which means it had a four acre packing lot for all of the 18
wheelers.


Darren Alex Griffiths       [phone]     [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #278
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29592;
          11 Apr 91 2:43 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10442;
          11 Apr 91 1:10 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21711;
          11 Apr 91 0:03 CDT
Date:     Wed, 10 Apr 91 23:32:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #279
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 10 Apr 91 23:32:08 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 279

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Separate "City" Code for Mobile Phones [John R. Covert]
    Re: Separate "City" Code for Mobile Phones [Spyros C. Bartsocas]
    Re: Another Kind of Selective Ringing [John Higdon]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Jim Budler]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: Cellular Phones for $29 [[e-mail]]
    Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta [Scott Alexander]
    Re: Strange Phone Calls [Mark Walsh]
    Re: Billed Busy Signals [Cristobal Pedregal-Martin]
    Re: Dublin Number Expansion [Colum Mylod]
    WXYZ (was Re: New FCC Modem Tax?) [Robert E. Zabloudil]
    Phone Audio to RCA Jack [James Blake]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 11:36:37 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  09-Apr-1991 1436" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Separate "City" Code for Mobile Phones


> I recently noticed a city code 836 in the UK for mobile phones.  How
> long has this been around?

This is the way it has been done since the advent of cellular several
years ago.

0836+6D is Vodaphone, 0860+6D is BT Cellnet.  In Germany, 0161+7D is
C-Netz.  In Australia it's 018+6D.

All cellular numbers, regardless of location in the country, are
assigned numbers within the cellular prefix.  Cellular phone users do
not pay for incoming calls; the caller, regardless of location, pays
for the call to the cellular customer.  There is a special rate for
calls to cellular phones from within the country; when calling
cellular phones from outside the country, only the normal
international rate applies.

This creates the interesting situation that it is cheaper to call
German cellular phones from outside Germany than from within
Germany.

Warning: Both Vodaphone and BT as well as Telecom Australia Mobilenet
charge you for reaching the "it has not been possible to connect your
call" recording.  I believe this violates CCITT Recommendations, but I
don't know how to get it fixed.

Germany does not have this problem.


john

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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 14:17:03 -0400
From: "Spyros C. Bartsocas" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Separate "City" Code for Mobile Phones


> I recently noticed a city code 836 in the UK for mobile phones.
 ...
> In country code 1, area code 917 is proposed to serve only cellular
> and mobile in New York City area (at least part of such cellular and

Although Greece does not have cellular phones, there is a similar
setup for beepers.  All beepers are in area code 921.  As until a few
years ago 9 was used to call Cyprus, there no other area codes
starting with 9.

About this special setup between Greece and Cyprus: Until a few years
ago you could call Cyprus as a long-distance call instead of an
international call.  The calling sequence was [long distance] - 9 -
[Cyprus areacode] - [telephone number]. I do not know if there was a
similar setup from their side.  Now the setup is similar as to most
other places in the world ([international] - [357]- ....).


Spyros Bartsocas
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 20:20 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Another Kind of Selective Ringing


Mike Coleman <[e-mail]> writes:

> In alt.privacy, [e-mail] (Lig Lury Jr.) writes:

> > These already exist.  You dial, then must supply a code sequence before
> > the phone will ring.  The caller's name appears on a display so you can
> > decide whether or not to answer.

> Does anyone know if these are available in any kind of affordable form
> (i.e., not part of a huge phone system)?

> This sort of thing strikes me as being considerably more useful than
> Caller ID.

Oh yes, these little boxes are quite available and are relatively
inexpensive, and will become more so as CLASS services become more
widespread. But as to your assertion that the device is more useful
than Caller ID, not only do I disagree but counterassert that the
device is rude to callers.

First, you insist that a caller must have a DTMF-capable phone to
aspire to the higher levels of your graces. No entry of digits would,
I assume, be construed as an "unknown caller" or worse, "withholding
of ID". Second, this wonderful device answers your phone every time,
charging the caller for all attempts, successful or not.

So your [fill in the relationship of someone close to you] is stranded
and calls you from a COCOT that disallows DTMF after call completion.
Not only has that person been unsuccessful, but has lost coin in the
process.

As a person who potentially would be rejected by Call Block (tm), I
can assure you that I would rather have the line not answered or a
rejection recording come from the CO at no charge than face one of
those Rube Goldberg boxes, knowing that I had just paid for the
privledge.


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

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

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Organization: Silvar-Lisco, Inc.
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1991 09:03:50 GMT


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

> Jim Bubler wrote that a phone number once assigned belongs to a
        ^_ that's a /d/
> customer.  While I am on his side, his statement isn't true. Telephone
> numbers remain the property of telco and can be changed at their whim,
> etc. Sorry, Jim, but we basically have no rights, so to speak, when it
> comes to "our" phone numbers.

> [Moderator's Note: You are quite correct. Every phone book says it in
> these words, more or less, "Whenever, in the conduct of its business,
> the Company finds it desirable to change the number, etc ..."   PAT]

I agree we have no rights. 8^(

But whether the phone number belong to the phone company or not, the
right to associate that number to my name should not belong to the
phone company.

What I tried to articulate was that now that the Supreme Court has
taken away their right to claim copyright on an expression of that
association of name to number, they will chose to replace the income
by charging people who wish their name to number association to be
public.

Thus everyone listed in white pages will have paid for that
publication and the phone company will have made their bucks, and the
copying will be an extension of their customer's desire of that name
to number association being public information.

And therefore my desire to be non-published will become free.


jim

P.S. Bubler isn't bad, I usually get Butler, of course, but I've
also been called Butter, and Budder. 8^)


Jim Budler             [e-mail]
Silvar-Lisco            +1.408.991.6115
703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086

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

From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Date: 9 Apr 91 21:04:00 GMT


It would appear to me that the LEC makes no money on the distribution
of white pages, as they cost nothing to the local subscriber, and
contain no paid advertising. To the contrary, the LEC apparently does
so as a public service to the users of their service. Perhaps
initially upon the introduction of charge for DA, the LEC might have
argued before the PUC that the availability of white pages would keep
directory service free for those not too lazy to use them. Aside from
that, and the introductory information on service ordering, etc. I
don't see the LEC having a whole lot of use for them. Certainly the
availability of white pages cuts DA revenue somewhat, but I doubt that
much regular traffic would be lost without the directory. I know some
LEC's are very stingy with the distribution of the directory, perhaps
to limit publication runs, or increase DA use.  (Especially GTE!!)

Although I would hate to see it happen, perhaps Pat's suggestion about
LEC's stopping their white pages publication might be taken seriously
by some LECs facing stiff competition in the yellow/white business.
The various retreads would _have_ to buy the white tapes from the LEC,
providing revenue there, and the directories would still be made
available through those other publishers. Here in LA we are hit with I
believe at least four different yellow pages ripoffs, one of which is
PacBell including white pages, covering neighborhoods that aren't
their own turf. I wonder if there is some regulation requiring the LEC
to publish directories. For if not, I can see some LEC's dropping the
white pages as soon as someone else shows up to take up the slack.


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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 14:34:10 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones for $29


Speaking of scraping for customers; here in west central Florida, we
have a price war going on between some "trunkers" for phone jack
installs.  I've been following this saga in our local paper for a few
months now.  (Abbreviated classified ads):

Trunker 1: jacks= $25.00. Next day; Trunker 2 enters picture: jacks= $24.95.

Two weeks later; Trunker 1: jacks=$20.00. Trunker 2: jacks= $19.95.

One month later; Trunker 3 enters picture: jacks= $20.00, catv outlets=
$30.00 and up. Trunkers 1 & 2: remain the same.

Two days later; Trunker 1: jacks= $19.00, catv= $30.00. Trunker 2:
jacks= $19.95, catv= $30.00. Trunker 3 remains the same.

One week later; Trunker 1 remains the same. Trunker 2: jacks= $15.00,
catv= $30.00. Trunker 3 remains the same.

What are other Trunker prices like in other parts of the country?  I
have lots of IBM type II cable outlets to be installed here.  I'm
thinking of calling the $15.00 per jack guy!  Or, maybe I should wait
until the prices drop more?

BTW, our definition of a Trunker down here is generally someone who
went to a certain "un-named" electronics chain, bought their book on
"HOW TO INSTALL YOUR OWN PHONES", and works out of the trunk of his
bomber. This guy will on occasion try to add jacks to Key Systems and
hose everything up.

         ** BEWARE OF THE TRUNKER, HE'S EVERYWHERE!!!! **

PS: Hope I haven't offended any of you on the net. (Disclaimer)

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

From: Scott Alexander <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My First Month of Caller ID in Atlanta
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 11:24:12 PDT


In the latest {Unix Today}, there was an article saying that HP is
coming out with software for capturing Caller ID information.
(Unfortunately, in a fit of insanity, I threw that issue out.  Perhaps
someone else can come up with more details.)  Apparently they believe
that the availability of Caller ID is getting to the point where they
can market such a product.  I would expect to start seeing other
companies making similar offerings until there is a cheap turn-key
system for the PC.  That's when I expect the horror stories to start.


Scott Alexander    [e-mail]

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

From: Mark Walsh <optilink!marks350![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Phone Calls
Date: 9 Apr 91 17:10:27 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Paul S. Sawyer):

> sometimes (when things are REAL dull ...) I put them on the speaker,
> with the transmitter muted, with varying amusing results ... once
> during a party someone called and asked for the "head of the house"
> (whatever that is ... B-) so I said "I'll get him", and put the
> speakerphone on while we all told anecdotes about companies that use
> telemarketing while the speaker kept yelling for attention.

Which brings up an interesting question that I have had.  Yes, I too
find these most annoying.  When the automated solicitors prompt you to
leave information on their machine, I leave a message consisting of an
incoherent diatribe of grotesque words and concepts.  (The last one
had something to do with sexual activity.)  Anyway, I know that
obscene phone calls are illegal, but what if you are not the
originator of the phone call?


Mark Walsh, KC6RKZ

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

From: Cristobal Pedregal-Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billed Busy Signals
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 10:50:41 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In Article 15305 in comp.dcom.telecom,

[e-mail] (Jack Rickard) writes:

> I've had continuing problems with both Sprint and Telecom*USA over the
> past year regarding multiple billing entries for busy signals.

And our esteemed Moderator remarks:

> [Moderator's Note: You can't eliminate it by yourself. Only your long
> distance carrier can do so.  The problem you describe is common with
> any telecom organization unable/unwilling to obtain 'answer supervision'
> from the serving local telco.

I have noticed a similar phenomenon calling Spain this last month:

I get a busy signal and soon thereafter the characteristic high-pitch
short tone (forgive my ignorance of the technical terms here) which
one usually hears when international calls are answered.  I do a bit
of international calling, and this never happened to me before; plus,
I remembered seeing a sign in a German PTT cautioning customers that
"calls to Spain - due to equipment in Spain - start being billed after
a few seconds regardless of whether there is an answer there". I
remember it distinctly (this was about two years ago) because it
annoyed me :-)

So I called AT&T (my LD company) and described (in my layman's terms)
the phenomenon. They assured I won't be billed for these "calls". I'll
keep an eye on my next bill, and report what happens.

Has anyone had a similar experience? And, what are the appropriate
terms here (for the synch tone, etc.)?


                   Cristobal Pedregal Martin
internet: [e-mail]  ||  phone: [phone] (home)
postal:   LGRC - COINS Dept. --- UMass/Amherst, MA 01003 --- USA

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

From: Colum Mylod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dublin Number Expansion
Date: 10 Apr 91 09:00:55 GMT
Reply-To: Colum Mylod <[e-mail]>
Organization: Oracle Europe


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles Bryant)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 266, Message 3 of 16

> With our bills Telecom Eireann customers have got a leaflet giving
> the first stages of the 01 area number expansion plan. [...]
> From April 8th all numbers starting with 69, 8 will have a 2 added
> to make them 269 XXXX and 28X XXXX.

Lucky you getting some info, even if they stick in a bill too!  Those
of us dialling from overseas (where publicity on the changes is zilch)
are just getting tri-tone for the numbers that changed on 8 April. Can
Telecom Eireann not afford some message machines to tell us what has
changed, instead of playing do-da-de and putting more work on
enquiries services? Does any other telco not put out a message on
changed numbers? London is still doing so for calls to 1 or for
incorrect 71/81 numbers, as is the Dutch PTT.


Colum Mylod       [e-mail]      Above is IMHO

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

From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" <[e-mail]>
Subject: WXYZ (was Re: New FCC Modem Tax?)
Date: 10 Apr 91 14:11:05 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
com (Ken Abrams) writes:

> radio station WXYZ in Los Angeles yesterday.....".

Yes, I know what he meant, but there really is a WXYZ in Detroit,
isn't there?

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

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 18:36:20 PDT
From: James  Blake <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Audio to RCA Jack


Has anyone ever come across a device which would allow one to take the
line level out from an RCA jack to a telephone line and to take the
audio from a phone to a RCA jack?


james

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #279
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01708;
          11 Apr 91 3:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15730;
          11 Apr 91 2:16 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10442;
          11 Apr 91 1:10 CDT
Date:     Thu, 11 Apr 91 0:22:43 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #280
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 11 Apr 91 00:22:21 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 280

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed [Al L. Varney]
    Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: Apple Data-PCS Petition for Rulemaking [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: International Tariff Expertise Sought [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Hidgon an Expert on 2600 Hz? [John Higdon]
    Re: Dublin Number Expansion [Bob Goudreau]
    Per Line Blocking? [John Higdon]
    RS-232C to Commodore 64 User Port [Alain St-Denis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon,  8 Apr 91 09:06:45 CDT
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> @comspec.uucp (David Berman)
writes:

> Northern Telecom has had their Maestro phones out a while, I think.
> And I also believe that the Caller*ID transmissions from the phone
> company are kind of standardized. I think.

   Depends on who/what you mean by the "phone company".  Bellcore
client companies have a standard.  Canada may have another.
Independents could have a third.  PBX vendors can do all kinds of
"secret" transmissions, etc.

> Question: Does anyone reading know what is sent out? How the phone
> number or alpha information is encoded on the ring cycle? Has it been
> done in a reasonable way so that decoding is sensible? (etc) Addresses
> the future?

   Yes.  Yes.  Yes, it's expansible.  It's in there.

> Or: Does anyone know where such information is published for
> reference?

   OK ... One more time, with feeling:

   The information is published FOR PROFIT by Bellcore, and is
periodically updated by them.

   The interface specification for the actual Customer Premises
interface for analog telephone lines is in:

   TR-TSY-000030, "SPCS Customer Premises Equipment Data Interface",
      Issue 1, November 1988 + Bulletin 1, April 1989 {may be at Issue 2
      by now.}

This is the electrical interface, at about the level of describing how
to build a 1200-baud modem with FSK signaling.

   The actual messages sent to the interface are in ASCII, detailed in
each speification that describes a particular feature using the
interface. Refer to:

   TR-TSY-000031, "CLASS(sm) Feature: Calling Number Delivery", Issue 2,
      June 1988, + Revision 1, January 1990

   TA-NWT-001188, "CLASS(sm) Calling Name Delivery and Related Features",
      Issue 1, March 1991 {Waiting for Industry Comments}

   These are two relevant documents, but there are no real limits
imposed by TR-30 on the usage of the interface.  Use of the interface
during Call Waiting is under study.  The requirements for ISDN
interfaces are documented in other TR's (many).

   Bellcore documents can be ordered by calling [phone],
   (Mon.-Fri. 8 am to 6 pm)  Visa, Mastercard, American Express
      FAX orders:  [phone]
      Telex orders: [phone]

   Mail (with payment in U.S. funds, or credit card information):

        Bellcore
        Customer Service
        60 New England Avenue
        Piscataway, NJ  08854-4196

All this and more is available as SR-TSY-000264, "Catalog of Technical
Information" and updates/etc are detailed in the monthly periodical,
"Bellcore's Digest of Technical Information."

   Prices (in an old catalog):

     TR-TSY-000030,  $25 (includes Bulletin)
     TR-TSY-000031,  $23  Revision 1   $12   (may be included in new orders?)
     SR-TSY-000264,  No Price stated!

     Bellcore Digest  $60/year, includes the SR-TSY-000264 yearly catalog!
       (Prices do not include sales tax, Canadian/Mexican or Foreign
        surcharges, multi-year discounts, etc.)

> Further: Will Toronto (416)'s Caller ID transmissions be compatible
> with the ones in the United States, say, in AT&T territory? Or will
> they be similar, but different, so that Maestro phones in Atlanta, GA,
> won't work in Toronto, even though they have fixed the design flaw down
> there?

    Who knows?  Depends on Canadian requirements.

> (I have even more questions, but hope that I will be able to follow
> the thread as others ask in response to your answers ...) [thanks]

    Well, ask away, but don't expect to be able to construct an
interface of understand the messages from the Net, any more than you
could construct a real telephone from information only from the Net.


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems

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

From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers
Date: 10 Apr 91 17:01:58 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


> [Moderator's Note: Well, but at least with the IBT refund coupons (I
> refuse to call them checks!) you can redeem them with your phone bill.
> They say that on the front of the piece of paper. I would be
> embarassed to send them a COCOT refund coupon along with my phone bill
> payment, although I guess I could.   PAT]

When I was in Atlanta (back in the days of the $.10 pay phone) I was
connected to a wrong number by one of the bandits. When I called the
operator to try and get through to the correct number (I did not have
another dime) she would not connect me, but took my name and address.
A couple of weeks later I recieved a check (not coupon, real
honest-to-goodness check) for $.10 ... which was sent in an envelope
with a $.22 stamp on it!

That seems like a pretty expensive way to deal with it (operator's
time + envelope handler's time + envelope cost + check cost + stamp
cost + amount of check.)


Internet:[e-mail]|UUCP:...!uunet!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott
DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions, they do not|[phone]
represent the opinions or feelings of Boeing or its management|  BTN:461-2073

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 03:01 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Apple Data-PCS Petition for Rulemaking


Continuing a thread about Apple Computer applying to operate a radio
LAN product with the FCC [last commented in Digest v11, iss153], there
was rather expectable news reported in this week's trade press.

The following is from {CommunicationsWEEK} for April 10:

                       "TELCOS OPPOSE APPLE SPECTRUM"

                           "By Kathleen Killette"

"WASHINGTON - In comments submitted to the FCC, telcos, utilities and
others have said Apple Computer, Inc. has not justified a separate
spectrum allocation in its petition for personal communications
services."

        "In addition, Apple's critics say the company's petition
should be folded into the FCC's broader PCS inquiry, which has been
under way since June." (1990, of course.)

        "This week, the agency will receive more comments on a
petition submitted in January by Apple" ... "for data-only PCS. The
computer industry's growing interest in wireless technologies is
pressuring the FCC to carve out spectrum fpr over-the-air local area
data networks."

   ..........

        "Apple asked the FCC to allocate 40 megahertz of spectrum in
the 1,850-MHz to 1,990-MHz radiofrequency band for `Data-PCS.'
Data-PCS would let PC users `access files, peripherals and the
gateways of wired and wireless data networks,' within a local area of
between 50 and 150 meters, Apple stated."

        "Data-PCS would use a maximum of 1 Watt of output power and
directional antennae, which would let different antennae use the same
frequency simultaneously for transmitting and receiving packetized
data."

        "But AT&T opposed Apple's petition, stating that PCS spectrum
allocations should not be limited to data-only applications."

        "Southwestern Bell Corp., St. Louis, agreed, and added that,
`Apple's request should be considered, if at all, solely within the
context of' the FCC's current PCS inquiry.  Apple also wants too much
spectrum for Data-PCS and has not proposed and compensation for the
existing users of the 1,850-1,990 MHz band, stated Southwestern."

        "That spectrum currently is allocated to commercial, fixed
microwave users that operate private network, such as utiliteis and
large corporations.  Many of these users are licensed as Operational
Fixed Service users and providers."

        "The Utilities Telecommunications Council" <what part of the
woodwork DO all these outfits come out of?> "also objected to Apple's
petition, noting that water, gas and electric utilities have invested
more than $360 million in radio equipment to operate in the
1,850-1,990 MHz band." <Sounds to me like no more than ONE electric
company'a annual rate ...>

        "That investment - which supports roughly 2,000 licenses"
<aha!  let's see - $360 million/2,000 comes to ... $180,000 per EACH
license.  WOW!  That's some AWFULLY expensive 2 Gigahertz microwave,
folks!> "-could be stranded if private microwave users are relocated
to other frequencies, resulting severe economic hardships, according
to the council."

        (end quote)

        So, it looks like Apple is getting the typical treatment:
Overstated tales of woe from the poor, beleagured utility companies --
who for the most part still enjoy just sticking more capital in their
rate bases the way Telcos did for decades.  If any argument makes more
sense, that put forward by AT&T does...simply to say that PCS should
be for both voice and data.  But to cry the blues about what is a
rather insignificant portion of the total investment of the utility
industry just doesn't seem to fit. What could possibly motivate the
utilities, who want all the excuses they can find to stick more
capital in their rate bases, to jump into this fray?

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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 02:18 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Tariff Expertise Sought


        In Digest V11, Iss269, Carl Wright <[e-mail]> asks:

> I am seeking individuals who can discuss how the revenues from
> international calls are distributed and determined. Any names are
> appreciated. Anywhere in the world.

        When the story that follows appeared, it brought to mind the
the thought that international telecommunications settlements have
many participants, but NO experts.  Shrouded in a cloud of apparent
sophistication, rates are bargained between the telecomm operators of
nations, then converted to an artificial unit of currency called a
"gold franc."  Then, settlements are _supposed_ to be made.  However,
as the following article suggests, it's "get the rich capitalists"
time when it comes to negotiating a split for circuits from the US.

        But, it gets worse than AT&T would have you know in the
article.  The other side then sets their outgoing price sky high,
which discourages outgoing traffic from their end, thus they have even
less to pay.  Meantime, your outbound originations go way up, and you
owe them most all the time.

        But to top it all, when they do owe you, they never do pay,
just running up the tab for years and years.

        The "book" way it works is all in the CCITT's Recommendations,
but the CCITT carefully avoids any rules about what constitutes a fair
division of revenue and how often the bill _will_ get settled.

        That in mind, see AT&T's latest story about what has been
another foreign trade drain on the US economy for decades:


"AT&T NEWSBRIEFS

"Friday, April 5, 1991

"FOREIGN TRADE - According to the FCC, out of every $1 that U.S. phone
customers pay to make international calls, American phone companies
keep an average of 25 cents for their share of the connection. The
rest - 75 cents - is paid to the foreign phone company in the country
where the call is received.  At the same time, some foreign countries
keep international calling rates for their own residents high to
encourage their citizens and businesses to keep out-going calls to a
minimum - since the country makes more money from incoming calls. ...
In the topsy-turvy world of international phone calling, AT&T gets to
keep only 8 cents per minute during peak calls, and it actually loses
14 cents a minute in off-peak calling. ... Today direct dialing is the
standard way to phone most countries and the cost of international
voice circuits has decreased as much as a hundredfold - but accounting
rates have not fallen proportionately. ... "I don't think there's
still enough critical mass [of concern] to be able to make a
fundamental reform yet," said AT&T's [Tom] Luciano [of international
setlements].  <Washington Times, C1)"

    So, another form of "get the gringo" continues unchanged.
International settlements for telecomm sound all gentlemanly in form,
but in function they are patently a ripoff.


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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 12:09 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Hidgon an Expert on 2600 Hz?


"Mark D. Studebaker(813" <[e-mail]> writes:

> The new "Notes on the Network" is just out from Bellcore for $395.

Be sure to save your receipt in case someone busts into your house
accusing you of stealing it!

According to the formula apparently used by SBT and the Federal
Government, you might be charged with a crime involving $2,400,000. I
believe this is in conformity with the prosecution's standard markup
of Bellcore documents, no? :-)


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

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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 17:33:03 edt
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dublin Number Expansion


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tim
Oldham) writes:

> > I believe the reason BT didn't choose the "017 & 018" option is that
> > they preferred to keep the entire "01..." sequence clear for as yet
> > unspecified future use.

> I believe (and I don't speak for my employer on this) that as 01 is
> already the international dialling sequence (eg the USA is 0101), 017
> and 018 were out of the question, or just plain confusing.

Beg your pardon?  I thought (and your own example seems to prove) that
the international prefix was "010", not "01".  So where's the
ambiguity for 017, 018, or indeed any 01x (as long as x != 0)?


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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 20:34 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Per Line Blocking?


There has been much talk of the hearings concerning CLASS features in
California. A widely debated issue at each hearing so far has been the
matter of per line vs per call blocking. Many, including some on this
forum seem to prefer per line blocking.

To me, the term 'per line blocking' would be synonymous with 'no
Caller ID'. Why? A customer calls the telco business office to
establish service. After the vitals are exchanged, the rep asks, "And
which long distance carrier do you want? Measured or unmeasured?
Listed or unlisted? Any Custom Calling features? Blocked or
unblocked?"

"What?", you say. "Do you want your line to always reveal your number
to any person you call that subscribes to Caller ID, or do you want it
to never reveal it?" Now realistically, what do you think 99.999% of
all telephone customers are going to answer at this point?

Now as a customer, you order Caller ID. However, the rep becomes
uncharacteristically candid with you and points out that ten people in
your area have "unblocked" lines and suggests reconsidering your
order.

So come on now, all you per line blocking advocates. Isn't per line
blocking just the new code for "no Caller ID"?


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

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

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 10:49:07 -0400
From: Alain St-Denis <[e-mail]>
Subject: RS-232C to Commodore 64 User Port
Organization: Environment Canada


I would like to interface an IBM compatible with a Commodore 64
through serial ports. Anybody out there know the pin layout of the
Commodore 64 user port?  Please e-mail.

Thank you.


Alain St-Denis   Centre informatique de Dorval
Environnement Canada   [e-mail]
[phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #280
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03328;
          11 Apr 91 4:57 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12256;
          11 Apr 91 3:22 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15730;
          11 Apr 91 2:16 CDT
Date:     Thu, 11 Apr 91 1:50:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #281
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 11 Apr 91 01:50:07 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 281

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Major U.S. Telecom Manufacturer For Sale [Jim Blocker]
    New Bellcore Area Code Directory [Subodh Bapat]
    Is a Data Conference Using Three-Way Calling Possible? [Leryo Malbito]
    Source For Special Screwdriver Wanted [Leryo Malbito]
    Request For Information on Hard Network Problems [Marc Riese]
    Performing a Party Line Identification Test in the CO [Larry Lippman]
    Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones [Steve Forrette]
    Sprintmail's Gateway [Robert Ashmore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 22:17:08 CDT
From: Jim Blocker <kf5iw![e-mail]>
Subject: Major U.S. Telecom Manufacturer For Sale


On April 5, Rockwell International Corporation announced that its
Network Transmission Systems Division is for sale.  The full text of
the press release follows:

EL SEGUNDO, California (April 5, 1991) -- Rockwell international
Corporation announced today that it intends to sell its Network
Transmission Systems Division (NTSD), an industry leader in
communication transmission equipment.

"The Network Transmission Systems Division has achieved a well
deserved reputation for innovative, high quality products that have
earned it a leadership position in the telephone lightwave and
microwave transmission products markets it serves," said Donald R.
Beall, Rockwell Chairman and chief executive officer.

Beall added "For many years NTSD has been a significant participant in
both domestic and international telecommunications.  The significant
investments we have made in NTSD position this business well to
sustain and grow its long-term value."

"The sale of NTSD, which we expect to consummate by the end of this
calendar year, will help us to achieve our goals for long-term growth
in earnings per share and return on equity by allowing us to focus
further resources on continued strengthening and growth in our
businesses and other actions to enhance shareholder value," Beall
noted.

The Corporation has retained Dillon, Read & Co., of New York City as
its advisor in selling the Network Transmission Systems Division.

The Network Transmission Systems Division, with annual sales near $500
million, supplies leading edge products for telephone communication
networks including fiber optic transmission systems, microwave
transmission systems, digital multiplex products, and digital
cross-connect systems.  Its customers include both domestic and
international long distance carriers, local exchange carriers, and
cellular telephone companies.  The Division has approximately 3,600
employees, primarily at its principal offices in Richardson, Texas.
Other operating locations are in Longview and El Paso, Texas; San
Jose, California; Nogales, Mexico; and Georgetown, Ontario.

Beall also commented on current fiscal year earnings, stating, "We
will be reporting our second quarter earnings about mid-month.  As we
anticipated earlier this year, we expect earnings will be somewhat
below 1990's strong second quarter of 70 cents per share.  Even with
the uncertainties of the current economic environment, we continue to
believe our 1991 earnings per share will be somewhat higher than in
fiscal 1990."

"Looking further ahead," Beall noted, "our preliminary assessment is
that we may see 1992 earnings per share from our on-going operations
being similar to the current fiscal year.  Our longer term goals for
improved earnings per share and return on equity remain unchanged."

Rockwell International is a $12 billion, multi-industry company
applying advanced technology to a wide range of products in its
electronics, aerospace, automotive and graphics businesses.

END OF PRESS RELEASE

And that's all that I really know at this point, folks.  Rumors have
it that at least one European company has shown an interest in
acquiring NTSD.  I have no facts to back this up, though.


Jim Blocker KF5IW    rwsys.lonestar.org!kf5iw!jim

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

From: Subodh Bapat <rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: New Bellcore Area Code Directory
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 17:23:25 EDT


For those interested in NPA administration, the latest Bellcore
catalog has a listing for Technical Report TR-EOP-000093, the 1990
Telephone Area Code Directory.

Thus spaketh the blurb:

" ... provides all customer-dialable locations in the North American
Numbering Plan and their Numbering Plan Area Codes. All major NPA
splits are included. {Ed. comment: Not sure if there is any such thing
as a minor NPA split.} ... Features ... Alphabetical Listing of
Carrier Identification Codes, Numerical Listing of Carrier
Identification Codes, Maps showing NPAs with codes, Alphabetical
Listings of states with Corresponding Codes, Numerical Listing of
codes with Corresponding States, Listing of localities within a state
and corresponding codes."

This may be ordered for $25.00 from 1-800-521-CORE.

This is for information only - I have no affiliation with Bellcore.


Subodh Bapat    [e-mail]   OR   ...uunet!rm1!bapat
                    Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale

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

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 02:02:13 -0400
From: Leryo Malbito <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is a Data Conference Using Three-Way Calling Possible?


Would anyone know how one could set up a data conference using
three-way calling?  This seems like an idea that would be not too
difficult to implement, although a friend and I have unsuccessfully
tried several times.  The most logical way is for him and I to be on
the phone, then I go off-hook and dial the bbs (or whatever), then
once we come back we somehow connect.  Since the bbs will always
return an Answer tone, the only variables we have control of are my
modem and his ... and the possibilities for both are only originate
and answer.  One of us two MUST do an originate. It's very confusing
and we haven't had much success at all ... although it seems we have
exhausted all of our options.  The best we got was the first line of
the intro screen, then six or seven pages of trash. Oh well, if anyone
can help please respond.  In addition to fun possibilities this would
present the option of remote telecommunications tutoring.


[Moderator's Note: You cannot do what you want. The modem has only two
conditions: originate and answer. It cannot talk to another modem set
in the same mode. Any two of the three can communicate if one is set
to receive and the other to transmit. The third one will be (possibly)
able to talk to one or the other, but not both. What usually happens
is the third modem, in generating its own originate or answer carrier
makes the connection so cluttered with noise that none of the three
can communicate, as you have found out. I said modems have only two
modes: this is not entirely true. My US Robotics Courier 2400 has a
third mode called 'transmitter off', allowing it to sit there and
silently monitor what is happening otherwise. So with such a modem,
you could bring a three-way data connection up successfully provided
the third party sat there silently and did not throw carrier at the
other two.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 02:02:13 -0400
From: Leryo Malbito <[e-mail]>
Subject: Source For Special Screwdriver Wanted


A totally unrelated topic: Does anyone have ANY idea where to get
those strange screwdrivers that fit screws with two holes in them?  I
assume the screwdriver looks like some sort of fork with two prongs in
it.  Does anyone know if they sell these screwdrivers to the general
public?

Thanks.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1991 13:36:00 +0000
From: "(Marc Riese)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request For Information on Hard Network Problems


I am a student working on network diagnosis and I am looking for
descriptions of difficult network problems whose diagnosis involved
some degree of reasoning about time and/or space.  That is, in order
to solve the problem, the diagnoser had to reason explicitly about
when and/or where certain events happened that led to the problem.

For example, a common problem on data-comm networks is `broadcast
storms', where unanticipated or unintended transactions cause multiple
broadcasts which get out of control and swamp the system.  Udi Manber
described other examples in "Chain Reactions in Networks" (IEEE
Computer 10/90).

I am looking for other examples, datacom or telecom, generic or
specific.  Any information or pointers much appreciated. Discussion
welcome.


Marc Riese     Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

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

Subject: Performing a Party Line Identification Test in the CO
Date: 9 Apr 91 08:17:06 EST (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> > While I have not dug too deeply into this aspect, one advantage of at
> > least the two party Bell method was ANI. While the trick with the
> > tapped ringer coil added some noise, it DID allow the CO to figure if
> > Mr. Tip or Ms. Ring was calling Fargo without a "numberpleeze."

> So how in the hell did that actually work? I remember that before
> party lines were abolished in metro areas in the state, the sure-fire
> way to tell that a friend had a party line when using his phone was by
> the "tick-kunk" that came immediately after dialing and just before
> the originating register dropped. Those of us with private lines had
> no such noise. We all knew that sound had something to do with
> identifying the tip or ring party, but to this day no one has ever
> explained what was going on.

    The "tip party" on a two-party line has a balanced connection
to earth ground using a portion of the ringer and network circuitry.
Since the effective connection has approximately equal impedance from
both the tip and ring of the line to ground, there is (or *should* be)
little longitudinal imbalance and therefore little 60 Hz hum and
noise.  In addition, the impedance at voice frequencies should be high
enough to cause little shunt attenuation at voice frequencies.

    The rotary dial is placed in the circuit "ahead" of the
ground, so there is little effect that could cause dial pulse
distortion.

    The "ring party" on a two-party line has no such balanced
ground.

    The "party test" is therefore concerned with ascertaining the
presence or absence of this balanced ground.  Electrically, the test
is performed while a station is off-hook through comparing the current
flow on the tip side of the line with that on the ring.  The
conditions for the test are those of resistance battery on the ring
side of the line and resistance ground on the tip, with the resistance
usually being supplied through a dual-winding supervisory relay.  If
the current is equal (less some small allowance for cable leakage
resistance) then there is no balanced ground and the station is the
"ring party".  If the current is significantly less on the tip side
than the ring, the station is the "tip party".

    In an electromechanical CO, such as No. 5 XBAR, the
differential current measurement described above is simply provided
using a dual winding 280-type or equivalent polar relay.  If the relay
operates, then there is sufficient current unbalance to indicate the
"tip party".  If the relay remains non-operated, then it is the "ring
party".

    In some ESS offices the party test is made though current
measurement across tip and ring series resistors using differential
ampliers and a comparator circuit.

    The party test is usually made in the originating register in
a XBAR or ESS CO, and in an outgoing ANI trunk in a SxS CO so
equipped.

    With respect to the "sound" made by an originating register
during the party test, I suppose this is possible if the party test
relay were switched in and out of the circuit.  However, in
originating registers that I have seen, I seem to recall that the
party test relay was a polar differential type that was always in the
circuit.  The relay was sensitive and had little series resistance, so
there was no need to switch it in or out of the circuit.


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
VOICE: 716/688-1231       {boulder, rutgers, watmath}!ub!kitty!larry
FAX:   [phone]   [note: ub=acsu.buffalo.edu] uunet!/      \aerion!larry

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

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 14:52 GMT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones


I was at Oakland International last week, and took a closer look at
the Pacific Bell "airport" payphones.  You know, the special ones,
that accept coins or mag stripe cards, and have the LCD display (the
ones that were in "Die Hard 2," supposedly in DC).  Not only does the
mag stripe reader take RBOC and AT&T calling cards, but it takes Visa,
MasterCard, American Express, Diners, and JCB.  This is the first RBOC
payphone that I know of that takes commercial credit cards.

When you use it, it's quite a Mickey-Mouse setup.  If you use a
calling card, the phone simply dials the number, waits for the
ka-bong, then sends the card number and PIN via DTMF.  It would take
me longer to get the card out of my wallet then dial the numbers
myself.  And of course, that's assuming that I wanted to waste space
in my wallet for the calling card anyway.

But for the credit cards, it is even more silly.  The phone dials a
seven digit number into some computer verification system somewhere.
The remote system answers with a short tone, then the phone sends the
dialed number.  Another remote tone, then your credit card number is
sent out.  This is all via DTMF and with the caller hearing the whole
process.  The credit card procedure takes many seconds to complete.

Now, let's say I wanted to have some phun, and recorded the process at
the payphone.  At home, I could decode the digits by playing them to
my voicemail board, or by using a test device of some sort.  Then,
from any phone, could I not call the seven digit number that the
payphone did, enter the number I wanted to call, then my credit card
number, and have the call billed to my credit account?  Presumably,
the charges wouldn't be too outrageous, since I'd be "using" a Bell
payphone to complete the call, right?  And as long as I used only my
own credit card, would this even be considered phraud?

This assumes that the number that the payphone called does not have
Caller ID.  Since Pacific Bell has SS7 mostly deployed in the Bay Area
(although CLASS features aren't offered yet), it is conceivable that
they can tell if the calling phone is really the payphone at the
airport, since this use of Caller ID would clearly be for internal
telco use.  But, for some reason, I don't think that this is the case.
I'd bet that I could use the above procedure to call from home.

Here's a scenario for you: Let's say I were far away from the airport,
and called the secret number it calls for credit card calls, send-paid
from some other payphone.  If I entered my credit card number and
called someone, it would establish a pretty good alibi that I was at
the airport at the time of the call, would it not?

You know, sometimes I'm thankful that most of us Digesters aren't
crooks!  :-) :-)

And since when did Pacific Bell get in the business of accepting major
credit cards for phone calls, anyway?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: Robert Ashmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprintmail's Gateway
Date: 9 Apr 91 16:20:13 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS


A friend of mine works at TRW in El Segundo. He says that he gets
email from Sprintmail.  Does anyone know what the gateway to
Sprintmail is?  What sort of mail address do I use?  Thanks in advance
for any help!


Robert B. Ashmore III      [e-mail]
[e-mail]      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Never the sort of organization to make things
*easy*, Sprintmail, nee Telemail is accessed from the Internet thus:
'/pn=first.lastname/o=us.sprint/admd=telemail/c=[e-mail]'. And
yes, you put all those slashes and attributes=equal.whatever as you
see them above, terminating the address with '@sprint.com'. When I did
a lookup from the name server just now, I see that sprintf.merit.edu
is doing the honors. There may be others.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #281
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12820;
          11 Apr 91 10:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04144;
          11 Apr 91 8:29 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24585;
          11 Apr 91 7:23 CDT
Date:     Thu, 11 Apr 91 7:11:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #282
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 11 Apr 91 07:10:42 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 282

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: International Misdialing [Bob Frankston]
    Re: Another Kind of Selective Ringing [Leryo Malbito]
    Information Needed About Cellular Modems [Bill Woodcock]
    Rochester Telephone CID [Jeff Wasilko]
    Entire Network Off Line - No One Knows What's Wrong [Jeff Wasilko]
    How Were Large Call Volumes Handled Long Ago? [Jeff Wasilko]
    900 Discussion on CNN [Bill Woodcock]
    Two Email Addresses Needed [Andy Lim]
    Convenience of Phone System? [David Gast]
    10XXX Questions [Chris Kerstiens]
    10XXX May Yet Work! [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 12:42 GMT
From: Bob Frankston <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Misdialing


I've had the reverse experience of explaining to a secretary that 617
(without an international prefix) was Massachusetts and not Australia.
In this case it was a FAX and I call transferred the call to a nearby
FAX machine.

The problem is compounded by calls placed by automatic dialers,
forwards and all sorts of means that do not allow for a reality check
by a human caller.

Has CCITT given any consideration to a sparser dialing space (or a
check digit) or some means that would decrease the probability that a
wrong (as opposed to invalid) number would be treated as valid?

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

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 21:03:42 -0400
From: Leryo Malbito <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another Kind of Selective Ringing


In Telecom Volume 11 Issue 277, on the subject of a device that would
prompt for a DTMF passcode before allowing the call to go through, Jim
Coleman writes:

> Does anyone know if these are available in any affordable form
> (i.e., not part of a huge phone system)?

The other day while browsing through a store called The Spy Shop in
New York, I picked up a flyer on the counter. I will retype here the
entirety of this flyer.

'New' 'Improved' (Snicker - Leryo)

LineMinder(tm) ... complete control of your telephone!

Now you can take complete control of your telephone.  With LINE
MINDER(tm):A compact, electronic device that connects to your
telephone and automatically screens all incoming calls. When your four
digit security number is entered by the caller from a touch tone
phone, LINE MINDER(tm) will alert you that an authorized call is
waiting.

SIMPLE TO SETUP

  LINE MINDER(tm) is powered by your phone. No special batteries or AC
* power adapters are needed. To set it up, you simply switch to the
PASSWORD mode and create your own security password using the
telephone's keypad.  You can use any four numbers, including the *
key. LINE MINDER(tm) signals you when your password is accepted.

EASY TO OPERATE

  Once you've entered your password, just turn LINE MINDER(tm) to the
ON mode to begin operation. That's all. LINE MINDER(tm) does the rest.
Automatically.

  The LINE MINDER(tm) voice prompts the caller for the password. When
the incoming caller enters the correct password, LINE MINDER(tm)
signals you with a pleasant, distinctive, intermittent beep. When you
lift the receiver, LINE MINDER(tm) stops beeping. And you can begin
your conversation. If a wrong password is enteres, LINE MINDER(tm)
disconnects the caller.

  Since LINE MINDER(tm) is password protected, you only get calls from
people who have your password.

  To cease operation, simply switch LINE MINDER(tm) to the OFF mode
and all calls will be unscreened and ring the phone.

HOME SECURITY

  LINE MINDER(tm) is phone security that lets you mind your own
business -- and stops unwanted callers or intruders from doing the
same.

LINE MINDER(tm) eliminates:
*nuisance calls
*obscene calls
*threatening calls
*wrong numbers
*unwanted calls
*the need or expense of an unlisted number

  What's more, this telephone device will never tell strangers that
you are not home.

LINE MINDER(tm) FEATURES:

1) Voice Response
2) Easy set-up and operation
3) Lightweight, compact, durable construction
4) Manual security set
5) Industry Ringer
6) ON/OFF/Password switch
7) Telephone line powered

LINE MINDER(tm) PACKAGING
1) FCC Registered
2) Line cable
3) Password number notices (pad of 50)
4) Approximately 3" x 5" x 1"
5) Weighs less than one pound
6) 100 days of warranty
7) Now with AC/DC power source

Whew.

As always 'New, Improved!' make me laugh, but this looks like an
interesting idea. A major benefit is the idea of never telling
strangers that your not home, although I don't personally know any
burglars who use this method of calling random numbers then finding
out the address, or whatever.

A downside:

Should Uncle Jaime call from his vacation in Nigeria and enter 7363
instead of 7364, he would be disconnected and charged for the call.

According to the flyer, Spy Shop can be reached at:

889 First Avenue, New York, New York 10022    212-755-4900
(and I THINK 800 SPY-Shop ... but I'm not sure.)

In general Spy Shop sells bug-detection equipment and will only sell
'bugs' to authorized law enforcement personnell.  But they also have
various other bizarre stuff, pretty expensive.

Should anyone pursue this, please respond here with whatever info the
salesman gives you, especially about price, etc. (Which is not given
on the flyer).

Disclaimer: I am in no way, shape, or form affiliated with 'The Spy
Shop'(tm?)  and am receiving no reimbursement for this, only hoping to
be an aid to fellow netters out there.

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

From: Bill Woodcock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed About Cellular Modems
Date: 10 Apr 91 01:51:36 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


I'm looking into cellular modems.  Does anybody out there know the
names of vendors?  Is anyone working toward terminal adapters for
digital cellular, that would fit in a laptop?


bill.woodcock.iv       [e-mail]
2355.virginia.st  berkeley.california  4709.1315


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

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1991 21:49:30 EDT
Subject: Rochester Telephone CID


Paraphrased from the {Democrat and Cronicle}

Rochester Tel hasn't decided whether to offer CID under new privacy
guidlines laid down by the NY Public Service Commission.

The PSC ruled out CID proposed by Rochester Telephone and NY Telephone
because their services included per-call blocking, and not per-line
blocking.  The commission also requires all unlisted lines to be
blocked by default.

The PSC also issued a rule that bars resale of numbers gleaned from
incoming 800 calls.


Jeff Wasilko  BITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax  INET: [e-mail]
INTERNET: [e-mail]   UUCP: [e-mail]

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

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1991 21:49:30 EDT
Subject: Entire Network Offline - No One Knows What's Wrong


Our building's telephone and data service has been out since late
Sunday night. We are served from our campus' System 85 by a microwave
link, and something broke -- and AT&T is apparently baffled. We've
finally got a few cellular phones in, but the AT&T microwave folks are
madly swapping components, and have no idea when things will be
working again. One of the perils of being your own telephone company,
I guess.


Jeff Wasilko  BITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax  INET: [e-mail]
INTERNET: [e-mail]   UUCP: [e-mail]

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

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1991 21:49:30 EDT
Subject: How Were Large Call Volumes Handled Long Ago?


ACDs have been mentioned a few times this week, which got me
wondering:

What did recipients of large volumes of calls do before ACDs? Did
someone manually distribute calls?

Also, there was a mention some time ago of an ACD that can
periodically announce your position in the queue, and the average wait
time from that point. Does this actually exist? I've never heard one
do that ... as someone who seems to spend a lot of time on hold, I'd
love to know how much longer.


Jeff Wasilko  BITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax  INET: [e-mail]
INTERNET: [e-mail]   UUCP: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The Chicago Transit Authority (312-MOHawk 7200) has
an ACD in their customer service unit which periodically announces
your position in the queue ("there are two calls ahead of you"). My
first knowledge of ACDs was about 1970. Diner's Club and Amoco Credit
Card had one in their sales authorization unit which pumped several
hundred calls per hour -- about 10,000 calls daily -- to
representatives who would authorize sales over the floor limit. Most
calls took about twenty seconds to handle, and came in on 800 numbers.

Prior to such systems, incoming calls were handled by large banks of
operators at cord switchboards, just like the ones telco used. When I
worked at the University of Chicago about 1960, they had 19 operator
positions for incoming calls. (Outgoing local calls were made by
dialing "9". Long distance went through the switchboard.) With an ACD
for incoming calls they were able to cut back to about six operator
positions.  PAT]

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

From: Bill Woodcock <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900 Discussion on CNN
Date: 10 Apr 91 02:49:59 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing


I just watched a short interview with Robert Abrams on CNN.
(2:10pm-2:15pm, PST)

Abrams is the Attorney General for the state of New York.  He and a
group of Attornies General from other states with harsh anti-900-
number legislation have formed a committee to pressure the federal
government to pass restrictive legislation dealing with the 900 issue.

It sounded as though his organization had successfully lobbied the
FCC.  He said that the FCC had proposed a plan with two major goals:

1) Require every 900 number to air a "preamble" including three things;
a brief discription of the nature of the service, a clear statement of
the cost or charges involved, and the opportunity to hang up without
incurring any charges.

2) Require all telcos to provide free blocking to any customer on
request, and make parents of children who make calls to 900 numbers
not liable for the charges.

This last seems somewhat problematic to me, from an enforcement point
of view.  But then I'm sure the telcos can just contact Lotus and
Equifax to find out whether you _really_ have kids.  :-)

He went on to describe 900 number operators as "The worst sort of scam
artists and snake oil salesmen," and quoted several statistics: total
income of 900 services in 1990 was between $800 million and $1
billion; projected income in 1991 is likely to be $1.5 billion; more
than 30% of the "victims" of 900-based "scams" are over 65.  He made
quite a point of most of the "victims" being minorities, unemployed,
or otherwise disadvantaged.


bill.woodcock.iv    [e-mail]
2355.virginia.st    berkeley.california   94709.1315

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

From: Andy Lim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two Email Addresses Needed
Date: 10 Apr 91 02:44:52 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs,Melbourne, Australia


Hi,

Is there anyone out there who knows the email addresses of the
following persons?

    Akab Taffel of US Sprint
    Brian Button of Stratacom

Please email me.


Hui H. (Andy) Lim, PhD            |  Ph:  [phone]
Switching Section, SNRB           |  FAX: [phone]
Telecom Research Laboratories       |       [phone]
P.O.Box 249, Vic. 3168, Australia  | Email: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 20:32:48 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Convenience of Phone System?


[e-mail] wrote:

> Phone numbers are a crude temporary necessity they have imposed on us.
> Wouldn't it be nice to simply speak into the phone and say 'my friend
> Tony Jones's third office line please', and from the random pay phone be
> voice recognised as you and thereby indicating which Tony Jones is
> being refered to.

Sometimes I am really amazed at the suggestions that are made to
improve convenience.  To some extent the above may be convenient.  On
the other hand, do we really want the phone company (and every COCOT
sleeze since the example above includes a pay phone) or the government
to recognize our voice on a routine basis?  Our every move would be
tracked.

Additionally, this particular scenario has a huge security hole: I
call someone, they record my voice, then they call someone, but pipe
their input through a device that simulates my voice.  Now they can
easily represent themselves as me.  Perhaps we should close some the
existing security holes before we make new giant ones.


David


[Moderator's Note: And what, pray tell, is the difference between this
and sending someone a written letter who then forges my handwriting
and signs off on some fraudulent documents for me?  Maybe we should
stop allowing handwritten communication between people (or individuals
and companies) before this 'existing security hole' gets worse. How
inconvenient do you want things to be just to accomodate your fears
about 'what might happen'?    PAT]

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

From: Chris Kerstiens <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10XXX Help
Organization: NIA - Network Information Access Magazine
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 01:44:36 GMT


Does anyone out there have a list of companies that own/operate the
various 10XXX codes? The question was raised as to if someone could
commit toll fraud by dialing a 10XXX that did not exist, or that had
no connections in that city/state, and I was curious as to the
validity of this idea.

Thanks,

Chris Kerstiens           : Editor - NIA Magazine
[e-mail]  : Subscriptons/Submissions to:
                          : [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The only 10xxx codes allowed by your local telco
switch will be those having some recognized and acceptable destination
by your telco. And if your telco *does* have contact with some LD
carrier via 10xxx then your telco is required by law to provide the LD
carrier with the billing name and address associated with the line
used to place the call, even if it is a non-pub number. Any single
10xxx code will only work if your local telco switch authorizes it.
All 10xxx codes are not in service from every switch by default.

Listings of all known 10xxx codes are in the Telecom Archives, and
available by anonymous ftp from lcs.mit.edu.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 11:55 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: '10XXX' May Yet Work!


"AT&T NEWS BRIEFS

 ...Separately, the [FCC] proposed allowing long-distance carriers
access to local telephone companies' credit card validation data and
billing information. ... Wall Street Journal, A11.  ... The operator
service companies ... would be prevented from blocking callers from
either 800 or 950 access numbers and require that"

And here is the good part...

"equipment manufactured from April 17, 1992, and after be capable of
providing equal access to long distance companies through "10XXX"
access codes. ... AP. "

So it looks like AT&T, the lone voice in the 10XXX wilderness, will
get its way after all. But a lot of this seems like dejavu all over
again.  I thought that this was supposed to be the way it worked all
along.  Every year, it seems, the FCC or some state agency is
proposing to make the system work the way it is supposed to, laws and
rules are passed, and then everything stays the same.

Regardless of the signage, the vast majority of COCOTs in my area
violate at least several of what we telecomers consider to be minimum
service attributes. 10XXX is usually denied; 950 is frequently denied
(or charged heavily for); 800 is sometimes denied; as well as DTMF
turned off after dialing which in itself nullifies two of the above.

Are our regulators powerless in this matter of COCOTs and AOS?


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


[Moderator's Note: *They* may be powerless, but *we the people* are
not. Keep on stickering those COCOTS which are technically out of
order; keep on demanding refunds and compliance when you talk to the
owners. When possible, boycott them, and let shop-keepers know about
your displeasure in their choice of public telephone instruments.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #282
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15852;
          11 Apr 91 11:26 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30389;
          11 Apr 91 9:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04144;
          11 Apr 91 8:29 CDT
Date:     Thu, 11 Apr 91 7:51:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #283
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 11 Apr 91 07:51:14 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 283

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New Tower, But no Service? [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Time Restricted Connection to Phone System [Jeff Sicherman]
    Calling all Bell Canada Caller-ID Customers [Eric Skinner]
    Cupertino's CATV Commission Seeking New Member [Mike Wincn]
    Wanted: Worldwide List of Telcos and Addresses [Rop Gonggrijp]
    Provisions of CONSO Over a Connectionless Network [Andy Lim]
    Radio Reception on Telephone [Kyler Laird]
    Seeking 9600/4800/2400 Voice CODEC's [Monty Andro]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10-APR-1991 02:24:04.55
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Tower, But no Service?


I was driving yesterday through Northwestern Connecticut, mainly along
US-202 from New Milford (just north of Danbury) through Washington,
Litchfield, and Torrington, and noticed that there was service there
with SNET, the "B" carrier. This is something new, since the area has
always been dead before on both the "A" and the "B" carriers. Yet
everytime I tried to place a call (to *611 or to my home number or
whatever), I got the "re-order" which the PHONE puts out when it can't
grab a channel (NOT a "real" telco reorder or one from the MTSO or
cell site). This usually happens to me when all frequencies are busy,
and there is no way to connect with the nearby cell tower.

Now anyone familiar with the area knows that it isn't all that
populated, and thus even if there are only a few channels allocated to
the tower which serves the area, there should be a FEW of them vacant
from time to time.  Moreover, the terrain, which is quite 'hilly' was
not a factor, as I drove right by the cell tower. (SNET's have flat,
green plated panels in a triangular pattern around the top of the
antenna, while Metro High-Bill's are more like a bunch of UHF antennas
with other, smaller antennas extended out from the main grid, which
then surround the pole on two or three sides. You can easily see the
tower from US-202 heading North, just after leaving the "downtown"
area of New Milford. You can even see the tower from US-7, right
before the JCT with US-202, if you look JUST a bit to the right.)

So I got to a payphone, called SNET, and explained what was going on.
The service rep who I spoke with checked this out (made a few quick
calls) and said that the antenna was just put up in New Milford, and
that they were sending out a carrier (or whatever) signal, but it
would not allow calls to be placed from it, which is why I got the
"re-order" signal. He said service should be in place by month's end,
and that coverage will include Kent, Sharon, and Cornwall, which are
rather remote areas near the NY/CT/MA border. He said this was part of
SNET's plan to cover the entire state, and that new towers were also
being installed in Norteastern CT, where there is little service
unless you travel along I-84 to the Masspike (I-90). It's nice to see
my cellular bills going towards expanding the system, rather than to
who-knows-what with some other (ahem) companies in CT! :)

Speaking of Metro Mobile :), I called them and asked them what THEY
were doing about Western CT, and got an interesting answer. It seems
that when the FCC handed out licenses, some individual won the lottery
for Northwestern CT, but failed to find financing to actually build a
system. So Metro is at this time negociating with this guy to get the
license, so it can expand its service into this area. Metro already
serves most of CT, Rhode Island, Western and Southeastern Mass. It has
service in Pittsfield, MA, and along the Masspike until Cell One takes
over near Charlton (60 miles out of Boston).

It makes a LOT of sense for Metro to get service in Northwestern CT,
as when this is done, a motorist with Metro can drive from Northern
New Jersey, up to Danbury, then along US-7 all the way to northern
Mass, and be reached at the same number with no roam ports or roaming
charges. (Presently, you can do this from New Jersey to 30 miles south
of Boston, but it would really be neat to drive practically up to
Vermont and be covered the whole way.!)

I wonder how much Metro is willing to pay for the license ... *I*
should have applied for one. Who knows? I could have actually won one
and soaked Metro the way they presently soak me ... darn! :) Or
stipulated in the contract that any future owners of my licensed
service areas may NOT charge airtime or double airtime for
call-forwarding, three-way-calling, or call-waiting.  Hmmm ...

Speaking of licenses, I wonder if any readers know about this:
NYNEX/New England *used* to serve Western Mass, ie, Springfield.
(Metro Highbill serves the same area, even though it was/is a CT
company.) About 1 1/2 years ago, NYNEX seemed to have "abandoned"
Springfield, and SNET took it over.  This seems more natural, since I
think there is more traffic North/South between Springfield/Western
Mass and CT than there is between Eastern and Western Mass, by why
would NYNEX give up a potentially lucrative market to SNET? Did SNET
buy this from NYNEX? Or "trade" the rights to some other area?  NYNEX
has a rather large service area in New England, and I am still
surprised that they didn't retain Western Mass since it is an
inconvenience to have to roam on SNET every time you crossed from
Eatern to Western Mass if you already are a NYNEX customer (at least
*I* would think so). There is no DMX or "automatic roaming" between
these two systems.

As it is now, SNET indicates on their maps that they plan to have all
of CT, and all of Western Mass in the near future (a year?), with
extensions planned to Vermont in the future. (I think some other
company owns the VT license, but perhaps SNET will try to get it like
Metro is trying to do with Western CT? )

One final thing that I heard about recently, which is unusual in the
area:

Cell One in Boston has two plans with FREE nightime airtime. One plan,
for $59 per month, gives you 60 minutes of FREE peak airtime (after
which 61+ minutes will costs $.43 per minute), and ALL airtime is FREE
*off-peak*. I am not sure if all local calls are free - I have heard
complaints before that local calls DO cost something, but this may
have changed. (I know in NY that local calls do cost something like
twelve cents for five minutes, in addition to airtime.) Overall, not a
bad plan. I pay $25 for GTE Mobilnet/SF right now, and that gets me
free *NOTHING*! (Well, except Custom Calling and Voicemail, but of
course you pay airtime for these :( ). GTE does have other plans,
but none with free OP airtime. Oh well ... (BTW, Cell One/Boston has
truly EXCELLENT coverage - one can be in downtown Boston or any of the
nearby suburbs and not hear ANY static!. Nor are the handoffs "messy"
like they can be at times with GTE during peak/heavy usage hours.)

Ok ... ok ... enough with the New England Cellular review. If anyone
has any info on the Springfield "switch" which I noted earlier, please
let me know. I have never received a satisfactory answer to this
question. (Actually, any info about New England/Mid Atlantic coverage
would be interesting - the cell companies in the East tell you so
*little* about their future plans!)

Thanks,

Doug

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

P.S. I'll be out in New Mexico in May, and was wondering about
coverage there.  It seems like I can't escape it - Metro Mobile has a
franchise out there as well. Ahhhhh! I'll be generally in the Santa Fe
area, so any info as to coverage would be appreciated! Especially the
"B" company with FMR. Thanks.

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

Date: Tue, 9 Apr 91 22:02:52 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Time Restricted Connection to Phone System
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  I'm not sure what kind of device to ask for, so maybe if I describe
the problem/application:

  We have a PC power controller/protection device with the capability
to power up on detection of ring signal on a phone line to which which
it is is connected (via modular jack). The line is then chained to the
modem.

  We have a four-line 1A2 phone system (no laughing !) and the modem
is currently connected to the phone system through a (discontinued)
Radio Shack box that allows one modular device to be connected to any
one of five possible lines at a time through depressing any one of
five buttons.

  This is fine for normal business hours - release all buttons to
avoid modem interference with normal voice use of the phone line, or
turn off the modem. However, we would like to use the remote power-up
feature of the power controller to activate the system after hours. I
know there is a straightforward manual solution: have someone set the
adaptor switch appropriately before leaving for the day. However, some
of the people involved are somewhat scatter-brained and forgetful and
I would like a somewhat more foolproof approach. Another, dedicated
phone line is also not an option at this time.

  What I would like is some kind of timer-driven setup that routes the
phone line to the power-controller after hours and disables this
connection when normal business hours resume. I have no idea what kind
of equipment or kludge would do this.

  [ I know there is a software solution: leave the computer on and use
a clock driven TSR (this is a PC) to adjust the modem to auto-answer
or not, or alternatively, answer itself when ring is detected.  This
is NOT the desired solution at this point, however; we don't want the
system left on all night, every night. ]

  Thanks for any sugggestions.


Jeff Sicherman

P.S. Looking for used, touch-tone, 1A2 phones and boxes in good
working condition (for use, not resale). Will pay a nominal amount and
any shipping for your obsolete junk gathering dust. Hey, what can I
say, we're traditionalists.

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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1991 10:28:13 EST
From: Eric Skinner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling all Bell Canada Caller-ID Customers


As mentioned here before, Bell Canada's implementation of Caller*ID is
flawed in that inappropriate numbers are sometimes returned as the
calling number.

Bell's document, "Interface Disclosure ID-0001, Sept 1989, Pretrial
Disclosure, Call Management Services, Terminal-to-Network Interface,"
states that the number to be displayed is the "Dialable Directory
Number: the number that the called subscriber can dial to return a
call to the calling party."

However, this is not how things work in practice.  Bell returns the
number of the calling trunk, which may be the correct number to call,
or which may be an outgoing-only trunk leading from a PBX.  The
company's main number or a DID number would be appropriate in this
case.

This effectively makes "Call Screening" and "Call Return" (*69)
useless.

Preliminary calls to Bell from a few Ottawa subscribers have led to
little action; I'm interested in getting email addresses and phone
numbers for other interested Bell subscribers in the hopes of
convincing Bell to make their service more useful.  (Who knows, we
might turn it into a local discussion group about Bell's services, if
interest warrants).

Note: This is *not* intended to be a "bash Bell" activity; in general
I'm extremely pleased with how they do things.

Please write to:

Eric Skinner                          [phone]
University of Ottawa                  [e-mail]
(and Software Exoterica Corporation   xgml![e-mail])

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

From: Mike Wincn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cupertino's CATV Commission Seeking New Member
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices; Sunnyvale, CA
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1991 16:26:37 GMT


The City of Cupertino will be conducting interviews for an opening on
the Cable TV Advisory Committee in the next few weeks.  The committee
is the "eyes and ears" of the City Council on issues related to Cable
TV services, broadcast and programming in the Cupertino area: it
advises the City Council on issues related to FCC regulations,
provides limited funding (through grant applications, and as a part of
a franchise agreement) for Public Access Programming by local
producers, and provides a forum for discussion between Cupertino
residents and United Artists Cable.

Within the next few weeks, interviews will be conducted to fill a
partial term that will end in January, 1992, and the person who is
appointed could then re-apply for the next full four-year term.  A
primary requirement for this position is that applicants reside in
Cupertino, and other requirements are established by the City Council.

If you are interested in volunteering your time and expertise, and are
a Cupertino resident, contact the Cupertino City Clerk's office at:

    252-4505, ext. 224

and ask for an application package.


Mike Wincn     [e-mail]
[phone]  DISCLAIMER:  I speak for myself unless noted otherwise.

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

From: Rop Gonggrijp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Worldwide List of Telcos With Addresses
Date: 10 Apr 91 23:10:01 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic


For a mailing project I need (and now don't laugh here fellas) the
adresses of ALL the phone companies in the world. Is there such a list
available somewhere? And if so, is it on floppy or do I have to type
it all in?


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

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

From: Andy Lim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Provisions of CONS Over a Connectionless Network
Date: 10 Apr 91 05:36:24 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs,Melbourne, Australia


G'day,

Could someone tell me if SMDS, a connectionless network supports
connection oriented services?  If it does, how does it do it
(signalling and support)?

I am investigating ways of providing connection oriented services on a
connectionless network (Fastpac, Australian modified DQDB 802.6 MAN)-
with emphasis on signalling.  Are there anyone doing similar
investigations?  Any publication references?


Hui H. (Andy) Lim, PhD             |  Ph:   [phone]
Switching Section, SNRB            |  FAX:  [phone]
Telecom Research Laboratories        |        [phone]
P.O.Box 249, Vic. 3168, Australia   | Email: [e-mail]

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

From: Kyler Laird <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Reception on Telephone
Date: 10 Apr 91 05:25:20 GMT
Reply-To: Kyler Laird <[e-mail]>
Organization: Purdue University


I remember seeing a thread about this a while back.  I'd appreciate
any info/pointers to info.

A friend of mine has a problem with radio reception on his home
telephone.  The FCC told him to use a choke.  That's it!?  He hasn't
tried this yet, but I'd like to know what his other options are.
Also, I'd appreciate knowing the theory behind this.

Thanks!


kyler

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

From: Monty Andro <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeking 9600/4800/2400 Voice CODEC's
Reply-To: Monty Andro <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1991 20:42:40 GMT


Ideally I need voice codec hardware that can compress/decompress voice
down to selectable rates of 9600,4800 and 2400 bits/sec.  This can be
implemented in integrated circuits, circuit boards, or a single unit
(a single commercial unit would be best).  Does anybody know if such a
unit or combination of boards and/or chips exist?  Are there units
that can come close to my requirement?  Maybe one unit can't do all
three desired rates, but there may be three single units for each rate.

If such a single unit or multiple units exist, can they support OPX
(Off Premise Exchange) and SLT (Single Line Telephone) type interfaces?
(I'm assuming OPX and SLT are valid interfaces.)

Any information that can help me identify integrated circuits or
actual commercially available hardware (now or in the near future)
will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Monty

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #283
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23157;
          12 Apr 91 3:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00582;
          12 Apr 91 1:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11882;
          12 Apr 91 0:39 CDT
Date:     Fri, 12 Apr 91 0:03:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #284
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 12 Apr 91 00:02:47 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 284

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Source For Special Screwdriver Wanted [Michael Schuster]
    Re: Source For Special Screwdriver Wanted [[e-mail]]
    Re: Source For Special Screwdriver Wanted [Rich Zellich]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Linc Madison]
    Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable [Seth Breidbart]
    Re: Per Line Blocking? [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Per Line Blocking? [John R. Levine]
    Re: Per Line Blocking? [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Cellular Phones for $29 [David Albert]
    Re: Info Wanted on B_ISDN [Keith Junker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Schuster <panix![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Source For Special Screwdriver Wanted
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 21:44:36 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY


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

> A totally unrelated topic: Does anyone have ANY idea where to get
> those strange screwdrivers that fit screws with two holes in them?  I
> assume the screwdriver looks like some sort of fork with two prongs in
> it.  Does anyone know if they sell these screwdrivers to the general
> public?

They're called "spanner" screws, and Jensen Tools (602-968-6231) has a
four-bit hex insert set for $6.95.


Mike Schuster                                      |    CIS: 70346,1745
NY Public Access UNIX:  ...cmcl2!panix!schuster    |    MCI Mail, GENIE:
The Portal (R) System:  [e-mail]    |           MSCHUSTER

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

Subject: Re: Source For Special Screwdriver Wanted
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 19:38:14 CDT
From: [e-mail]


> Does anyone have ANY idea where to get those strange screwdrivers
> that fit screws with two holes in them?

     Page 92 of the 1991 Techni-Tool catalog ("Catalog 40") lists the
following item:

    Spanner Security Set (set of 5)
    No. 324SC264    $8.95

     These are screwdriver bits, rather than screwdrivers.  The same
page of the catalog lists several other "security" bit sets: tamper
proof torx, security hex key, and tri-wing.

     Techni-Tool's order line is 215-941-2400; 24 Hour Fax at 215-828-5623.

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 10:04:45 CDT
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Source For Special Screwdriver Wanted


If you can't find the two-pin special driver right away, just buy a
cheapie regular-blade screwdriver at your nearest discount store.  Then,
hand-file (or grind with a bench grinder or hand-held motor tool) the
blade end down to the two "pins" you need.

i.e. grind this:                             to this:

      +------------+                             +-+    +-+
      |            |                             | |    | |
      |            |                           +-+ +----+ +-+
      |            |                           |            |
      |            |                           |            |
      |            |                           |            |
      |            |                           |            |
      |            |                           |            |


Unless the pins need to be *really* tiny, this chop-job should last at
least until you can find the real thing.

Another trick is to take a paper clip and twist it around so the ends
are usable as the pins; then hold the rest of the clip in a pair of
pliers as close as possible to the "pin" ends so the clip-/pin-ends
can't twist or flex.

Cheers,


Rich

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 01:53:59 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Daniel Guilderson (ryan@cs.
umb.edu) writes:

> By the way, the framers of the US Constitution never intended
> copyrights to protect personal information.  They were intended to
> protect creative works.

Fine and well, but please remember that the framers of the U.S.
Constitution specifically stated that their intents should NEVER be
used as a guide for interpreting the Constitution.  Indeed, they
carefully shrouded their intent in secrecy, so that only the written
document itself could be used.  Thus, there is a profound irony in any
argument based on "the intent of the framers," since it is inherently
self-contradictory.


Lincoln Madison  =  [e-mail]

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

From: Seth Breidbart <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Supreme Court: White Pages Not Copyrightable
Date: 11 Apr 91 15:26:08 GMT
Organization: Morgan Stanley, & Co., Inc. / New York City, NY


In New York, the phone company does not charge (I believe, is not
allowed to charge) for DA calls for numbers that are not listed in the
White Pages.  Therefore, the phone company here will continue to
publish directories in order to keep DA profitable.

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking?
Date: 11 Apr 91 08:22:35 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> So come on now, all you per line blocking advocates. Isn't per line
> blocking just the new code for "no Caller ID"?

Actually, John, maybe we just need to take the idea a little further,
in order to come up with a solution that suits everybody!  I hereby
place the following Solomonic(TM) solution into the Public Domain.

The problem with "per line blocking" is that it is all or nothing, and
that it places the Phone Company (which wants to sell the "Caller-ID"
service to people and companies) at odds with their subscribers (who
may not want to give out their numbers).

So why not do the following: Phone customers are allowed to set a
PRICE at which they are willing to sell their caller-ID information,
and Caller-ID customers are allowed to set a price they will PAY for
Caller-ID information.

Caller-ID is then only provided when the price a CID customer will pay
is >= the price asked by the phone customer.  If it is, then the phone
company charges the Caller-ID customer, delivers the CID info, and
credits the phone customer's bill with the fee just charged to the
Caller-ID user (less a percentage for the phone company, of course).

Both the CID customer and the phone customer can revise the fee they
will pay/will demand at any time, for a small fee, of course.  There
would also be a * code that would say "for the next call, give out my
caller-ID for free," that would be useful in certain circumstances
(such as when you call a number you "trust" with your caller
information).

This lets the market make the decisions.  Telemarketers will quickly
determine how valuable the caller information is to them, and
telephone users will be able to set a price on their privacy.  And the
phone company gets a fee for being the broker in this transaction.

You could even go so far as to allow the setting of seperate prices
for giving your number to residential or business customers.  What's
more, the phone company could sell the following information: the
price a particular phone number has set for getting it's caller-ID.
This is important because if you've set a high price on your caller-ID
info, then you are likely to not want telemarketing calls.  Probably
the best way to structure this is for a telemarketer to buy a list
from the phone companuy of all the numbers that have a price < some
value (or > some value!).

The best way to insure privacy, IMHO, is make it a commodity, such
that anyone who wants to invade it has to pay a price (measured in
economic units I will dub Saddams).  The market will do the rest.


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

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

Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 11 Apr 91 11:49:18 EDT (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

> "What?", you say. "Do you want your line to always reveal your number
> to any person you call that subscribes to Caller ID, or do you want it
> to never reveal it?"

You'll never get far in advertising.  The question will be more like
this: "Would you like your line automatically to take advantage of our
new Caller*ID service, which, for a limited time only*, is available
at no charge to you, and will allow your closest friends to know that
you're calling, even before they pick up the phone?"

(Yes, that's misleading.  When did that ever stop the telco?)

* - "limited time" == until we can persuade the PUC to charge both for
per-line blocking and per-line unblocking.

Regards,


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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 14:52:19 PDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking?


John Higdon writes:

> To me, the term 'per line blocking' would be synonymous with 'no
> Caller ID'. Why? A customer calls the telco business office to
> establish service. After the vitals are exchanged, the rep asks, "And
> which long distance carrier do you want? Measured or unmeasured?
> Listed or unlisted? Any Custom Calling features? Blocked or
> unblocked?"

> "What?", you say. "Do you want your line to always reveal your number
> to any person you call that subscribes to Caller ID, or do you want it
> to never reveal it?" Now realistically, what do you think 99.999% of
> all telephone customers are going to answer at this point?

> So come on now, all you per line blocking advocates. Isn't per line
> blocking just the new code for "no Caller ID"?

Maybe it could be available on a per-request basis.  They wouldn't
necessarily have to ask you if you wanted it, but merely have it
available for those who ask, much like 900/976 blocking.  After all,
why would the LEC want to encourage people to have blocking?

Even if things were the way you suggested, it would not affect my
desire for Caller ID, as I would simply not answer blocked calls.
Actually, I would have my voice processing board intercept with a
message indicating that blocked calls are not accepted, and that they
should redial the call without blocking.  This way, callers would know
exactly what the problem was, and how to fix it.

A related idea solves the "But what if they're calling from a
payphone?"  Since the Caller ID signaling standard transmits ASCII
data, why not just deliver "From Payphone" when appropriate?  That
way, you could decide to answer all such calls if you wanted to, and
still be able to ignore calls from unknown numbers (such as businesses
or childern with nothing better to do).

BTW, I was discussing per-call and per-line blocking with my Pacific
Bell friend.  He's involved in the actual CLASS tests on the DMS-100
switches.  The *67 code acts as a "toggle".  Should Pacific Bell be
required to offer per-line blocking, *67 would ENABLE it for blocked
lines, so that people with blocked lines could still call people that
refuse anonymous callers.  A third method, a "supressed line", would
NEVER reveal its number.  *67 would either have no effect or would be
disallowed.  This would be available in limited circumstances, such as
for the infamous "Battered Womens' Shelter", where a person may not
know that the line has per-line blocking, dials *67 to turn it off,
but ends up turning it on instead.

Even if most people had per-line blocking, I wouldn't have a problem
with forcing them to dial *67 if they wanted to reach me.  After all,
if they are a Privacy Phreak to start with, they certainly could
understand and respect my right to privacy, now couldn't they?  And
all the arguments against Caller ID I've heard so far relate to the
commercial, boiler-room applications, not on residential use.  Which
brings up another idea: if there's not a big problem among the Privacy
Phreaks about residential-to-residential Caller ID, why not offer
Caller ID only to residential customers?  I'm sure that the
demographics of the Caller ID subscribers in areas that have had it
awhile would show that a very high percentage were residential
customers anyway, so telco wouldn't lose very much revenue.  Unless,
of course, what the Privacy Phreaks are *really* concerned about is
having to remember to dial *67 before each and every anonymous,
harassing call they make.  It would be such a bother! :-)


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Thanks to all who have contributed to this string,
but once again it is time to ask that the string be moved into the
privacy list if further discussion is desired.  Thanks.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 16:35:44 EDT
From: David Albert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones for $29
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University


> Now, Pat, do you really think Cellular One and Ameritech Mobile are
> truly scraping for customers? On the contrary, I believe they are
> simply trying to rope the customers in....

In the April 10th {Boston Globe}, NYNEX advertises a FREE cellular
phone.  The deal is that you pay $295 for the telephone and sign up
for one year of service (which, they say, can cost as little as $171
for the whole year if you prepay).  At the end of the year you get
your $295 back.  So, of course, the phone isn't really free.  In fact,
it costs just about $29 (assuming you could get 10% a year on your
investment) -- plus service, of course.


David Albert    UUCP: ...!harvard!albert   INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 13:26:55 MDT
From: Keith Junker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Info Wanted on B_ISDN
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Keith Junker)
Organization: National Telecommunications and Information Admin, Boulder, CO


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

> Jim Niemann writes:

>> 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?

> As for more information, well, a lot of papers have been written on
> this, and there are a couple of standards, published by CCITT.  The
> reference numbers elude me at present.......

Regarding only the technical aspects and not the availability of
B-ISDN switches, one such document is, and here I will attempt to
reproduce its cover sheet:

COMMITTEE T1 - TELECOMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS CONTRIBUTION

DOCUMENT NUMBER:    T1Q1.3/90-001R2
DATE:            JANUARY 18, 1991
STANDARDS PROJECT:    Specification and Allocation of Performance
            for ISDN (T1Q1-10)
SUBJECT:        1990 B-ISDN Recommendations
ORIGINATOR:        ISDN Experts of Study Group XVIII
KEY WORDS:        Broadband ISDN (B-ISDN), 1990 Recommendations,
            CCITT, Accelerated Procedures
DISTRIBUTION:        T1Q1.3 Working Group

Abstract:

This contribution, an update of T1Q1.3/90-001R1, provides copies of 13
Broadband ISDN (B-ISDN) Recommendations, which Study Group XVIII
unanimously approved at its December 1990 meeting for invocation of
Resolution 2 (accelerated approval) procedures.  The December 1990
version of the B-ISDN Recommendations made only minor editorial
changes to the versions approved by WP XVIII/8 at its June 1990
meeting in COM XVIII-R 34-E.  The attached copies of COM XVIII-R 34-E
have been updated to reflect the changes reported in Temporary
Document 9/XVIII, "1990 B-ISDN Recommendations - Proposed Editorial
Amendments," by the Chairman of WP XVIII/8.  A report of the December
1990 meeting of Study Group XVIII is provided in T1Q1.3/91-001.  The
B-ISDN Recommendations provide a stable basis for the development of
related B-ISDN performance Recommendations.  Copies of the ISDN
performance Recommendations from the December 1990 meeting of Working
Party XVIII/6 are provided in T1Q1.3/91-002.

Obviously, this abstract is intended for internal use, but it
indicates the nature of the activity going on concerning B-ISDN at
this time.  One way to get more information or this particular
document is to join the committee(!)


Keith E. Junker   U.S. Dept. of Commerce   NTIA/ITS.N3
325 Broadway      Boulder, CO 80303     [phone]
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #284
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23369;
          12 Apr 91 3:21 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00582;
          12 Apr 91 1:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11882;
          12 Apr 91 0:39 CDT
Date:     Fri, 12 Apr 91 0:34:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #285
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 12 Apr 91 00:34:07 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 285

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones [John R. Levine]
    Re: Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones [Barry Margolin]
    Re: Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones [John Higdon]
    Re: End of the [Party] Line [Tom Gray]
    Re: Convenience of Phone System? [Rich Zellich]
    Re: Apple Data-PCS Petition for Rulemaking [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Strange Phone Calls [Peter da Silva]
    Re: I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works [Linc Madison]
    Re: 900 Discussion on CNN [Gary W. Sanders]
    Re: Another Kind of Selective Ringing [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 11 Apr 91 11:45:14 EDT (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

> I was at Oakland International last week, and took a closer look at
> the Pacific Bell "airport" payphones.  ...

My experience with those phones while waiting for a plane at San Jose
one day is that half of them don't really work.  That is, they can't
read the stripe on any of my credit cards.

> And since when did Pacific Bell get in the business of accepting major
> credit cards for phone calls, anyway?

Many BOCs have card reader phones, though none anywhere near as space
age in appearance as Pac Bell's.  Ameritech has a model that replaces
the dial pad on a regular WECo payphone with a thing that has a touch
pad, a card reader, and some other buttons used to select your
favorite carrier.  The coin slot works, too.  In other places there
are some coinless models that have a long card slot down the right
side through which you swipe your card and buttons at the bottom.

These phones are all programmed differently.  For example, US West
phones accepted non-AT&T calling cards such as MCI and Sprint's long
before the ones around here (NYNEX) did, even though they're
physically the same.  (You could dial the call yourself, but that's
much less fun.)  All of them let you charge long distance calls to
bank and T&E cards, and they all do so with a flurry of DTMF digits.
They handle various telco calling cards pretty reasonably.  For
example, when I used my Sprint FON card at O'Hare earlier this week,
as soon as it read my card it dialed three digits, presumably a speed
dial code for Sprint's 800 access number.  Then it waited while I
dialed my number, and dialed the card number when it heard the burst
of dial tone prompt.  For an AT&T or LOC card, it does the same thing
except that it doesn't dial anything before you enter your number.

All in all, it's slightly faster than dialing by hand, assuming I'd
have to get the card out of my wallet anyway to read the number.
(Hey, I have five different calling cards and I can't always remember
all the numbers.)


Regards,


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

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

From: Barry Margolin <think![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 18:11:20 GMT


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

> But for the credit cards, it is even more silly.  The phone dials a
> seven digit number into some computer verification system somewhere.
> The remote system answers with a short tone, then the phone sends the
> dialed number.  Another remote tone, then your credit card number is
> sent out.  This is all via DTMF and with the caller hearing the whole
> process.  The credit card procedure takes many seconds to complete.

This sounds like it is emulating the procedure used by credit card
verification devices that are normally connected to POS terminals.
It's often much easier to implement a device that emulates an existing
device than to get a new protocol adopted.  Sure, a more appropriate
protocol would be faster, but time to market is always important.

> Now, let's say I wanted to have some phun, and recorded the process at
> the payphone.  At home, I could decode the digits by playing them to
> my voicemail board, or by using a test device of some sort.  Then,
> from any phone, could I not call the seven digit number that the
> payphone did, enter the number I wanted to call, then my credit card
> number, and have the call billed to my credit account?  Presumably,
> the charges wouldn't be too outrageous, since I'd be "using" a Bell
> payphone to complete the call, right?  And as long as I used only my
> own credit card, would this even be considered phraud?

Some of the tones that it sends are presumably the vendor's ID (find a
store that still uses the voice method of credit card verification,
and notice that the cashier first tells them the store's ID number
before telling them your credit card number), because credit card
companies charge vendors a service fee.  If you were to replay the
tones, you would be fraudulently claiming to be PacBell, and incurring
charges to them illegally.

> Here's a scenario for you: Let's say I were far away from the airport,
> and called the secret number it calls for credit card calls, send-paid
> from some other payphone.  If I entered my credit card number and
> called someone, it would establish a pretty good alibi that I was at
> the airport at the time of the call, would it not?

This assumes that the ID number that the phone sends identifies the
specific phone or location.  I suspect it only identifies PacBell in
general.  It might work to establish an alibi that you were in
PacBell's service area, but probably not much more specific than that.

> And since when did Pacific Bell get in the business of accepting major
> credit cards for phone calls, anyway?

They're just a business, so why shouldn't they?  Especially in
airports, where many of the patrons are not from your service area so
are unlikely to be good prospects for a PacBell calling card.


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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 12:29 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> And since when did Pacific Bell get in the business of accepting major
> credit cards for phone calls, anyway?

When was the time before last that you went to the airport, Steve?
Those major-credit-card-accepting stainless steel phones have been
around for a long, LONG time. Like maybe pushing three years in the
San Jose and San Francisco airports (I don't ever use Oakland).

Re: your theory about the DTMF sequence working from lines other than
the official payphone lines: yes, it does.


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

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: End of the [Party] Line
Date: 11 Apr 91 12:59:17 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

>> because of a $1.8 million equipment upgrade, Mitchell said.
>> Eliminating party lines also became imperative because of computerized
>> 911-emergency response systems.

> This does not ring true to me. If the switch software can provide ANI
> for billing, I would expect it to provide ANI for E911 witout
> problems.  It disturbs me when businesses deliberately tell lies to
> regulatory agencies. (It also disturbs me that we set up regulatory

Calling party detection on party lines is not infallible. It relies on
a specifically modified telephones being used in each residence. It is
not uncommon for someone to place an unmodified instrument in his home.
This would cause errors in the 911 display.

ANI for four party service is notoriously unreliable. Usually the
fourth party is not equipped because of this unreliability.

There is no commonly available ANI system for party lines of greater
than four ( and in practice three) subscribers.

In short, I don't think it unresonable to assume that the installers
of a 911 service would wish to eliminate party lines. A billing error
due to ANI failure may be annoying to a subscriber and costly to a
telco, but an ANI failure on a 911 call could be fatal.


Tom Gray

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 10:38:45 CDT
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Convenience of Phone System?

> Wouldn't it be nice to simply speak into the phone and say 'my friend
> Tony Jones's third office line please', and from the random pay phone
> be voice recognised as you and thereby indicating which Tony Jones is
> being refered to.

Take a look at X.400 e-mail "addresses"; that's why all those fields
are in there.  The general idea is to allow future Directory-Service
lookup on fields likely to be known to you (name, organization,
country, etc.).  There's no reason you can't do something similar with
telephone "addresses".  All you need is a black box with the requisite
smarts, or a phone-board in your personal computer.  It will require a
fair amount of intelligence in the software to not only recognize
spoken words, but also to parse them into something meaningful to the
system's directory-search algorithm, but it's certainly doable (though
perhaps very expensive) right now.

If I can have an e-mail alias file with entries like "jff2" (an old
NIC Ident) and "oscteam", then I can certainly do the same thing with
a telephone-system alias file.  Perhaps the future will even allow
[inter]national directory lookup as well; my opinion is that it would
be to the phone companies benefit to provide easy and *free* directory
lookup in the interest of generating more per-call revenue.

I don't know about "from any random pay phone", though.  Perhaps when
computing power gets a bit cheaper we'll be able to use something like
a Casio BOSS with a voice-recognizer and a tone-generator built in,
and use the hand-held device to do our dialing for us.  Actually, we
can do that now (but without the voice-input capability, of course),
*very* cheaply with a shirt-pocket dialer with a name-number memory
and a simple lcd-screen interface.


[Moderator's Note: We have 'alias addresses' to a limited extent now
with the speed-calling function offered by most telcos with an ESS
office. A long distance carrier who also offers 'alias addresses' is
Telecom USA. As part of their Calling Card service, when on their
switch, *90 allows you to program up to nine (*91 through *99) 'speed
numbers' when using their switch for your long distance calls.  PAT]

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Apple Data-PCS Petition for Rulemaking
Date: 11 Apr 91 15:41:43 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA



In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Donald E. Kimberlin) writes...

>        "The Utilities Telecommunications Council" <what part of the
> woodwork DO all these outfits come out of?> "also objected to Apple's
> petition, noting that water, gas and electric utilities have invested
> more than $360 million in radio equipment to operate in the
> 1,850-1,990 MHz band." <Sounds to me like no more than ONE electric
> company'a annual rate ...>

The utilities are among the major users of the 2 GHz fixed microwave
band.  Back before cheap fiber optics, a lot of companies had private
radio systems there.  Many still do.  Utilities and railroads are the
major users, since they have rights-of-way and lots of data to send.

>        "That investment - which supports roughly 2,000 licenses"
> <aha!  let's see - $360 million/2,000 comes to ... $180,000 per EACH
> license.  WOW!  That's some AWFULLY expensive 2 Gigahertz microwave,
> folks!> "-could be stranded if private microwave users are relocated
> to other frequencies, resulting severe economic hardships, according
> to the council."

It's not cheap stuff.  To build a microwave network, you need radios,
towers, antennas, etc.  The 2 GHz band has a longer hop range than the
alternatives (higher frequencies).  So a utility might stick one 2 GHz
dish on a tower every 40-50 miles or so.  If they were displaced to
the 6 or 12 or 18 GHz ranges (and I'm not sure 12 is still available),
then they'd need towers every 20-30 miles (at 6 GHz) or even closer.
These don't come cheap!  I don't think Apple really apreciates that.

Voice and data PCNs are both neat ideas.  But the private microwave
users have a good case.  You can't replace all radios with glass;
glass is only suitable to high-density routes, and much private
microwave crosses inhospitable terrain, mountain peak to peak.  A huge
amount of spectrum is reserved for government use, and the FCC
currently only gets to divvy up the rest.  It's not an easy business.


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?

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

Subject: Re: Strange Phone Calls
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 6:00:24 CDT
From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>


Yes, I just had a conversation like that with a computer.

    "Would you like to receive more information"

        My duck doesn't have insurance either.

    "Please leave your name"

        Argent Wolfsong

    "Your phone number"

        If you yell real loud I'll probably hear you.

    "Your date of birth"

        No, it was a penguin.

    "What time can you be reached"

        The Renaissance.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 01:27:49 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I've Moved and Old MCI Calling Card Still Works
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> 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...). :^)

A neighbor in my apartment complex recently moved into the apartment
vacated by someone who apparently wasn't on very good terms with one
of her creditors, namely Discover Card.  Well, it happens that the new
resident also has a Discover Card, so when he changed his address,
they started making harassing phone calls to him, demanding to know
where the former resident was.  He's never met her, has no idea who or
where she is, and has no connection to her at all, but Discover
continues to call him every few days insisting that he must have some
idea.

This is, for one thing, part of the reason I never give my phone
number to my credit card creditors.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 08:35:08 EDT
From: Gary W Sanders <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Discussion on CNN
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> I just watched a short interview with Robert Abrams on CNN.
> (2:10pm-2:15pm, PST)

> Abrams is the Attorney General for the state of New York.

> 1) Require every 900 number to air a "preamble" including three things;
> a brief discription of the nature of the service, a clear statement of
> the cost or charges involved, and the opportunity to hang up without
> incurring any charges.

One other item I think should be included in the preamble is a company
name, bussiness mailing address (No PO boxes) and office phone
number(that is attended 8-5). This way I have someone to complain to
when I call a 900 number and get some garbage line.

The latest 900 scam I have been seeing on late nite TV ads is Free 900
calls ... that right free 900 calls for the first minutes $15 for each
additional minute ... major $$$$ for a free call.


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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 14:14:52 PDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another Kind of Selective Ringing


John Higdon writes,

> So your [fill in the relationship of someone close to you] is stranded
> and calls you from a COCOT that disallows DTMF after call completion.
> Not only has that person been unsuccessful, but has lost coin in the
> process.

But John, since you're calling from a COCOT, you will lose your coin
anyway!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #285
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15546;
          13 Apr 91 1:36 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18168;
          12 Apr 91 23:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05153;
          12 Apr 91 22:49 CDT
Date:     Fri, 12 Apr 91 22:43:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #286
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 12 Apr 91 22:42:30 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 286

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Is a Data Conference Using Three-Way Calling Possible? [Andy Sherman]
    Re: My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack [Randy Gregor]
    Re: Phone Audio to RCA Jack [Randy Gregor]
    Re: Radio Reception on Telephone [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: '10XXX' May Yet Work! [Randal L. Schwartz]
    Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers [Terry Kennedy]
    Re: Another Kind of Selective Ringing [Michael Coleman]
    Re: Wanted: Worldwide List of Telcos With Addresses [Carl Wright]
    Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed [Paul Elliott]
    Re: Phone Audio to RCA Jack [Paul S. Sawyer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is a Data Conference Using Three-Way Calling Possible?
Date: 11 Apr 91 18:45:47 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill


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

> Would anyone know how one could set up a data conference using
> three-way calling?  This seems like an idea that would be not too
> difficult to implement, although a friend and I have unsuccessfully
> tried several times......

> [Moderator's Note: You cannot do what you want. The modem has only two
> conditions: originate and answer. It cannot talk to another modem set
> in the same mode. Any two of the three can communicate if one is set
> to receive and the other to transmit. The third one will be (possibly)
> able to talk to one or the other, but not both. What usually happens
> is the third modem, in generating its own originate or answer carrier
> makes the connection so cluttered with noise that none of the three
> can communicate, as you have found out. I said modems have only two
> modes: this is not entirely true. My US Robotics Courier 2400 has a
> third mode called 'transmitter off', allowing it to sit there and
> silently monitor what is happening otherwise. So with such a modem,
> you could bring a three-way data connection up successfully provided
> the third party sat there silently and did not throw carrier at the
> other two.  PAT]

Well, certain types of data conference calls can be set up, but the
cost is probably too high for BBS'ing.  I don't have the details, but
AT&T's Alliance(tm) Teleconferencing service has some kind of bridge
modem set up to allow graphics to be shared by multiple sites.  You
need a special modem on your end to do it, and you dial into the
Alliance bridge.  I believe the bridge re-broadcasts data to all
participants in the conference.  The AT&T OVERVIEW(tm) scanner
supported this service to allow the sharing of scanned documents with
remote pointing.


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


[Moderator's Note: A notable example of a 'data conference call' would
be the CB Simulator program on Compuserve. And yes, it is expensive to
use. But there you have an example of how such a thing would be done
with three or more parties. Instead of a direct link between modems
however, what happens is each party transmits to a central computer,
and that computer then parcels everything back out again, usually
instantly or nearly so.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 13:01:37 PDT
From: jartel!compsm![e-mail]
Subject: Re: My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack
Organization: Computersmith, Los Angeles


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

> Over the weekend I bought a CPS-200 Call Forwarding System from Radio
> Shack.  At the local store here, they had one left, marked down to
> $29.95, and I thought that price alone made it worthwhile.

Definitely. (I assume this is really the CFS-200).
                                          ^
[Moderator's Note: You are right, it is the CFS-200.   PAT]

> This unit does require two actual phone lines; one to accept calls,
> and the other to forward the call. Since I have 'genuine' call
> forwarding from Illinois Bell, I won't need it a lot, but one good use
> came to mind: I'll use it to remotely turn on call forwarding on my
> main line!

> ... [exotic method to remotely set up "1172" telco
> call-forwarding has a problem with loss of remote control, followup
> suggesting use of distinctive ringing to solve the problem.]

I actually prefer the CFS-200's call forwarding to that provided by my
telco (GTE).

I just use the box as intended, without trying to make it set up telco
call forwarding instead.

When a call comes in on line 1, the box immediately calls out on line
2.  When line 2 is answered, the box waits for someone to speak, then
beeps to let the answering party know that this is a forwarded call.
Only then is line 1 answered/supervised and bridged to line 2.

This is so fast that the caller does not notice anything unusual.

When working at a client's site, I can set it up to ring in on one of
their unused rotary lines, if available.  Otherwise, I just have it
call their main number, the receptionist answers "Amalgamated
Industries", hears a beep, then answers "Computersmith" because she
knows its for me.

Other benefits:

  - You can forward out on the line with all the discount calling
    programs.

  - You can have it follow you from place to place (even without
    distinctive ringing.)

  - If the forwarded call is not answered, an answering machine on
    line 1 can still take the call.

I am surprised at how well it works, particularly for a Radio Shack
product.


Randy Gregor                                    | Computersmith
[e-mail] or uunet!paralogics!compsm!rlg | POB 25-D
[phone]                                 | Los Angeles, CA  90025


[Moderator's Note: The way you describe it is exactly how mine works.
The problem I have is, I *forget* to turn on call-forwarding when I
leave and I forget to turn it off when I return. If I can't remember
to dial it on the phone, I probably would not remember to flip the
little switch on the unit to turn it on when I left. That's why I
though in my case it would be better as a <controller> to turn the
telco version on from a distance. The ideal service for me would be
'transfer on busy/no answer', and it would automatically follow me. On
my cell phone I have that feature and can program it on/off/where to
forward from the cell phone. On my home line, IBT insists they only
offer it programmed from the CO always on, with absolutely no way to
change the destination, etc other than a $15 work order.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 13:01:45 PDT
From: jartel!compsm![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Audio to RCA Jack
Organization: Computersmith, Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> Has anyone ever come across a device which would allow one to take the
> line level out from an RCA jack to a telephone line and to take the
> audio from a phone to a RCA jack?

A quick-and-dirty hack to go from an audio jack to phone line:

Get an old phone with a _carbon_ mic (the pop-out kind).  Remove the
mic.  Connect the audio to the mic contacts, and adjust the output
level.  These phones don't seem too particular about impedence.
Messy, inelegant, may cause warts, etc. but it has worked for me.
(Somebody will probably have something to say about this :)

To go from the phone line to audio, consider a call-recording device.


Randy Gregor                                    | Computersmith
[e-mail] or uunet!paralogics!compsm!rlg | POB 25-D
[phone]                                 | Los Angeles, CA  90025


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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 14:47:21 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Reception on Telephone
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> Kyler Laird <lairdkb@mentor.
cc.purdue.edu> writes:

> A friend of mine has a problem with radio reception on his home
> telephone.  The FCC told him to use a choke.  That's it!?  He hasn't
                                        ^^^^^
> tried this yet, but I'd like to know what his other options are.
> Also, I'd appreciate knowing the theory behind this.

    On the telephone or the manufacturer ? :-)


[Moderator's Note: He could also find out where his high-powered and
probably illegal CB neighbor is located (if that is the type of radio
interference he is getting) and go cut the guy's coax!   :)     PAT]

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

From: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: '10XXX' May Yet Work!
Reply-To: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 22:15:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, john@zygot (John Higdon)
writes:

| "equipment manufactured from April 17, 1992, and after be capable of
| providing equal access to long distance companies through "10XXX"
| access codes. ... AP. "

Geez.  I sure hope that applies to the equipment that GTE Northwest
installs in their *central office*.  10XXX dialing?  What's that? :-)

FYI: GTE Northwest ("the phone company" to all of the Silicon Rain
Forest area out on the westside of Portland Oregon) has made *no*
indication of making 10XXX available *anywhere* in the near or distant
future.


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: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers
Date: 11 Apr 91 19:38:32 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


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

> That seems like a pretty expensive way to deal with it (operator's
> time + envelope handler's time + envelope cost + check cost + stamp
> cost + amount of check.)

  Here in NJ Bell land, they would send you a check as well. I recall
it some standard form, not a "real" check, but the banks would process
them. Maybe they use them on _their_ phone bill?

  Anyway, it was explained to me that the phone company did things
this way because the had no way of knowing if you _really_ just lost a
dime in the phone or if you were just trying for a free call. They
said that the refund check actually cost them far _less_ than giving
away free phone calls to anybody who said they lost money, since it
tended to discourage such fraud.


Terry Kennedy           Operations Manager, Academic Computing
[e-mail]     St. Peter's College, US
[e-mail]    [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Ah, for the good old days when you could lose a
nickle in the payphone (usually because the operator accidentally
collected it when she meant to return it) and she would apologize and
say 'on your next call, tell the operator you have five cents credit
coming from Operator 207 (or whoever).'        PAT]

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

From: Michael Coleman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another Kind of Selective Ringing
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Date: 12 Apr 91 00:35:13 GMT


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

[Password box not as useful as Caller ID, and is rude to callers.  And
what about the case where the phone is not touch-tone, or some broken
COCOT phone?]

Well, this may be true, but this is not nearly as rude as I would
*like* to be.  I recall that in a story "Friday" by Robert Heinlein,
one of the characters had a "door bell" which presented a transaction
which boiled down to something like this:

   This is the __ residence.  If you feel you have something to discuss
   that I will find important, you can summon me by inserting $20; if I
   agree, I will return it.

Along these lines, I would love to have as my residential line
something similar to a 1-900 number, except that I could cancel the
charge with a push of a button.  The phone company will never provide
this sort of service for a reasonable price, of course.

I don't want to be rude to my friends, but I would like to be as rude
as possible with unsolicited callers, in the hope that they will stop.

As for the objection that not everyone has a correctly-functioning
touch-tone phone, I agree that this could occasionally be a problem.
It's difficult to come up with a perfect solution when the individual
is pitted against the phone company, the telemarketing industry, and
other assorted lowlifes.  If they would cease and desist, none of this
would be necessary.


MC

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted: Worldwide List of Telcos With Addresses
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1991 03:12:18 GMT


In article <telecom11.283.5> [e-mail] (Rop Gonggrijp) writes:

I need the addresses of ALL the phone companies in the world.

There is a company called Lynx Technologies in Little Falls, NJ which
has this information in a database of the rates and tariffs for all
the world. It was expensive ($60k dollars) more than a year ago.

They might be able to help you for less. You have to ask. They are at
[phone].

There is probably some other source, but I don't know what it is. I'd
love to hear where you find the info for less.


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

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

From: Paul Elliott x225 <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed
Date: 10 Apr 91 17:10:26 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, @comspec.uucp (David
Berman) writes:

> And I also believe that the Caller*ID transmissions from the phone
> company are kind of standardized. I think.

> Question: Does anyone reading know what is sent out? How the phone
> number or alpha information is encoded on the ring cycle? Has it been
> done in a reasonable way so that decoding is sensible? (etc) Addresses
> the future?

> Or: Does anyone know where such information is published for
> reference?

I have in front of me two Bellcore specs that I *think* are appropriate.
They are:

CLASSsm Feature: Calling Number Delivery
Technical Reference
TR-TSY-000031
Issue 3, January 1990

(This describes the encoding, bit rate, etc.)

and

SPCS Customer Premises Equipment Data Interface
Technical Reference
TR-TSY-000030
Issue 1, November 1988

(This provides some protocol information.)

What I don't know is if this is really CALLER ID, or some other
variant scheme.  The protocol description is a bit too vague for me to
be able to figure out how one would encode or decode an actual phone
number.

Anyone have any additional or better information?  I would like to
know, also.

To contact Bellcore:

Information Exchange Management
Bellcore
445 South Street, Room 2J-125
P.O. Box 1910
Morristown, NJ 07692-1910
[phone]


Paul Elliott - DSC Optilink - {uunet,pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!elliott

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

From: "Paul S. Sawyer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Audio to RCA Jack
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 13:00:15 GMT


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

> Has anyone ever come across a device which would allow one to take the
> line level out from an RCA jack to a telephone line and to take the
> audio from a phone to a RCA jack?

If your application is as simple as it sounds, the Bogen WMT-1 comes
to my mind -- bridging transformer, with RCA jack <-> screw terminals.


Paul S. Sawyer             {uunet,attmail}!unhtel!paul    [e-mail]
UNH CIS - - Telecommunications and Network Services      VOX: [phone]
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523                        FAX: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #286
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20246;
          13 Apr 91 3:30 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05196;
          13 Apr 91 2:01 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id af02851;
          13 Apr 91 0:56 CDT
Date:     Sat, 13 Apr 91 0:12:53 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #287
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Apr 91 00:12:42 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 287

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Voice Recognition Telephones and Security [Ralph Moonen]
    Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905 [J. Luce]
    Re: Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack [John Winslade]
    Re: 900 Discussion on CNN [Dennis G. Rears]
    Re: Separate "City" Code for Mobile Phones [Alan Laird]
    Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed [Kevin Collins]
    Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers [Kent Borg]
    Re: Phone Audio to RCA Jack [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: Strange Phone Calls [Tony Harminc]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 09:30 MDT
Subject: Re: Voice Recognition Telephones and Security


[e-mail] wrote:

> Wouldn't it be nice to simply speak into the phone and say 'my friend
> Tony Jones's third office line please', and from the random pay phone be
> voice recognised as you and thereby indicating which Tony Jones is
> being refered to.

To which David Gast <[e-mail]> replied:

> On the other hand, do we really want the phone company (and every COCOT
> sleeze since the example above includes a pay phone) or the government
> to recognize our voice on a routine basis?  Our every move would be
> tracked.

This can already be done: Make a cash withdrawal from an ATM; the bank
now knows where you are. Place a calling card call from a payphone;
the phone company now knows who you called, and where you are. Walk
into a moderately sized department store, and video cameras will track
you're every move. Getting paranoid already? :-)

> Additionally, this particular scenario has a huge security hole: I
> call someone, they record my voice, then they call someone, but pipe
> their input through a device that simulates my voice.
> Perhaps we should close some the existing security holes before we make
> new giant ones.

Just as with the ATM cards, of course, there should be some security
check.  After saying, "I'd like Jane Doe's office line please." The
computer should answer with something like: "What is your Personal ID
Number, please?"  And a couple of other methods also could be
implemented to counter fraud.

And the Moderator noted:

> [Moderator's Note: And what, pray tell, is the difference between this
> and sending someone a written letter who then forges my handwriting
> and signs off on some fraudulent documents for me?  Maybe we should
> stop allowing handwritten communication between people (or individuals
> and companies) before this 'existing security hole' gets worse. How
> inconvenient do you want things to be just to accomodate your fears
> about 'what might happen'?    PAT]

While I agree with the Moderator on the general idea, I think that
first, 'this existing security hole' IS getting worse. Desktop forgery
is as easy as sh*t, and only takes a mildly computer-educated person
to do. The point is, however, one should not make it easier to commit
fraud, even though you know that it will be done by the persistent
ones. I mean, you _do_ lock the doors of your car, don't you? While
you know that they're gonna get in if they want to. Therefore, it is
not so much the fear of 'what might happen', but more the fear of what
_will_ happen. We just have to try not to let it get widespred.

On a 'voice simulation' related topic:

Here in the Netherlands, we have the equivalent of the American 900
numbers.  Here they start with 06-3. Recently a company started the
Tele-Jackpot (06-32035000) at $0.26 per minute. The system works as
follows: after blabbing a little and stalling the actual game to earn
more money on you, the first reel of the tele-one-armed-bandit starts
to run. You hear: "cherry-plum-grape-plum-cherry-star-plum-bar-cherry-
grape- etc."

The trick is to shout STOP into the phone when you hear "bar". Then
the second reel starts running and the same process is repeated. If
you get a bar on all three reels, you record your telephone number,
name and address on a tape, and you will receive a prize (a Walkman or
CD's or something). My idea was: build a simple voice recognition
unit, that recognises only the words cherry, plum, grape, star, bar,
and outputs STOP whenever it hears "bar". This could earn me a lot of
CD's, as the computer would have a lot faster reaction speed than I
do. Haven't gotten around to trying this yet, though.


Ralph Moonen   rmoonen@[hvlpa|ihlpb].att.com    ([phone]

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

From: "J. Luce" <aurs01![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905
Date: 11 Apr 91 18:59:33 GMT
Reply-To: "J. Luce" <aurw46![e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC


In article <[e-mail]> elroy!grian![e-mail].
nasa.gov (Alex Pournelle) writes:

> Not a phone-weeny, just leafing through my roommate's stuff,

Sorta like a Chaos ROOM as opposed to a Manor, eh?


John Luce   Alcatel Network Systems  Raleigh, NC
Standard Disclaimer Applies    919-850-6787
aurs01!aurw46![e-mail]   or ...!mcnc!aurgate!luce
or [e-mail]

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones
Date: 12 Apr 91 12:06:48 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> If you use a calling card, the phone simply dials the number, waits
> for the ka-bong, then sends the card number and PIN via DTMF.

> But for the credit cards, it is even more silly.  The phone dials a
> seven digit number into some computer verification system somewhere.

The phone that has always intrigued me is the AT&T Card Caller Plus.
It handles credit card calls the way most handle calling card calls.
It just dials 0+ and enters some form of your credit card number after
the ka-bong.  I have always meant to tap the line of one to see what
it dials but have never gotten around to it.  If I could figure out
what it dials, then anyone could place a credit card call through AT&T
simply by dialing 0+.

I once tracked down the guy at AT&T who designed that phone, but he
wouldn't tell me :-(.

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

Date: 12 Apr 91 09:47:00 CDT
From: JOHN WINSLADE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack


In a recent article, Patrick writes:

> Over the weekend I bought a CPS-200 Call Forwarding System from Radio
> Shack.  At the local store here, they had one left, marked down to
> $29.95, and I thought that price alone made it worthwhile.

> This unit does require two actual phone lines; one to accept calls,
> and the other to forward the call. Since I have 'genuine' call
> forwarding from Illinois Bell, I won't need it a lot, but one good use
> came to mind: I'll use it to remotely turn on call forwarding on my
> main line!

That's a very interesting use for the unit.  Am I correct to assume
that the reason it is being closed out is that it is almost useless as
a 'real' call diverter because (among other things) it simply bridges
the two lines which results in the acoustic efficiency close to that
of tin cans and string?

I have yet to see, but would like to find a call diverter and a
'conference' phone that makes some kind of attempt to equalize and
amplify the link between the end connections so that the parties
involved do not have to shout.  The so-called conference phones
usually bridge the lines and are about as useful as the proverbial
screen door on the submarine.

I realize that balancing the line from the subscriber end is very
messy, but I would have thought by now that someone would have figured
out a way to do it.

Good day!        JSW


[Moderator's Note: I think the reason they are being closed out is
because most people would not buy it when they realized that unlike
the telco version, it requires two actual phone lines. In fact, the
manager of the Radio Shack promptly mentioned that to me when I
expressed interest in this unit. I only used it a couple times as it
was intended, and I did not notice any audio degredation. This version
came out a few years ago when telco custom calling was less common in
many areas of the country. I think most people now prefer to use the
telco version when possible.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 11:06:04 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Discussion on CNN


Gary Sanders writes:

> One other item I think should be included in the preamble is a company
> name, bussiness mailing address (No PO boxes) and office phone
> number(that is attended 8-5).

  Why should anything be forced upon the marketers of the calls?  The
real underlying reason is to protect *STUPID* people from themselves.
It's time we let people who do stupid things suffer as a result of
their actions.  We have parents who can't control their kids dialing
actions (among other things) blaming the telephone company for their
bills.  They want government to protect them from their lack of
responsibilty and gullibility.

> This way I have someone to complain to when I call a 900 number and
> get some garbage line.

   Should every business be required to have a phone number so that
people can complain?  Of course not.  Why should this be different?

  Disclaimer:  I have no association with any 900 number producer.


Dennis

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

From: Alan Laird <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Separate "City" Code for Mobile Phones
Date: 12 Apr 91 16:40:10 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John R. Covert 09-Apr-1991 1436) writes:

> Warning: Both Vodaphone and BT as well as Telecom Australia Mobilenet
> charge you for reaching the "it has not been possible to connect your
> call" recording.  I believe this violates CCITT Recommendations, but I

Its worse than that (as they say). I believe BT charge for ringing
time to a cellular phone. I've also noticed recently a few very short
duration calls on my Vodaphone bill to a Cellnet number. This would
seem to suggest that I'm being charged for ringing time to Cellnet. I
know for a fact that at least some of these calls were not answered.

BTW: Vodaphone have a second exhange code which is 0831. I don't know
if cellnet have a second code yet (I expect they do but haven't had to
start using it).


Alan  I  M  Laird,   Department  of  Computer  Science,
University  of  Strathclyde,   Glasgow  G1  1XH,    UK.
[e-mail],  041 552 4400 x3081,  0836 320786

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

From: Kevin Collins <aspect![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID Specifications Needed
Date: 12 Apr 91 19:38:35 GMT
Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca


On 6 Apr 91 08:22:08 EDT, David Berman ([e-mail]) writes:

[asking about how/when CallerID info is sent to the called party]

> Question: Does anyone reading know what is sent out? How the phone
> number or alpha information is encoded on the ring cycle? Has it been
> done in a reasonable way so that decoding is sensible? (etc) Addresses
> the future?

As far as the future is concerned, once the local telcos get around to
offering ISDN Basic Rate Interface (two data channels, one signalling
channel), the calling party number will be sent from telco to the
called number in the call origination message (called the SETUP
message).  Your (BRI-compatible) phone will have the information
*before* it rings, and could easily decide whether to tell telco to
proceed with the call or reject it at that time.

So, if your mother calls too often, just have your phone set to reject
call attempts from her number after 10 pm :-).


Kevin Collins                   |  Aspect Telecommunications
USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc  |  San Jose, CA
Voice:  [phone]         |  My opinions are mine alone.

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

From: Kent Borg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers
Date: 12 Apr 91 20:53:22 GMT
Organization: Camex Inc., Boston MA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (H.
Peter Anvin) writes:

> friends -- also here in Chicago (suburbs) -- that have had the same
> experience with Illinois Bell: a refund check for $0.25!

A few years ago (like five) I got a check for 35 cents -- or some such
 -- from Pac Bell.  I live in Boston, and the check was forwarded by my
parent's in Minnesota.  I hadn't been in CA for years, but I did
faintly remember once getting ripped off by a pay phone in a BART
station while I was at the First West Cost Computer Faire, must have
been 1977.  Nearly ten years earlier.

My guess is that in the paperwork involved with the Bell breakup they
found a slew of refunds they forget to send out.  (I can't remember,
but I think I saved the check somewhere as a momento of how these
things work.)


Kent Borg       internet: [e-mail]   AOL: kent borg
                H:[phone]  W:[phone]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 22:40 PDT
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Audio to RCA Jack


In TD V.11 #279 James Blake <[e-mail]> said:

> Has anyone ever come across a device which would allow one to take the
> line level out from an RCA jack to a telephone line and to take the
> audio from a phone to a RCA jack?

If you're willing to consider a 1/4 inch jack for your audio source,
there is of course the Ma Bell "QKP" "QKT' or "QKTBT" voice coupler
arrangement.  These little jobs were provided usually in a type 30
jack housing, or occasionally engineered with a 1/4 jack in the side
of a reworked 500 type phone set. Primarily for radio stations for the
ubiquitous "phone patch" so often used for call in shows and remote
broadcasts, in most arrangements they were bridged off of the co line
and were turned on/off by a switch on the side of the associated
phone.

The old ones consisted of little more than a transformer for
isolation, a capacitor (to prevent passage of DC?) and a zenor to
limit the line level (and of course a 1/4 inch jack). They were crude
devices, producing a characteristic distortion and giving a poor
signal level match for broadcasting two-way conversations. Later
versions contained more circuitry removing the distortion. Most
stations that can afford them use expensive and well engineered
bridges from non-telco vendors that clean up the audio and match the
signal level.

Many of these devices are made to work with 1A2 equipment, and are
designed to be hooked up to the CO or KSU line, entirely replacing the
phone set. I don't remember the names of any of the manufacturers, but
they are available from any broadcast supply house such as Allied
(Harris) Broadcast Supply.


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

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 12:16:18 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Phone Calls


In TELECOM Digest V11 #279, Mark Walsh <optilink!marks350!walsh@uunet.
uu.net> writes:

> Which brings up an interesting question that I have had.  Yes, I too
> find these most annoying.  When the automated solicitors prompt you to
> leave information on their machine, I leave a message consisting of an
> incoherent diatribe of grotesque words and concepts.  (The last one
> had something to do with sexual activity.)  Anyway, I know that
> obscene phone calls are illegal, but what if you are not the
> originator of the phone call?

When I get an machine calling to ask 'survey' questions (like am I
interested in aluminum storm windows) I usually use my 3-way calling
to add a local religious recording to the connection ([phone]).

The preacher then bible-thumps to his heart's content and the caller's
machine either records pieces of the Bible to fill in the blanks or -
if it has a VOX - records the entire message (usually a couple of
minutes).

On a couple of occasions the Bible text has fitted the survey
questions really well, and once the prompt asking for my name was
filled perfectly by the preacher saying his name and church
affiliation.  Of course they have *my* phone number (since the machine
knows what it dialled to reach me), but they have never called back to
sell storm windows to the Reverend.

I've given the ethics of this some thought, and I don't think I'm
doing anything wrong.  Disagreements ?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #287
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22559;
          13 Apr 91 4:35 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22368;
          13 Apr 91 3:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac05196;
          13 Apr 91 2:02 CDT
Date:     Sat, 13 Apr 91 1:39:43 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #288
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Apr 91 00:39:27 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 288

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Dublin Number Expansion [Charles Bryant]
    Re: Is a Data Conference Using Three-Way Calling Possible? [Charles Bryant]
    Re: Halogen Lamp Interfering With Cordless [Mark Cheeseman]
    Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905 [Harold G. Peach]
    Re: Caller ID RS-232 Interface [Jim Langridge]
    Re: Special Screwdriver Wanted [Bjorn Ahlen]
    Re: Per Line Blocking? [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Per Line Blocking? [Dennis Rears - Telecom Privacy Moderator]
    Re: WXYZ (was Re: New FCC Modem Tax?) [Marc Unangst]
    Cellular Phone Differences [Steven Gutfreund]
    Telex Gateway Needed [Lynn Spatz]
    Documentation Wanted on January, '90 AT&T Outage? [Marc Riese]
    Ringback and Phone Number Readback for 213 Pac Bell [Jon T. Adams]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Charles Bryant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dublin Number Expansion
Organization: Datacode Communications Ltd, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 11:04:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Colum Mylod <cmylod@nl.
oracle.com> writes:

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

>> [In the 01 area...]  From April 8th all numbers starting with
>> 69, 8 will have a 2 added  to make them 269 XXXX and 28X XXXX.

> Lucky you getting some info, even if they stick in a bill too!  Those
> of us dialling from overseas (where publicity on the changes is zilch)
> are just getting tri-tone for the numbers that changed on 8 April.

I just tried dialling an 85X XXX number several times and got:

  "The number you have dialled has been changed to seven digits.
   Please place the digit two in front of the local number and dial
   again."

 ... repeated twice (and starting at a random point). If you don't get
this recording you could try reporting the problem (via the
international operator, I suppose).


Charles Bryant  ([e-mail])

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

From: Charles Bryant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is a Data Conference Using Three-Way Calling Possible?
Organization: Datacode Communications Ltd, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 14:12:58 GMT


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

> Would anyone know how one could set up a data conference using
> three-way calling?

> [Moderator's Note: You cannot do what you want. The modem has only two
> conditions: originate and answer. It cannot talk to another modem set
> in the same mode.

If you can modify the BBS software and modem it can be done. It is
just a multidrop configuration. However this requires that the modems
can support this.  Depending on the type of modem, it may be possible
to kludge something together anyway. If the modems can control whether
their carrier is on of off with RTS you can leave the BBS modem alone
and take turns transmitting for each of the other two. Since the BBS
will echo, this allows each user to see what the other is doing.

Note that the BBS will probably hang up when you try to switch between
users as there must be a brief loss of carrier, and even if it dosen't
some garbage characters will inevitably arrive at the BBS. If you can
use an error-correction protocol it could be made to work. Note that
the protocol would have to be specially devised, MNP or similar would
be no use since the receiver at the BBS must cope with packet numbers
from two sequences.


Charles Bryant  ([e-mail])

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

From: Mark Cheeseman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Halogen Lamp Interfering With Cordless
Organization: RUNX Un*x Timeshare.  Sydney, Australia.
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 06:08:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, slcpi!admin8779.shearson.
com![e-mail] (Mike Johnston) says:

> I just put one of those sleek looking, floor standing hologen lamps in
> my living room. Imagine my chagrin when after turning the lamp on I
> tried to use my cordless phone and discovered a loud hum.
> Incidentally, this hum varies with the brightness of the lamp. I.E the
> lower I dim the lamp, the louder the hum in my phone. Help! What's a
> guy to do? Is there any way I can shield my lamp from this or am I
> just stuck?

Sounds to me like poor power supply rejection in the base unit of the
phone. Obvoiusly, the lamp has a dimmer in it, which would typically
use some form of triac switching to achieve the dimming action.
However, this results in rather sharp current rise times, which tend
to get into everything else connected to the same supply. What is
needed is some level of inductance in the supply to the lamp (it
really should be built- in, if the manufacturer cared about the
possibility of interference), but I can't quote any figures off the
top of my head. A few tens of turns around a ferrite core should
provide a signifcant improvement though.

The other possibility is that the noise is being radiated RF-wise, but
I'm assuming that the cordless phone is using FM, and that it has
reasonable AM rejection, which should kill of dimmer noise. If this is
the case, the solution is really the same - limit the rate of current
rise in the lamp, using an inductor.

I hope this helps.


Mark

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

From: [e-mail] (Peach)
Subject: Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1991 19:55:03 GMT


elroy!grian![e-mail] (Alex Pournelle) writes:

> [e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:

>> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tony
>> Harminc) writes:

>> The plan is to use seven digits for all intra-NPA calls, and 1 + ten
>> digits for all inter-NPA calls.  No timeouts, no ambiguity, and no
>> sure way to tell the difference between local and toll calls
>> intra-NPA.  Any NXX number can then be used as an area code, and as an
>> exchange prefix within any area code.  In the interest of user-
>> friendliness, Bellcore recommends not assigning the same NXX as an
>> area code and as a prefix within the area code.  (So we won't have a
>> 201-201 central office in Northern NJ.)

> At least in Pac*Swell's southern area, this isn't QUITE true: there
> *IS* a 213-213 exchange; actually, a "psuedo-exchange"; the Big Book
> of Prefixes (Higdon will doubtless give out the real name:-) for the
> L.A.  LATA lists 213-213 as "Pseudo-POTS for local 800 service" or
> something.  The indication I got was that it wasn't a "public"
> exchange, but one for phones the Great Unwashed should never see.

> Yes, there was also a 213-818, an 818-818 and an 818-213 as I recall.

I am just a novice at this stuff, but are you saying they are changing
the rules about area codes?  Prefixes that have a center digit of one or
zero can no longer be assumed to be an area code?  Is this a nationwide
change?


Harold G. Peach, Jr.                     Internet:  [e-mail]
252 Ag. Engineering Bldg., U.Ky.  Packet Radio:  [e-mail]
Lexington, KY  40546-0276                       Phone:  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: The rules about *area codes* are going to change in
a few years when area codes can have other than zero or one as their
second digit. The rule about the third digit of an area code having to
be two through nine has already changed. Now we see a limited number
of zeros as the third digit in area codes, but you still never see a
third digit of one. It was *prefixes* in the past which never had zero
or one in the second digit. And several years ago, a prefix never had
zero as the third digit; nor as a rule were prefixes duplicated in
adjacent area codes, or similar-looking area codes placed adjacent to
each other. Big cities got 'short pull' area codes and small towns got
'long pull' area codes. The explosive growth in telephone services
requiring individual numbers in the past few years has forced the old
rules to be abandoned. We can still safely say if the second and third
digits are both one, or both zero, the three digits make up some special
service code rather than an area code or a prefix.    PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 91 09:01:12 est
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Caller ID RS-232 Interface


In an article from TELECOM DIGEST V11 #265 on April 3rd, 1991, Gilbert
Amine made two products known:

ANI-232 from Rochelle Communications and CLASSMATE 10, developed by
MHE Systems and distributed by Bell Atlantic Business Supplies.

Since I have had an interest in linking Caller ID to our databases
here at work, I decided to try one.

First, I called the Contel bussiness office to confirm Caller ID was
available?  "Yes Sir, That service is provided to your numbers."

Second, I phoned Bell Atlantic.  Yes I could return the item for any
reason within 30 days for full refund or credit.  So I had them send
me a CLASSMATE 10.

It arrived two days later.

Except for the package, I was impressed.  The device itself was just a
hair larger than a pack Camel 100s.  The associated software was
supplied on a 5 1/4 floppy disk.

The software included a neat little "database" utility that allowed me
to enter names, addresses and associated info along with phone numbers
of prospective callers.

It worked like a champ! (at home).  When it failed to perform at the
office I again called Contel; "No Sir, Caller ID is not provided to
your numbers."  After several more attempts to get the answer I wanted
to hear again, The regional manager explained that Caller ID was "Not
in the two year plan" for my company's area.  He apologized for the
misinformation I was given at the begining.

Oh well, "Nothing ventured, Nothing gained."


Jim Langridge    | [e-mail]  |    703 663 2137
Synetics Corp.   |                              |    703 663 3050 (FAX)
24 Danube Dr.    |                              |
King George, VA. |     22553-5000               |

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

From: Bjorn Ahlen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Screwdriver Wanted
Organization: Retix, Santa Monica CA
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1991 23:27:01 GMT


In article 3263, [e-mail] (Leryo Malbito) asks:

> Does anyone have ANY idea where to get those strange screwdrivers that
> fit screws with two holes in them?

Last time I needed to open a cabinet with these "child-proof" screw
heads, I used an old carpenter's compass. This is very much like a
navigators compass (sic) used to "walk" measurements on charts, but is
of course much sturdier. You could possibly find one of these at your
local old-fashioned hardware store.

Plan B would be to use a small pipe wrench (unless the heads are
recessed of course :).

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1991 06:40:10 GMT


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

> So why not do the following: Phone customers are allowed to set a
> PRICE at which they are willing to sell their caller-ID information,
> and Caller-ID customers are allowed to set a price they will PAY for
> Caller-ID information.

> Caller-ID is then only provided when the price a CID customer will pay
> is >= the price asked by the phone customer.  If it is, then the phone
> company charges the Caller-ID customer, delivers the CID info, and
> credits the phone customer's bill with the fee just charged to the
> Caller-ID user (less a percentage for the phone company, of course).

I like it.  And there's more.  Once we get individualized pricing, we
can set the price to receive a call.  After midnight, or from a
telemarketer, I would set a higher price to trip the ringer than I
would for calls received during the day or from friends.

Might as well make telemarketing profitable -- for us.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 11:43:20 EDT
From: Telecom Privacy List Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking?


The TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Thanks to all who have contributed to this string,
> but once again it is time to ask that the string be moved into the
> privacy list if further discussion is desired.  Thanks.   PAT]

   OK.  I have posted the last articles on this to the telecom-priv
digest.  Further discussions go to [e-mail], admin
requests to [e-mail].


Dennis


[Moderator's Note: Thanks. Although I enjoy putting some Caller ID
commentary here in the TELECOM Digest, I am becoming increasingly
reluctant to do so because of the amount of space it consumes with
endless arguments which never resolve. Caller ID *news* and *tech
questions/comments* are quite welcome here, but follow-up commentary
should really go to Dennis.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: WXYZ (was Re: New FCC Modem Tax?)
From: Marc Unangst <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 18:20:41 EDT
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, [phone]


[e-mail] (Robert E. Zabloudil) writes:

> Yes, I know what he meant, but there really is a WXYZ in Detroit,
> isn't there?

Yes, there is.  Channel 7, the local ABC affiliate.


Marc Unangst   [e-mail]     ...!hela!mudos!mju

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

From: Steven Gutfreund <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Differences
Date: 11 Apr 91 14:25:42 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA


I apologize if this has been discussed already, but what are the
qualititive and/or other differences between at car-based cellular (at
I believe 2 Watts) and a hand-held (at I believe .6 Watts)?


Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund       [e-mail]
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA       harvard!bunny!sgutfreund


[Moderator's Note: Actually, the permanently mounted phones in cars
and transportables (sometimes called 'bag phones') are rated at three
watts. Depends on where you use them, but in a large city like
Chicago, where cellular signals saturate everything and towers are
seen only a few city blocks apart, there is no real difference. On my
handheld (Radio Shack CT-301) I don't even use the 'standard' antenna;
opting for a 1/8 wave loaded coil -- a stub about the size of my thumb
 -- instead, and I get along fine. If you are buying your first unit,
and plan to use it mostly in a metro area, don't let the references to
the watts it puts out concern you (very much).    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Telex Gateway Needed
Organization: NCR Corporation - Dayton, OH
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 18:13:14 GMT


I am looking for a programmatic interface to telex, i.e. gateway.
This gateway will run on various NCR TOWERs and also the new 3000
series.  Could you also tell me who the carrier is.  Any help is
appreciated.

Thanks for your help in advance.


Lynn Spatz

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

Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1991 09:18:58 +0000
From: Marc Riese <[e-mail]>
Subject: Documentation Wanted on January '90 AT&T Outage


I read in {IEEE Institute} (the newspaper that comes with Spectrum)
March '91:

 "On Jan. 15, 1990, a flaw in a new version of software interrupted
  long-distance, international, and toll-free 1-800 calls for nine
  hours -   AT&T's most extensive service disruption in its history."

(This is probably old news for most readers - apologies.)

Can anyone tell me more details about this? Is there a public report
about it?

Thanks,

Marc Riese

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

From: "Jon T. Adams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ringback and Phone Number Readback for 213 Pac Bell
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 13:46:32 PDT


Some time ago Andy Jacobsen had described the efforts he had gone
through to find the ringback and # readback functions for GTE West LA.
Well, I finally came across his note filed away in my heap last
evening and started punching out digits on my phone, a 213-674-xxxx
number in Pac Bell's area.  The number 1-958-xxxx (where xxxx is my
last four digits) gets me a dial tone against which I cannot dial.  I
then do a flash hook which nets me a weird tone.  I hang up and get an
immediate ring-back.  I pick up the phone, hear that weird tone, then
hang up.

The number readback is 1223 for my prefix.  A mechanical lady comes on
the line without a ring tone and then rapidly reads back my phone
number.  Thanks, Andy - tres cool.


jon

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #288
******************************






ISSUE 289 WAS LATE IN ARRIVING AND IS FILED HERE AFTER ISSUE 292.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00607;
          13 Apr 91 22:50 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20975;
          13 Apr 91 21:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19042;
          13 Apr 91 20:15 CDT
Date:     Sat, 13 Apr 91 19:20:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #290
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Apr 91 19:20:07 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 290

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Offline a Few Days [TELECOM Moderator]
    Per-Jack Installation Charges (was: Cellular Phones for $29) [Rich Zellich]
    SNET/NYNEX and Springfield (was: New Tower, But no Service?) [John Covert]
    *Prodigy* at 9600 bps via Tymnet: What Implications? [Seng-Poh Lee]
    GTE Problems Again [Ron Schnell]
    Ohio PUCO to Move on Caller ID [Bruce Klopfenstein]
    Texas Caller ID - Mandatory Blocking [Ed Hopper]
    Bellcore ISDN Videotape [Steven W. Grabhorn]
    Four Port Cards With Four IRQs [Emmanuel Disini]
    Sync vs. Async and Misc. Questions About Leased Lines [Jesse W. Asher]
    Refund Assistance [Allyn Lai]
    Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers [Doctor Math]
    Forbidden Numbers (was: 416 to be Split Into 905) [Seth Breidbart]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 18:31:51 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Offline a Few Days


TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom are offline for a few days until
I return from a personal family emergency matter in Kansas. Over the
weekend, messages are appearing which were in the queue at the last
minute.

Please hold traffic to this newsgroup until about April 20. Thank you.


PAT

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

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 9:50:15 CDT
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Per-Jack Installation Charges (was: Cellular Phones for $29)


Here is what one decent company in St. Louis charges (and the totals
for the installation they did in my house):

   Communications Prewires Inc. ([phone])

   Pre-wiring for phone, cable TV, video, and speakers:

     $ 25 per outlet, jack, or speaker ($50 per stereo speaker PAIR)
          [if I remember right, this price also applied to built-in
           vacuum system outlets; connecting hose included free]
     $ 20 to connect to telco-installed demarc (interface) box
     $125 for attic-mounted antenna, incl. all parts & installation

   My new-home installation:

      10 phone jacks     = $250 [main 3-pair cable]
       2 phone jacks     = $ 50 [2nd 3-pair cable]
       5 video jacks     = $125
       1 TV antenna jack = $ 25
         Connect to demarc $ 20
         Install antenna   $125
                          -----
         TOTAL             $590


I consider the $125 attic-antenna charge to be a rip-off, considering
that he did not "mount" the antenna, but only laid it on it's side on
top of the box it came in, which was laid across the rafters, and that
he only installed a VHF antenna, and not VHF/UHF/FM (which is my main
complaint; he didn't ask first, or tell me until the installation was
done).  On the other hand ... the charge would have been the same had
he had to go through Hell to do the installation.

The per-jack charge for everything else includes however many feet of
cable required at no extra charge; thus, the second three-pair cable
run to only two of the phone-jack locations in the house (for future
use; they're not even connected to wall jacks at this time).  I asked
about six-pair, or greater, but they don't normally use it, and unless
there had been some left over from another special job, it would have
cost me too much for them to go out and buy a whole commercial-size
spool of the stuff.  I settled for running the second three-pair cable
instead, for which I was charged nothing.

The $125 charge for six video jacks was actually six *wall plates*,
and *eight* jacks; he was going to splice three cables together to
feed three remote TV sets from one main location, and charged for the
single jack that would have required.  Since I have amplified video
switches feeding those three remotes, I instead had him install a
separate jack in the wall plate for each of the three outgoing cables;
now I can feed three separate signals to those three sets, instead of
always the same signal to all three.

They came out on one-day notice from the builder to run the cables,
then came back the day after closing to install the cable-end jacks
and wall plates, and to connect to the just-installed demarc, and
install and connect the attic antenna.

Cheers,


Rich

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

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 09:57:19 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  11-Apr-1991 1237" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SNET/NYNEX and Springfield (was New Tower, But no Service?)


NYNEX/New England *used* to serve Western Mass, ie, Springfield.

> (Metro Highbill serves the same area, even though it was/is a CT
> company.) About 1 1/2 years ago, NYNEX seemed to have "abandoned"
> Springfield, and SNET took it over.

I would call that "West Central Mass", not "Western Mass", since NYNEX
has and will continue to keep Berkshire County (which runs from CT to
VT along the NY border).

What happened with Springfield was the following: The original license
for the Springfield (Hampden and Hampshire Counties) MSA was issued to
a joint venture between NYNEX and SNET.  NYNEX was operating the
switch, but SNET was doing the customer service.

Since the Hartford-Springfield corridor is one continuous populated
area, with the airport located at a point where I had trouble sticking
to one of the two systems (back when they were separate), SNET's
customers were screaming about the lack of interconnection.  NYNEX and
SNET applied to Judge Greene for permission to interconnect the two
systems.  MCI and Sprint filed letters of objection, stating that
they, and not Baby Bell NYNEX, were authorized to carry the traffic
between the 413 and 203 LATAs.

NYNEX, in one of the rare cases of cellular carriers doing something
good for the majority of the customers, gave up, and sold their
portion of the system to SNET.  Since SNET isn't a Baby Bell, they are
allowed to carry inter-LATA traffic, and were able to integrate the
two systems.

> As it is now, SNET indicates on their maps that they plan to have all
> of CT, and all of Western Mass in the near future (a year?)

SNET will have only West Central Mass: the Springfield
(Hampden/Hampshire) MSA they now have, and the Franklin County RSA
(Mass RSA 1).  This doesn't really inconvenience NYNEX customers from
the eastern LATA, since until the whole interconnection problem is
solved through legislation or a change in the Justice Department,
NYNEX in the 617/508 LATA would be prohibited from connecting with any
NYNEX in the 413 LATA.

> Cell One in Boston has two plans with FREE nightime airtime. One plan,
> for $59 per month, gives you 60 minutes of FREE peak airtime (after
> which 61+ minutes will costs $.43 per minute), and ALL airtime is FREE
> *off-peak*.

Cellular One still charges local (eleven cents per five minutes) and
toll (at N.E.T. rates from their nearest point of interconnection) for
all calls.

NYNEX Mobile has bundled all calls to Eastern Mass, R.I., and at least
southern NH (if not all of NH) into their airtime rates.  No landline
charges unless the call goes beyond those points.


john

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

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 07:08:41
From: "Seng-Poh Lee" <[e-mail]>
Subject: *Prodigy* at 9600 bps via Tymnet: What Implications?


I just managed to get Prodigy running at 9600 bps via Tymnet. It works
great, although there are still pauses due to the front end. But when
the front end is responsive, the screen updates are super.

Prodigy has not announced 9600 support yet. I just edited their config
and script file to do that. When Prodigy went nationwide, they used
Tymnet to fill voids in their dial-up network. Presumely they have a
bulk contract with Tymnet since Prodigy users are not charged for
connect time.  I wonder what will happen when more and more people
start using Prodigy at 9600 via Tymnet. If Tymnet has higher charges
for 9600, will Prodigy start passing some of those charges to those
9600 customers? Prodigy has already started charging for e-mail over
30/month. Will they now start charging more for 9600 users? Or perhaps
limiting free connect time?

Time will tell. In the mean time, those in cities with 9600 Tymnet
modems can enjoy faster sessions.


Seng-Poh Lee
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 08:37:57
From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE Problems Again


Well, now I REALLY hate GTE.  I got the bill for our modem line here,
and decided to look it over carefully for once.  While looking at the
"ZUM" charges, I noticed that what they were charging me was not the
same as the rate the operator had quoted me only days earlier.
Looking even more closely revealed that calling the same number during
the same rate period was not charged at the same rate!  No, the calls
did not spill into multiple rates.  As a matter-of-fact, they were
different by as much as a factor of five!

Needless to say, I called the billing office, where they were very
rude as always, and they agreed that something was wrong.  They would
put my bill under investigation.

I wonder how many people are routinely overbilled.  I am writing a
letter to the California PUC with copies of the bill.

By the way, this is a business line.


Ron   ([e-mail])

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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Ohio PUCO to Move on Caller ID
Date: 12 Apr 91 06:26:13 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


I heard from a reliable source that the Public Utilities Commission of
Ohio has moved on Caller ID.  I do not know any details.  If anyone
sees any press reports on this topic, please post or send email to me.
Thanks very much.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat Apr 13 08:58:38 CDT 1991
Subject: Texas Caller ID - Mandatory Blocking


I read a very brief article about an action of the Texas PUC (those
clear thinking devils) ruling that SWBT can offer Caller-ID, but only
if all lines DEFAULT to to per-line blocking.

Is this true?  I believe I read it in USA Today (hence the total lack
of detail and the high probability of screwed up facts).

If true, this action represents a screwed up mess that only Texas
regulators can attain.  Authorize a service, then cripple it to the point
it won't be worth having.


Ed Hopper

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

From: "Steven W. Grabhorn" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bellcore ISDN Videotape
Date: 13 Apr 91 04:35:10 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego


I think there's something wrong here, but I'm not sure. I just
received a flyer from Bellcore advertising an ISDN videotape:

"See for yourself what's possible today with ISDN!  An Informative
Videotape ... this 15 minute videotape will bring you up to speed on
the latest advances of ISDN..."

"Ordering Information ... PRICE: $295.00"

This can't be right, can it? $295.00 for a *15 minute* video tape? And
it doesn't even say if it's VHS or BETA. :-)

The flyer says a lot of of other things which I haven't included and
the standard disclamers apply.


Steve Grabhorn, Code 645, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA, 92152
Phone:[phone] Internet:[e-mail] UUCP:..!sdcsvax!nosc!grabhorn

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

Subject: Four Port Cards With Four IRQs
From: "Disini SW, Emmanuel Disini,PRT" <[e-mail]>
Date: 12 Apr 91 06:43 GMT


I just want to take the time to thank you all for the tremendously
useful responses I received regarding 16450s and 16550s. There must
have been about 25 repsonses to that single post.  If it's not too
much to ask, I also have a follow up question:

Does anyone know of a four-port serial card with COM ports that can be
configured to use different IRQs?  That is, COM1 on IRQ4, COM2 on
IRQ3, COM3 on IRQ5, etc.  If you could point me to a vendor as well
that would be great!

Please send your responses to:  [e-mail]


Thanks,

joel disini   manila

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

From: "Jesse W. Asher" <homecare![e-mail]>
Subject: Sync vs Async and Misc. Questions About Leased Lines
Reply-To: "Jesse W. Asher" <homecare![e-mail]>
Organization: Health Sphere of America Inc.
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 14:24:20 GMT


Our company is in the process of hooking up seven remote sites using
leased lines.  To help understanding of the problem, I'll provide
background information.  We've got a Sun Server at the main office and
high powered PCs running unix and tcp/ip out in the branch offices.
We would like to have the PCs used to access the database at the main
office via high speed digital lines (19.2kb or 56kb lines) using
tcp/ip (we are using Oracle as the database).

What hardware do you recommend to do this and how?  Should sync or
async be used?  What should be used on the PC end to connect to the
line?  Does it need some sort of board that runs sync that you connect
the DSU to?  Because we have enough offices to make up for the cost,
AT&T is recommending that we have a full T1 going to our POP.  I
assume this requires special hardware?  I would appreciate any help
with this as it is completely new and confusing to all of us here.
I'm sure that we can get the job done -- I just want it done right.
Thanks much.


  Jesse W. Asher        NIC Handle:  JA268         Phone: [phone]
                   Health Sphere of America Inc.
            5125 Elmore Rd., Suite 1, Memphis, TN 38134
                 UUCP: ...!banana!homecare!jessea

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Refund Assistance
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 14:38:20 PDT


I saw this on a COCOT in a Carrow's Restaurant in Sunnyvale, CA
(Sorry, forgot to see which company the COCOT belongs to):

    For Refund Assistance please dial 211

 ...or words to that effect.  This message was on a large, easy to read
sticker...

Anyway, I hadn't noticed this on pay phones before ... nice to see
that some companies are becoming more "service" oriented.


Allyn Lai   [e-mail]

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

From: Doctor Math <moocow![e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 23:17:24 PDT
Subject: Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers
Organization: Brown Cow Software (a licensed Waffle developer)


[e-mail] (Scott Hinckley) writes:

> When I was in Atlanta (back in the days of the $.10 pay phone) I was
> connected to a wrong number by one of the bandits. When I called the
> operator to try and get through to the correct number (I did not have
> another dime) she would not connect me, but took my name and address.
> A couple of weeks later I recieved a check (not coupon, real
> honest-to-goodness check) for $.10 ... which was sent in an envelope
> with a $.22 stamp on it!

This happened to someone I knew, except that before taking his name
and address, the operator pushed some mysterious button causing almost
a dollar in change to come pouring out of the phone! (I was there, I
saw.)

> That seems like a pretty expensive way to deal with it  ...

I'm told it's around six dollars overhead for them to cut you a check.
My guess is that the PR department eats the six bucks for "customer
relations" and that the "lost" change is paid out of somewhere else.

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

From: Seth Breidbart <[e-mail]>
Subject: Forbidden Numbers (was: 16 to be Split Into 905)
Date: 13 Apr 91 19:58:35 GMT
Organization: Morgan Stanley, & Co., Inc. / New York City, NY


> [Moderator's Note: The rules about *area codes* are going to change in
> a few years when area codes can have other than zero or one as their
> second digit. The rule about the third digit of an area code having to
> be two through nine has already changed. Now we see a limited number
> of zeros as the third digit in area codes, but you still never see a
> third digit of one.

201 has been New Jersey for a long time.  Likewise, 301 is Maryland.
Maybe you mean prefixes?  But New York has exchanges with 1 as the
third digit (just glancing through the Manhattan phone book).

> It was *prefixes* in the past which never had zero
> or one in the second digit. And several years ago, a prefix never had
> zero as the third digit;

In 1975 or thereabouts, a friend of mine had the phone number
(business) 617-xx0-0000.


Seth        [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well silly me! What I meant to say, but somehow did
not type in was 'area codes do not have *second and third* digits of
one, i.e. 311, 511, 711, etc.'  The rule was: first digit 2 <=> 9;
second digit 0 or 1, but never two zeros or two ones; and third digit
always 1 <=> 9 with never a zero in the third position, and a one in
the third position only provided there was not a one in the second
position.  Thanks also to John Higdon and others who wrote on this.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #290
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12215;
          14 Apr 91 4:48 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03947; 14 Apr 91 3:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06562;
          13 Apr 91 23:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21317;
          13 Apr 91 22:21 CDT
Date:     Sat, 13 Apr 91 21:32:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #291
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Apr 91 21:32:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 291

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    A Good Thing I Asked! No NationLink Roam per Cell One [TELECOM Moderator]
    AT&T's New Calling Card [Bill Huttig]
    Long Distance Calling Within-NPA [Carl Moore]
    Re: Is a Data Conference Using Three-Way Calling Possible? [Morten Reistad]
    Re: Is a Data Conference Using Three-Way Calling Possible? [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: Is a Data Conference Using Three-Way CAlling Possible? [Don Kimberlin]
    Re: Mystery Solved (was: Strange Phone Calls) [Bill Martens]
    Re: Mystery Solved (was: Strange Phone Calls) [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Phone Audio to RCA Jack [John Higdon]
    Re: ISDN Residential Survey [Paul McGinnis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 19:46:28 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Good Thing I Asked! No NationLink Roam, per Cell One


I had hoped to take my (Cellular One - Chicago equipped) bag phone
with me when we drive to Kansas in a couple days, but according to
Cellular One here, they do NOT yet offer NationLink roaming.

I've had a copy of their User Guide for several months which says they
offer *31 (call forwarding) and *32 (caller notification) service. In
addition, the third edition of the Cellular Telephone Directory says
that Cell One - Chicago offers the service.

I'm glad I called to double check!  Some of you will recall when I
made this same trip to Independence, KS last July, I took along my
Radio Shack CT-301 handheld unit, serviced by Ameritech. I was unable
to place or receive roamer calls, and because it was the fourth of
July, I had to wait until the next day -- after we had already arrived
in Kansas -- to call Ameritech here and ask them to correct the
problem. They found me on a 'negative listing'; removed me from it,
and everything worked fine for the rest of the trip and coming home.

So this time around, I made certain Ameritech had 'Fast Track Roaming'
on my account and did not have my serial number on any negative
listings, etc. I can use *18 on that phone to have calls to my home
number forwarded to the cellular switch and on to me wherever I may be
in the next several days.  But I wonder why Cellular One - Chicago
mentions *31 / *32 in their own guide, and it appears in the book as
well when in fact they say it is 'only in the testing stage here' ?

I'll still take along both phones, since I want to do some comparison
tests along the way ... but its a good thing I did not just start out
with my bag phone (Cell One) *assuming* that what the Cellular
Telephone Directory says is correct, isn't it!

Now let's hope the national guide to cellular roaming is correct on a
few other details, such as roaming agreements, the coverage maps, etc.
Maybe they got some of that wrong also.

As I have noted in other messages today, telecom is off line until
about April 20. Please hold messages this week while I go attend to my
father.  Thanks.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T's New Calling Card
Date: 13 Apr 91 23:43:16 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In a previous Digest someone wrote about new international calling
card numbers. AT&T has been issuing them for awhile. The US part is
not your phone number. They start with 838 or 836 followed by eleven
digits:

   the international part is 891253 83x NNN NNNN U      YY
   when the US part is              83x NNN NNNN ZZZZ

where x is a 6 or 8 and N is any number and U is a check digit (I
think same as old cards) YY has the word auth. Code above it. ZZZZ is
the normal four digit US pin.

Does anyone know when the rest of the carriers are issuing their
cards?

There is also a note on the mailer stating that to comply with
government requirements AT&T is no longer sharing card numbers with
the local telephone company.


Bill

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 17:24:25 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Calling Within-NPA


If you are in Maryland, currently served only by 301 NPA, you dial 1 +
301 + 7D for long distance within it.  If you are in the
yet-to-be-formed 410 (to split from 301), your long distance calling
within Maryland will become: 1 + 410 + 7D (it's now 1 + 301 + 7D)
within your area and 1 + 301 + 7D (no change!) to points staying in
301.

Contrast this with long distance within Virginia. If you were in the
newly-formed 804 area back in 1973; 804 was formed by splitting 703,
which until then served all of Virginia:

1 + 7D (no change!) within your area. 1 + 703 + 7D (had been 1 + 7D)
to points staying in 703.  (At the time, the Washington DC area had
NPA + 7D for long distance, even on calls within 703 or within 301,
but this instruction was not changed by the 703/804 split.)

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

Date: 13 Apr 91 13:19 +0200
From: Morten Reistad <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is a Data Conference Using Three-Way Calling Possible?


Leryo Malbito <[e-mail]> asks:

> Would anyone know how one could set up a data conference using
> three-way calling?  This seems like an idea that would be not too [...]

Yes, you can. You would have to have the vintage line discipline for
half-duplex modems in place, ie. have explicit control over the
carrier, and you would have some kind of line discipline to decide
which one will have a go at the carrier. Most access control schemes
can be used, CSMA, Token-passing, time-slots have all been used in
similar setups.  The setup is called multidrop in telco lingo (even in
Norwegian it is spelled multidrop ;-) and is mostly used with leased,
voice grade lines on low speeds.

The V.23 standard (1200 bps, one channel only) is mostly used for
this.  I have one such fully functional vintage 1980 NOKIA modem as a
bookstopper.

The advanced modems used for dialup lines are ill-suited for such use,
mostly because they are automated and "user-friendly", and because
they need to analyze (train) for several hundred milliseconds before
they have a useful connection. This training is needed because more
advanced (faster) modulation techniques are used.

Many IBM sites use this kind of setup (multidrop, on leased, el-cheapo
voice grade lines) for their infrequent users. My local travel agency
had that kind of setup until January this year.


Morten Reistad

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

From: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is a Data Conference Using Three-Way Calling Possible?
Date: 13 Apr 91 18:47:37 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


> [Moderator's Note: You cannot do what you want. The modem has only two
> conditions: originate and answer. It cannot talk to another modem set

I realize that half-duplex modems are not popular these days, but they
do exist, and their use was popular on multipoint dedicated lines,
among other places.  With decent transmission paths between all
parties (someone was complaining about a certain GTE switch providing
one-way transmission on three-way calling), you should be able to use
them in a three-way conversation.

There is no "originate" and "answer" - transmission in any direction
uses the same frequencies, with one modem turning on its transmitter
at a time.  A passive listener could "hear" all sides of the
conversation.  Often a "master" end would poll the "slave" ends in
sequence.  More complicated setups could switch mastership around.
The main problem is that you have to somehow settle who gets to talk
next, and when the current talker is done.

Software generally has to be very aware of the half-duplex operation,
so putting in half-duplex modems will likely require software changes,
and maybe extra control lines on the serial port.

Popular half-duplex modems included the Bell 202 (1200 bps asynchronous)
the Bell 201 (2400 bps synchronous).  There were more expensive 208 and
209 synchronous modems that required dedicated lines.


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 12:54 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re Is a Data Conference Using Three-Way CAlling Possible?


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

> Would anyone know how one could set up a data conference using
> three-way calling?...

Our Moderator replied:

> [Moderator's Note: You cannot do what you want. The modem has only two
> conditions....

In Digest 11, Issue 286, Andy Sherman <[e-mail]> offered a
possibility:

> certain types of data conference calls can be set up, but the
> cost is probably too high for BBS'ing. ... AT&T's Alliance(tm)

> Teleconferencing service has some kind of bridge modem set up to allow

> graphics to be shared by multiple sites. ...

This brought our Moderator to suggest:

> [Moderator's Note: ... be the CB Simulator program on Compuserve. ...
> Instead of a direct link between modems ... each party transmits to
> a central computer, and that computer then parcels everything back out
> again, usually instantly or nearly so.   PAT]

If acccomplishing such a computer conference is *not* mandated using
three-way telephone calling, and if you have a PC with hard drive
available, the PC BBS software called TBBS provides such a CB-like
function to multiple callers.  It's done by writing each incoming
message to the BBS' hard disk, then broadcasting that message back out
to all parties connected at the time.

The obvious drawback to small operators is, of course, a serial port,
modem and dial line for each connected participant. If, however, this
is not a problem, TBBS might well suffice.  I'm not aware of how TBBS
is distributed, but a scan of BBS's in most any major city will find
one or more BBS's using TBBS, and of course, one can then ask its
Sysop for a source of the software (and if you want hardware for multi
 ... and I mean MULTI, for some have dozens of lines ... modem ports).



[Moderator's Note: This is a good opportunity to introduce everyone to
Phil Becker, author of the TBBS software. Becker, of Aurora, CO, wrote
<T>he <B>read <B>oard <S>ystem originally (1980) as a single line BBS
package for the Radio Shack computers of that era. He revised it many
times during the early and middle 1980's to include newer Radio Shack
machines such as the Model 4 (I think) and the IBM PC. He expanded
TBBS into multi-line versions, capable of handling 8, 16 or 32 line
BBS programs. The success of Compuserve's CB Simulator was apparently
the reason Becker chose to incorporate it in later versions of TBBS. I
helped with beta-testing of a couple versions of multi-line TBBS which
were installed here with a local sysop. About 1985 or so, Becker added
the software necessary for TBBS to interface with FIDO and
participate in that international mail and newsgroup (Fido calls them
'echomail conferences') network.  I'd strongly recommend TBBS to
anyone starting a multi-line BBS. (I wish *I* had the money and phone
lines here to do it!)   PAT

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

From: Bill Martens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mystery Solved (was: Strange Phone Calls)
Date: 13 Apr 91 11:28:32 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Martens <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


Well, the bad calls from the secretary are almost as bad as my
situation.  I called a hotline of a major publishing company which
operates in the U.S. and also in Japan which was answered by an
English speaking person (amazing!).  I told them I wanted a catalog on
some of the books which they carry (computer and other technical
books).

I was told that a person who spoke English would call me back
concerning the catalogs I requested (no problem).  About 15 minutes
later (while talking to the vice-president of the largest publishing
company in Japan) a guy calls me from the previous company. (Great!)

My next task was to ask this guy for the information (catalogs) which
I needed for my company.  But everytime I said something to him, he
would come back with something in Japanese.  So I finally asked him
(in Japanese of course) if he speaks English to which he promptly said
iie (no in Japanese).  Well, that was the biggest waste of my time
(and as it turns out the guy isn't even in the department which
handles retail questions!) and I had put the poor vice-president of
the other company on hold for this guy!


Bill Martens   Kioityo 3-12    Tokyo Japan

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mystery Solved (was: Strange Phone Calls)
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1991 14:09:37 GMT


[e-mail] (Tom Reingold) writes:

> It's sort of like stealing a tenth of a penny from everyone's
> bank account and making millions of dollars.  Can you argue that it
> cost no one a significant amount therefore your deed is insignificant?

The Moderator replies:

> His individual calls to individual phone numbers might well
> have been obnoxious; they were most likely not illegal. Your repeated
> telephone calls, intended to harrass, were illegal.

Of course this gap between legal and illegal calls, one causing X
amount of grief to one individual, the other causing (X+delta)/N grief
to N individuals, is a wonderful example of how complex a society can
get without being civilised.

Why should *anyone* have more of a right than anyone else to make
unsolicited and annoying phone calls?  What if Tom had set his
autodialler to call a few hundred households and given them that same
message?


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 00:10 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Phone Audio to RCA Jack


jartel!compsm![e-mail] (Randy Gregor) writes:

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

> > Has anyone ever come across a device which would allow one to take the
> > line level out from an RCA jack to a telephone line and to take the
> > audio from a phone to a RCA jack?

> Get an old phone with a _carbon_ mic (the pop-out kind).  Remove the
> mic.  Connect the audio to the mic contacts, and adjust the output
> level.

and

"Paul S. Sawyer" <[e-mail]> writes:

> If your application is as simple as it sounds, the Bogen WMT-1 comes
> to my mind -- bridging transformer, with RCA jack <-> screw terminals.

That bridging transformer is most important. Never, but never connect
any unbalanced audio equipment directly to any telephone or other
device directly connected to the network unless you are positive that
isolation is provided within.

One of the first commandments that we telco experimenters learned was
"thou shalt not unbalance or introduce foreign battery on a telco
line". If you connect unbalanced audio equipment without a transformer
for isolation you will at best probably introduce hum and noise on the
line and at worst introduce a safety hazard with unanticipated leakage
currents. While the connection of a battery operated device MAY work
OK without isolation, it is better to just obey the rule of making
sure that your connection is isolated and balanced.

If you leave such a device connected during the automated testing
(done usually at night), a trouble ticket will be generated and you
may have to deal with a repair man showing up. In the old days, this
would have been tantamount to a visit by the FBI in our minds, but
even though times have changed you do not need the hassle.

Whatever you do, do not indiscriminately connect stuff to the handset
transmitter contacts.


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

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: ISDN Residential Survey
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 19:53:46 PDT


Someone had told me that ISDN basic rate service was available for $29
per month in service charges in 408 area code from PacTel - anyone
have the scoop on ISDN rates from PacTel?

Oh, by the way - I'm designing an ISDN card for my employer - basic
rate S/T type interface.


Paul McGinnis   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #291
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12843;
          14 Apr 91 5:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29428;
          14 Apr 91 3:37 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06698;
          14 Apr 91 2:31 CDT
Date:     Sun, 14 Apr 91 2:28:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #292
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 14 Apr 91 02:28:03 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 292

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Wanted: Worldwide List of Telcos with Addresses [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Billed Busy Signals [Alan R. Gross]
    Re: "Hello, I'm Digit-Dialing ..." [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Convenience of Phone System [John G. Dobnick]
    Re: Per Line Blocking? [Paul Durham]
    Re: 900 Discussion on CNN [Robert Thurlow]
    Re: Documentation Wanted on January '90 AT&T Outage [Carl Wright]
    New AT&T Desk Sets With Displays = Tiny Risk [Laird P. Broadfield]
    Book Review: Facsimile Facts and Figures, 1990/91 [TELECOM Moderator]
    Administrivia: Offline a Few Days [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 12:51 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted: Worldwide List of Telcos with Addresses


In article <telecom11.283.5> [e-mail] (Rop Gonggrijp) writes:

> I need the addresses of ALL the phone companies in the world.

In Digest 11, Issue 286, Carl Wright <[e-mail]> replies:

> There is a company called Lynx Technologies in Little Falls, NJ which
> has this information. It was expensive ($60k dollars)
> There is probably some other source, but I don't know what it is. I'd
> love to hear where you find the info for less.

The definitive list of the "phone companies" of the world is, in my
opinion, the CCITT publication titled simply, "List of Addresses."
This is, for lack of a better description, the "phone book" of the
members of the CCITT, including not only the official postal address
of every CCITT member, but a listing of key personnel for various
functions, right down to their own individual business address, direct
phone number, Telex number, and any other public means of communications
to them.

The last time I bought one, it was several hundred dollars, but well
worth the money for my purposes, providing me not only accurate
information, but contacts with people who were interested and
concerned, not just some front-office types whose main job was to
*not* know anything helpful.

The <List of Addresses> is officially sold by the CCITT Bookstore at
2, rue du Varembe in Geneva, but stocks may be available at other
CCITT publications sources such as the UN Bookstore in New York City
and the National Technical Information Service in Springfield,
Virginia.

If you really don't want to buy the entire book or haven't the funds,
finding the one of the CCITT participants of your local CCITT-member
"telco" will probably lead you to an individual who has a copy to aid
you in a few addresses and numbers.  Lat time I had a copy, it was 600
pages or so!

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

From: [e-mail] (Alan R. Gross)
Subject: Re: Billed Busy Signals
Reply-To: locke@.PacBell.COM (Alan R. Gross)
Organization: TREE BBS [phone] Sacramento, CA
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 17:31:43 GMT


[e-mail] (Jack Rickard) writes:

> I've had continuing problems with both Sprint and Telecom*USA over
> the past year regarding multiple billing entries for busy signals.  I
> use a modem and automated mailing software to contact other systems
> through Fidonet.

> I recently spoke with a gentleman from Telephone Express.  He avows
> that this is a by-product of software switching and that their use of
> DMS-250 switches would eliminate these billing entries.  Anyone know
> the straight scoop on this little problem and how I can eliminate it?

   While it is possible, this diagnosis is very unlikely. You provide
a clue as to what might be happening in your message:

> If the modem receives a busy signal, it makes another attempt a
> minute or so later.

   Hayes and Hayes compatible modems recognize busy signals and terminate
the call instantly. If your modem is taking a minute, then it is not a
busy signal it is getting. It is most likely getting another modem.
A way to test this would be to make sure your modem's speaker is on --
you can park this in front of your dial string to make the modem stay
on quietly until a true CONNECT is sent by the answering modem: ATL0 <CR>~~

   Your software might use something besides the two tildes for a
pause, if so, replace them with whatever is necessary for a pause.

> On the bill, I routinely find a series of calls to the same number,
> spaced two minutes apart, each billed for a minute.  The final call of
> the series of course, is several minutes in duration indicating I did
> finally connect.

    The most likely scenario is that you are reaching the modem at the
other end, and failing to achieve speed recognition or parity (IE: a
1200 baud caller just got off line with the place you are calling to
 -- you call once at 9600, and the answering modem steps up to 2400
baud after failing to connect at 1200. By this time, your modem has
timed out, and hung up. Your modem calls again, the answering modem
tries to achieve recognition at 2400, fails, steps to another speed,
your modem times out, etc.) The fault is probably not with your modem,
but instead with the setup at the other end. I call several boards,
and mail services -- some are flakier than others.  Several take
multiple attempts to get a true CONNECT, even though their modem is
answering, and both modems are attempting to talk.

> I've monitored the system and it is working perfectly.

  Monitor it with modem speaker on, give us some more details of the
system you are using -- modem, software, etc., as well as the systems
you are calling.

> [Moderator's Note: You can't eliminate it by yourself. Only your long
> distance carrier can do so.  The problem you describe is common with
> any telecom organization unable/unwilling to obtain 'answer
> supervision' from the serving local telco. The 'supervision'
> detirmines when a call has been answered, or if it was answered.  AT&T
> and the Bells have it, most of the others do not.  PAT]

Sprint does use telco answer supervision. It also uses software answer
supervision -- so the call must pass two tests - the LEC has to pass
the answer to Sprint, and Sprint's software must detect voice or
carrier for the call to be billed. In some areas the answer
supervision provided by some independents (FGB areas), is quite
impossible. In these areas, just software answer supervision is used.
It is unlikely, though possible, that Jack's calls are terminating in
one of the few remaining FGB areas.

   The best way for Jack to test to see if it's carrier related is to
put ATT's carrier code, 10288 in his dial string -- I would wager that
the one minute calls don't go away if he does this over a month.

   Of course, the rates will be higher, but I have found that Sprint
will usually credit the difference in rates, if you let them work on
the problem with you.


Randall A. Gross                       | csusac.ecs.csus.edu!tree!locke
 @ the UNIX Tree BBS, Sacramento, CA   | ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!tree!locke
Sprintmail: A.R.Gross                  |       DISCLAIMER: Ego loquito

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Hello, I'm Digit-Dialing ..."
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1991 14:22:39 GMT


[e-mail] (John Palmer) writes:

> Woman: "I'm telemarketing."

> I go on to bawl her out for invading my privacy and tying up my
> business line. I hand her some line about how that is illegal and that
> she better not call me again or I'd call the police. She politely says,
> "Thank you. Goodbye"

a. It's not illegal. It is less than honorable to feed her a line like
that.

b. Personally, I would have thanked her for being so honest about what
she was doing, and for taking the time to skip the rest of my group.
All you're doing here is encouraging sleeze.

c. Your organization has a history of doing the equivalent of
telemarketing on Usenet, so why were you so bent out of shape over this?

> Hmmmm. Someone wrote a very bad telemarketing script for her. They
> actually told her to be *HONEST* about it!!

Honesty is considered a negative characteristic at Detroit Direct
Marketing Inc.  That explains a lot.


[e-mail]

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

From: John G Dobnick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Convenience of Phone System
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 12:27:11 CDT


TELECOM Moderator, responding to [e-mail] (David Gast) wrote:

>> [e-mail] wrote:

>> Additionally, this particular scenario [voice recognition] has a
>> huge security hole: I
>> call someone, they record my voice, then they call someone, but pipe
>> their input through a device that simulates my voice.  Now they can
>> easily represent themselves as me.

> [Moderator's Note: And what, pray tell, is the difference between this
> and sending someone a written letter who then forges my handwriting
> and signs off on some fraudulent documents for me?

With written communication, you already _have_ the hard copy written
record suitable for evidentiary use, should it be necessary.  With
oral communications, you have to record the conversation.  Current
laws regarding recording of phone conversations preclude such
recording in many cases -- namely those where the consent of _both_
parties is required.

Seems like a tomato and avocado comparison to me.

My $0.02 worth.


John G Dobnick  (JGD2)
Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
INTERNET: [e-mail]  ATTnet: [phone]   UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd

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

From: Paul Durham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking?
Reply-To: Paul Durham <handel![e-mail]>
Organization: Microtel Pacific Research Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 91 02:08:05 GMT


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

> To me, the term 'per line blocking' would be synonymous with 'no
> Caller ID'....

> "What?", you say. "Do you want your line to always reveal your number
> to any person you call that subscribes to Caller ID, or do you want it
> to never reveal it?" Now realistically, what do you think 99.999% of
> all telephone customers are going to answer at this point?

"Never", of course.

> Now as a customer, you order Caller ID. However, the rep becomes
> uncharacteristically candid with you

Not very likely ;-).

> and points out that ten people in your area have "unblocked" lines
> and suggests reconsidering your order.
> So come on now, all you per line blocking advocates. Isn't per line
> blocking just the new code for "no Caller ID"?

No, not at all. If you are a caller ID zealot, you can screen your
incoming calls to eliminate anyone calling without caller ID
(automatically, of course).  If anybody wants to call _you_ they will
have to be unblocked.

However, if they can get line blocking, people can prevent their phone
numbers (and names) from being accumulated by businesses without any
extra cost or inconvenience. Remember, people enjoy this _already_.

To keep the network fully connected, per-call unblocking would have to
be provided, of course.  Everybody would be happy - except the
telemarketers and the phone company (due to loss of caller ID
revenue). Sounds good to me.


P. Durham

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

From: Robert Thurlow <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Discussion on CNN
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx.
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1991 14:46:29 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dennis G.
Rears (FSAC)) writes:

>  Why should anything be forced upon the marketers of the calls?  The
> real underlying reason is to protect *STUPID* people from themselves.

Are you a technology professional?  How many people do you know who
are not technology professionals?  Do you think it is clear to all
callers that the '9' after the '1' means they'll get a line item on
their phone bill a month later?  I know my family wouldn't all know
this.

I think voiding parents of responsibility for their kid's actions is
stupid, too, but I either want free call-blocking so that I can make a
blanket decision, or I want a PIN number to permit me to know that the
call was not made by an untrusted person.

>   Should every business be required to have a phone number so that
> people can complain?  Of course not.  Why should this be different?

 From the business end of things, I demand to be told a non-1-900
method of communicating with said company in the case of a dispute;
either a regular phone number or a postal address will do.  I do not
want to get shafted by a company and have to depend on my telco to
tell me how to contact the company, as I think that would place the
telco in a conflict of interest that could make things touchy.


Rob Thurlow, [e-mail]
An employee and not a spokesman for Convex Computer Corp., Dallas, TX

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Documentation Wanted on January '90 AT&T Outage
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1991 03:09:57 GMT


The best article I've seen on AT&T outage was in {Science News}. Try
your library and the index for the magazine.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: New AT&T Desk Sets With Displays = Tiny Risk
Date: 14 Apr 91 04:07:56 GMT


Speaking of those credit-card reading airport phones here in PacBell
land, have you all noticed that they show (on the LCD) the digits, as
you dial, *even after the call has connected*?  (I.e. including
whatever you key in to your favorite voice-response/voice-mail
system.)

Now maybe I'm just paranoid, but this always makes me glance over my
shoulder when using these.

Well, AT&T has gone one better.  We've recently purchased several new
desk-sets (single line model 730, two-line model 732).  The
interesting bit here is that on the nice display that shows date-time
when on hook, and what you're dialing when off-hook, will also show
you last-dialed when you pick up the phone again.  It even obligingly
scrolls through the first 16 digits (display is 12 wide) for you.

I've been amusing myself walking around the office this weekend
reading people's voicemail passwords off these.  I don't think I'll
ask for one anytime soon.

(P.S.  We've got "COCOT sleeze" and "telemarketing sleeze", but what
do you call the new variety of sleeze that does inside-wiring and
sells you cheap and/or unnecessary premises equipment?  An amazing
number of these have sprung up out here.  (Actually, these AT&T sets
seem pretty solid (except for the above feature); it's those godawful
GE sets they sold us that I'm still peeved about ....))


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

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

Date: Sun, 14 Apr 91 2:16:16 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: Facsimile Facts and Figures, 1990/91


A new reference work has come to my attention which may be of use to
you if you are a large user of FAX. Authored by David Day, and
published by the International Facsimile Association, "Facsimile Facts
and Figures, 1990/91" includes several chapters devoted to these
topics and others:

Statistics, unique uses, public fax, a history and statistical
overview, and the results of the Mitsubishi Home Office Facsimile
Survey in full. The entire Hong Kong Telephone report is also
included.

Other sections discuss state and federal legislation pertaining to
'junk fax', fax directories, and fax networks.

"Facsimile Facts and Figures, 1990/91 is 134 pages, 8.5" x 11" spiral
bound. The price is $69.95 plus $9 shipping by Priority Mail or
Federal Express.  Credit cards accepted. Make checks payable to David
Day.

International Facsimile Assn.        Order lines for book:
4023 Lakeview Drive                  602-453-5330  Voice
Lake Havasu City, AZ  86403          602-453-9234  FAX

Tell them you read about it in TELECOM Digest.  Thanks.


PAT

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

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 18:31:51 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Offline a Few Days


TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom are offline for a few days until
I return from a personal family emergency matter in Kansas. Over the
weekend, messages are appearing which were in the queue at the last
minute.

Please hold traffic to this newsgroup until about April 20. Thank you.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #292
******************************






NEXT COMES ISSUES 289 WHICH WAS LATE IN ARRIVING, THEN 293 & 294 FOLLOW.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15636;
          14 Apr 91 6:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19042;
          13 Apr 91 20:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03578;
          13 Apr 91 19:10 CDT
Date:     Sat, 13 Apr 91 18:25:53 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #289
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Apr 91 18:25:40 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 289

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Going Offline a Few Days [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: End of the [Party] Line [Alan R. Gross]
    Bridge Lifters [Larry Lippman]
    Open Letter to AT&T, re: Len Rose [H. Keith Henson]
    Mass Event 800/900? [Comp.Risks article, via Christopher Lott]
    40,000 Lose Phone Service in Racine [UPI wire via Bill Berbenich]
    What is 700 Service? [David Schanen]
    Bad Bellcore Telephone Numbers in Piscataway, NJ? [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 17:35:42 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Going Offline a Few Days


I'm afraid the inevitable has arrived, and I'll be leaving town for a
few days as of Monday evening, April 15. Dad's not gone yet, but we
expect he will be in a day or two.

 From now through sometime Monday, I'll print as many Digests as
possible to clear the queue. ** PLEASE SEND NO NEW MESSAGES TO TELECOM
UNTIL LATE NEXT WEEK, APRIL 19 OR LATER. **

You'll know I'm back when you receive a Digest in your mail (or
traffic in comp.dcom.telecom), most likely by Friday or Saturday.


Patrick Townson

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

From: [e-mail] (Alan R. Gross)
Subject: Re: End of the [Party] Line
Reply-To: locke@.PacBell.COM (Alan R. Gross)
Organization: TREE BBS [phone] Sacramento, CA
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 04:34:22 GMT


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

> story submitted by Bill Berbenich Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
> about the end of party line service in Woodbury, Connecticut.

> I enjoyed the story, but would like to make a couple of technical
> comments. I wish there were a way to get them back to Ms. Cappiello of
> AP.

>> By JANET L. CAPPIELLO,  Associated Press Writer

>>   Woodbury Telephone is being allowed to eliminate the service now
>> because of a $1.8 million equipment upgrade, Mitchell said.
>> Eliminating party lines also became imperative because of computerized
>> 911-emergency response systems.

>>   When a caller dials 911, the caller's address appears on a computer
>> screen at the dispatch center. With party lines, there's a risk that
>> the address could be that of the other customer, Mitchell said.

> This does not ring true to me. If the switch software can provide ANI
> for billing, I would expect it to provide ANI for E911 witout
> problems.  It disturbs me when businesses deliberately tell lies to
> regulatory agencies. (It also disturbs me that we set up regulatory
> agencies that aren't technically competent to see through such fibs).
> While this particular obfuscation is relatively harmless, I bet that
> if the company fibs about harmless things they probably lie through
> their teeth about facts that have a material impact on the
> ratesetting.

    It is true that you can get ANI from a two party line, but
when it comes to four party lines or larger, it doesn't work so well.
I speak from experience, not technical knowledge, btw. When I lived in
Fairbanks, they had two and four party lines, and the Alascom operator
*always* had you state the number you were calling from before she
would place the call through when calling from a four party line. This
was not the case on two party lines, but some interesting situations
did arise in billing from the Goldstream Valley, which is an area a
few miles away from Fairbanks with all two-party lines. The switch was
in an old beater trailer, and the grounding in the area was extremely
poor. Every couple of weeks, someone in Goldstream would get billed
their party line's long distance calls, which demonstrates that ANI on
two-party lines can get flaky.


 Randall A. Gross                       | csusac.ecs.csus.edu!tree!locke
  @ the UNIX Tree BBS, Sacramento, CA   | ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!tree!locke
 Sprintmail: A.R.Gross                  | DISCLAIMER: Ego loquito

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

Subject: Bridge Lifters
Date: 10 Apr 91 23:12:36 EST (Wed)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> But there was ANOTHER distinctive noise you could hear during ring
> cycle: bridge lifters. Here's the story, as it was explained to me:

    Bridge lifters are nothing more than a dual-winding saturable
inductor, typically a WECo 1574-type inductor.

    Bridge lifters are most commonly used on business lines which
have an off-premises extension in a telephone answering service or
other location.  In such cases, both loops originate in the CO.  If
the combined parallel impedance of both loops is low enough,
degradation of transmission can occur.  The bridge lifter functions to
eliminate such parallel impedance.

    The bridge lifter inductor is specially designed to be *very*
saturable at 20 mA of DC loop current (the minimum expected value for
an off-hook station).  This inductor is a dual-winding device intended
to be connected in series with a subscriber loop.  With no DC current
flow, the inserted impedance of the bridge lifter could be as high as
100,000 ohms.  With 20 mA of loop current, the inserted impedance is
typically less than 50 ohms.  Pure DC resistance of the inductor is
typically 10 ohms.

    Both ringing and DC supervision pass through a bridge lifter
inductor with almost no attenuation in either the on-hook or off-hook
state.

    In the case of say, a business line with a bridged connection
to a telephone answering service, *both* loops are connected in series
with their own inductor.  Therefore, when either loop is in use, the
other is "transparent" unless it goes off-hook to establish loop
current flow.

    Some variations of bridge lifters contained resistors or
diodes across the inductor windings in order to minimize effects of
inductive noise resulting from power lines.

    Bridge lifters are also used to facilitate temporary
"back-tap" connections during central office cutovers if the new CO is
in another building.

> Party lines were intended for conservation of wire.

    Thus, almost all party line subscribers were in close
proximity to each other resulting in only one loop leaving the CO.
Bridge lifter inductors therefore had almost no application on party
lines.

> Cable is capacitive. When Mr. Tip was dialing, he was breaking the
> loop current with the pulser in his dial. BUT, the stub going off to
> Sleeve's condo had a lot of capacitance in it, and it terminated in a
> good sized ringer cap, too. (Maybe several, if Ms. Sleeve had a set in
> each room.)

    While bridge lifter inductors do have some effect on reducing
dial pulse distortion, it is minimal.  This should not be surprising
if one considers that the DC resistance of bridge lifter inductors is
only about 10 ohms, and that the frequency domain of dial pulsing is
only about 10 Hz.  Thus, the bridge lifter inductor presents little
insertion loss at DC or 10 Hz.

> So Ma called her elves at Murray Hill, and they invented a bridge
> lifter. It goes between the CO and the outgoing pair and lifts
> (disconnects) Mr. Tip when Ms. Sleeve is off-hook, and vice versa. I'm
> now speaking out of my hat, but I THINK it only affected things during
> dialing. Otherwise, how could the other party demand surrender of the
> pair for an emergency?

    If you consider what I have explained so far, you should
realize that bridge lifter inductors have an effect any time there is
loop *current* - whether it be during dialing, talking or the shunt
effects of ringing.

> In any case, you can HEAR the bridge lifter, in an office with ringing
> sidetone, (as opposed to those that give you the switch generated
> tone) as a "raspy" quality to the ring. I often notice this while
> calling a doctor's office.

    The variation in audible ringing components *could* be the
result of a resonant network created by the bridge lifter, or it could
be the result of a resonant network created by the ringing detection
circuit in a telephone answering service.


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: [e-mail]
Subject: Open Letter to AT&T, re: Len Rose
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 13:03:12 PDT



The following letter may be reproduced and posted as desired.  Keith Henson

                         H. Keith Henson
                         1794 Cardel Way
                       San Jose, CA  95124

March 29, 1991


Robert E. Allen
Chairman of the Board
ATT Corporate Offices
550 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10022

Dear Mr. Allen:

     As a loyal ATT long-distance customer all my life, I feel I
owe you an explanation for canceling my ATT long-distance
service.

    I have never had a problem with ATT service, operators, or audio
quality.  I was more than willing to pay the small premium, and have
been a heavy user of ATT long-distance services for the past 15 years.
I am also a consultant in the computer business who has used Unix and
its derivatives intermittently over the past 10 years.  Outside of my
technical work I have long been involved in legal and political issues
related to high technology, especially space.  One of my past
activities involved the political defeat of an oppressive United
Nations treaty.  I have also taken substantial personal risks in
opposing the organizations of Lyndon LaRouche.  During the last three
years I have been personally involved with email privacy issues.

    Because of my interest in email privacy, I have closely followed
the abusive activities of Southern Bell and the Secret Service in the
Phrack/Craig Neidorf case and the activities of ATT and the Secret
Service with respect to the recently concluded case involving Len
Rose.  Both cases seem to me to be attempts to make draconian "zero
tolerance" examples of people who are -- at most -- gadflies.  In
actuality, people who were pointing out deficiencies and methods of
attack on Unix systems should be considered *resources* instead of
villains.

    I consider this head-in-the-sand "suppress behavior" instead of
"fix the problems" approach on the part of ATT and the government to
be potentially disastrous to the social fabric.  The one thing we
don't need is a number of alienated programmers or engineers mucking
up the infrastructure or teaching real criminals or terrorists how to
do it.  I find the deception of various aspects of ATT and the
operating companies to obtain behavior suppression activities from the
government to be disgusting, and certainly not in your long-term
interest.

    A specific example of deception is ATT's pricing login.c (the
short program in question in the Len Rose case) at over $77,000 so the
government could obtain a felony conviction for "interstate wire
fraud."  Writing a version of login.c is often assigned as a simple
exercise in first-semester programming classes.  It exists in
thousands of versions, in hundreds of thousands of copies.  The
inflation is consistent with Southern Bell's behavior in claiming a
$79,000 value for the E911 document which they admitted at trial could
be obtained for $13.

    I know you can argue that the person involved should not have
plead guilty if he could defend himself using these arguments in
court.  Unlike Craig Neidorf, Len Rose lacked parents who could put up
over a hundred thousand dollars to defend him, and your company and
the Secret Service seem to have been involved in destroying his
potential to even feed himself, his wife, and two small children.  At
least he gets fed and housed while in jail, and his wife can go on
welfare.  All, of course, at the taxpayer's expense.

    There are few ways to curtail abuses by the law (unless you happen
to catch them on videotape!) and I know of no effective methods to
express my opinion of Southern Bell's activities even if I lived in
their service area.  But I can express my anger at ATT by not
purchasing your services or products, and encouraging others to do the
same.

    By the time this reaches your desk, I will have switched my voice
and computer phones to one of the other long-distance carriers.  My
consulting practice has often involved selecting hardware and
operating systems.  In any case where there is an alternative, I will
not recommend Unix, ATT hardware, or NCR hardware if you manage to buy
them.


Yours in anger,

H. Keith Henson

 cc:  Telecom Digest, comp.risk, etc.

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

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 09:22:02 -0400
From: Christopher Lott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mass Event 800/900?


The following was posted to comp.risks; I've abbreviated the post slightly:

  From: [e-mail] (Bill Woodcock)
  Subject: Re: Tricky application of Caller ID (Davis, RISKS-11.42)

>> imagine, say, 10,000 kids in the audience [ hold phones up to TV speaker,
>> which plays DTMF ].  You've got 10,000 phones dialing the same number
>> simultaneously.  How many of those calls do you think will get through?

> In answer to your question, all 10,000 of them will get through. Sprint has a
> service called "Mass Event 900/800" for doing exactly this.  It can handle,
> coincidentally, 10,000 calls simultaneously, and is offered to their larger
> 800 and 900 customers.  I've heard, but not been able to substantiate, that
> AT&T has a similar service.

Can anyone explain more about this?  How is it done?  Does it require
hundreds of operators "standing by Right Now!"?


Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
  [e-mail] /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg  301 405-2721 <standard disclaimers>

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 40,000 Lose Phone Service in Racine (from UPI wire)
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 91 16:07:32 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]

UPce 04/10 1244  40,000 without phones for about five hours

   RACINE, Wis. (UPI) -- Some 40,000 customers were left without
telephone service in Racine for nearly five hours Wednesday because of
the failure of a switching unit in Wisconsin Bell's Racine office.

   Wisconsin Bell spokesman Maurie Louret said the unit failed about 6
a.m., leaving 40,000 customers unable to make or receive any phone
calls. The switching unit was repaired and brought back on line at
10:45 a.m.

   The prefixes affected by the outage were 631, 632, 633, 634, 636
and 637.

   Louret said Wisconsin Bell took mobile telephones to Racine for use
by emergency services and major customers.

   Louret said the switching unit manufactured by AT&T is a computer
and its central processing unit failed for unknown reasons.

   He said some circuit packs were replaced and some reprogramming was
done and the system began working again at 10:45 a.m.

   He said many people trying to place calls at the same time caused
some congestion in the system after it was brought back up.


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

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

From: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is 700 Service?
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1991 06:11:58 GMT


   I used to sell WATS, 800 and 900 service for ATT/Mountain Bell but
I never heard of 700 service until just recently.  I'm sure someone
out there who will enlighten me(us).


Dave

Inet: [e-mail]  * 8kyu *  UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv


[Moderator's Note: 700 is used by the various LD carriers for special
features and services of their own. For example, AT&T uses it for
their Alliance Teleconferencing; Telecom USA has its Voice News
Network on those lines, etc.  When you dial 700-xxx-xxxx, *which* 700
you get depends on your default LD carrier. Dialing 700-555-4141 will
identify the LD carrier serving your line with one plus dialing.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 17:12:32 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bad Bellcore Telephone Numbers in Piscataway, NJ?


Recently, the following numbers were posted to the Digest as being at
or near Bellcore Customer Service in Piscataway, NJ:

201-275-2090 for Telex order (possibly a 752 prefix?)
201-600-2000 for TeleResource Service (should be 699 prefix?)

These are not valid prefixes, and I have added questions above in
parentheses.  Also, if these are in the Piscataway area, they will be
fully cut over to 908 in about two months.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #289
******************************





ISSUE 289 WAS LATE AND IS FILED OUT OF ORDER. 293 AND UPWARD NOW FOLLOW.











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09158;
          15 Apr 91 3:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21580;
          15 Apr 91 1:47 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17005;
          15 Apr 91 0:42 CDT
Date:     Mon, 15 Apr 91 0:00:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #293
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 15 Apr 91 00:00:04 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 293

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones [John R. Levine]
    Re: Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Western Electric Power Cable [Don H. Kemp]
    Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905 [Tim Irvin]
    Re: My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack [Stephen Tell]
    Re: Time Restricted Connection to Phone System [Macy Hallock]
    Satellite and Fiber Optic Cable Communications to Israel [Hank Nussbacher]
    RBOCs and Information Services [Peter Marshall]
    Cost of 9.6/19.2 Kbps Leased Line - Bay Area to Midwest [Aaron Y.T. Cheung]
    Books on NetWare [Wayne Ngai]
    Fighting the Hyatt Hotel Surcharges [Brian Gordon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 12 Apr 91 10:14:58 EDT (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> This sounds like it is emulating the procedure used by credit card
> verification devices that are normally connected to POS terminals.

Nope, the verification terminals use 300 baud ASCII with the classic
and extremely cheap 103 FSK modem encoding.  I know because a few
years ago when I was at Javelin Software I programmed one of the PCs
on our network to emulate one of them to verify and submit phone order
credit card transactions from the order database.

For payphones, they use DTMF since phones already have DTMF
generators.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 91 09:24 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada


In Volume 11, Issue 285, Message 1 of 10, John R. Levine writes:

> My experience with those phones while waiting for a plane at San Jose
> one day is that half of them don't really work.  That is, they can't
> read the stripe on any of my credit cards.

If your employer uses a magnetic card system (rather than conventional
metal keys), you may find the magnetic stripes on your credit cards
and telephone calling cards damaged quite often.

(If this is happening, not only will you find it hard or impossible to
use card reader phones; merchants who call for authorization on your
credit card purchases will have to punch in your card number manually,
and you won't be able to use a banking machine.)

Credit card issuers and telephone companies realize that the magnetic
stripe on their cards wears out for a number of reasons.  If you have
a card that won't work, just call the issuer and say that the magnetic
stripe is damaged, and that you would like a replacement.

As well, it's a good idea to carry your building access card (CardKey
(R) or whatever) separately from your credit cards.


Nigel Allen    [e-mail]

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

From: Don H Kemp <teletech![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Western Electric Power Cable
Date: 14 Apr 91 20:46:45 GMT


kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman) writes:

> As a somewhat interesting aside, WECo 750 MCM power cable had
> "non-traditional" uses.  A sixteen inch length (which weighs about
> three pounds) makes an excellent "attitude adjustment tool" for
> telephone company personnel who have to work in crime-ridden urban
> areas.  I once saw its effectiveness in deterring a car theft in the
> parking lot of a New Jersey Bell central office in Newark.  The power
> cable section also had the advantage of not being an unlawful weapon.
> After all, it's an engineering sample, right? :-)

Ah, yes.  A chunk of power cable (either 750 MCM or 500 MCM) with an
appropriate length of handgrip made, of course, by wrapping the cable
with "12 cord".  Brings back memories.

First ran across this use for the stuff back in 1964 when I was
working for WECo, installing what was claimed to be the largest
crossbar tandem office in the country.  This office was on lower
Mission Street in San Francisco, which (at that time, haven't been
back since '73) _not_ one of the "nicest" parts of town.  Used to
carry such a critter across the handlebars of my bike.  Never did have
occasion to put it to use though.


Don H Kemp    B B & K Associates, Inc.
Rutland, VT   uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: It is Now Official: 416 to be Split Into 905
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 91 14:20:38 [phone]
From: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest V11 #288, Moderator writes:

> Big cities got 'short pull' area codes and small towns got
> 'long pull' area codes.

Would you explain the terms 'short pull' and 'long pull'.


Tim Irvin


[Moderator's Note: Back in the days when rotary, or pulse dialing was
very prevalent, the numbers on the dial which required a longer time
to pull forward and spin back to their resting place, i.e. 7,8,9,0
were fashionable in some quarters, but not in others.  1,2,3,4,5,6
took a shorter period of time to pull and release. Many or perhaps
most business places, and certainly the more fashionable residence
hotels wanted xx-hundred and x-thousand leading numbers for their
switchboards. You'd have thought they'd want 2111, 3111, 2121 and
other 'faster to dial' numbers, but they didn't.  Big cities were most
likely to receive lots of calls, therefore the area codes were made
from 'short' numbers; i.e. New York = 212, El Lay = 213, Chicago = 312.
East Podunk, Kalamazoo, and Timbuck, too got the 7xx and 8xx codes.
But oddly, Our Nation's (drug and murder) Capital got 202, partly
short and partly long.   PAT]

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

From: Stephen Tell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack
Date: 15 Apr 91 02:57:06 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


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

> In a recent article, Patrick writes:

>> Over the weekend I bought a CPS-200 Call Forwarding System from Radio
>> Shack.  At the local store here, they had one left, marked down to
>> $29.95, and I thought that price alone made it worthwhile.

Based on discussion here I went and looked at one, and then bought the
last one they had here in Chapel Hill.

> That's a very interesting use for the unit.  Am I correct to assume
> that the reason it is being closed out is that it is almost useless as
> a 'real' call diverter because (among other things) it simply bridges
> the two lines which results in the acoustic efficiency close to that
> of tin cans and string?

The last page of the instruction booklet contains a schematic for the
unit.  This is really why I bought it.  Its tiny; use a magnifying
glass or enlarging xerox machine.  There do appear to be some opamps
and stuff between the isolation transformers (one per line).  I
haven't analyzed the circuit yet.

The heart of the thing is a 40-pin DIP with smaller-than-usual pin
spacing.  Its obviously one of those single-chip computers, although I
don't recognize it:

The schematic calls it a TMS7DC42.
The chip itself is labeled: TCT1061
                    MAS (delta) 727 02

Where (delta) indicates a symbol that looks a lot like the greek
letter of that name.  Most of the pins on the chip are clearly I/O
lines; the pins are labeled on the schematic:

A0-7, B0-7, C0-7, D0-7, INT1*, INT3*, VSS, VDD, MC, RESET*, XTAL1, and
XTAL2.

Anyone recognize this beastie?  I haven't done much investigating yet.
If I can't find out what chip this is, I may just desolder it and wire
the I/O pins up to an 8052 based board or somthing.  Of course I'll
get to do software from scratch that way, but I probably couldn't read
the code out of the chip that's in there.  Its probably a
mask-programmed thingy.

It looks like a good toy for someone who's comfortable with a
soldering iron and EPROM programmer.  If I find out anything more I
will follow up if there's interest in projects based around this thing.


Steve Tell       [e-mail]    H: [phone]   #5L Estes Park apts
CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill.   W: [phone]   Carrboro NC 27510

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

Date: Sun, 14 Apr 91 17:23 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <fmsys![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Time Restricted Connection to Phone System
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

>  I'm not sure what kind of device to ask for, so maybe if I describe
> the problem/application:

>  We have a PC power controller/protection device with the capability
> to power up on detection of ring signal on a phone line to which which
> it is is connected (via modular jack). The line is then chained to the
> modem.

>  We have a four-line 1A2 phone system (no laughing !) and the modem
> is currently connected to the phone system through a (discontinued)
> Radio Shack box that allows one modular device to be connected to any
> one of five possible lines at a time through depressing any one of
> five buttons.

I never laugh at 1A2.  I've literally installed thousands of 1A2 sets
over the years.  Simple, but reliable.

We install 1A2 systems behind PBX's in police departments and radio
station studios to this day.  That's about it, though.

Well, actually all you need is a relay in line with the phone line to
the computer from the RS multiline adapter.  I'd use a little RS timer
or something.  How about a $5 RS lamp timer, with a 110VAC DPDT relay,
with a line cord plugged into the timer and phone cords on its
terminals ... maybe something a little more fancy to allow use all day
Sat and Sun, too.

If you are uncomfortable with construction of this, I could give you a
hand ... it'd be kinda fun ... I've built several items like this for
our customers over the years.

You'd be surprised at some of the special assemblies I've made up to
work behind 1A2 over the years, most of which would simply not be
possible behind anything else.

> P.S. Looking for used, touch-tone, 1A2 phones and boxes in good
> working condition (for use, not resale). Will pay a nominal amount and
> any shipping for your obsolete junk gathering dust. Hey, what can I
> say, we're traditionalists.

You've come to the right place.  Exactly what type do you want?
State: 1 - color.  2 - numbers off bottom of phone.  3 - manufacturer
of set.

Most touch tone phones have a model number that starts with a 2.  For
instance 280045-OBA-40M would be a typical ITT number for a ten button
set.

I have a few ten buttons left.  I sell them off at hamfests.  I'm
going to haul them to the Dayton hamfest on 4/26, so get your order in
now.  I'll sell them for $10 used, $20 new + shipping, this covers my
cost of opening up and testing each set.  I also have a few six button
sets.  (And even a few rotary dial sets, too ...)

At hamfests I sell them for $5 more. (No shipping, though.)

(No doubt others on the net have a few to spare, too.  I hear John
Higdon has a roomful to spare.  David Lesher has quite a few, too, but
probably cannot find them right now.)

The only reason I do this is that I've worked with them for twenty
years and its kinda fun for me to get back to 1A2 once in a while.  At
the office it all electronic PBX's, key systems and networks ...
hardly a relay in the bunch.

I also have a lot of other 1A2 parts: key cells, cards, intercoms and
such.  I might have some keystrips and speakerphones, too.  Need any?

BTW - I have a Panasonic KXT308 Key System in by house, with a four
line 1A2 and six button sets in my computer room ... just 'cuz I like
them, too.  My sons like the Panasonic phones better because they have
a digital display and speakerphone.  I'm happy with my 2564 set ... it
feels like a real phone to me.  The Panasonics are pretty nice though.


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

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

Date: Sun, 14 Apr 91 10:39:26 IST
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Satellite and Fiber Optic Cable Communications to Israel


First to the fiber optic sub-oceanic cable:

EMOS (Euro-Mediterranean Optical System) is 2900km long and is owned
jointly by 13 countries: Israel, Turkey, Greece, Italy, France,
England, Germany, Holland, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, USA and
Canada.  The cost for installation has been $107 million.  The main
station for EMOS is in Palermo-Sicily where it hooks up to TAT-9 and
then interconnects to TAT-8.

The termination points for EMOS among the Mediterranean countries are:
Israel: Tel-Aviv; Turkey: Marmaris; Greece: Lechaina.  EMOS was made
operational as of January, 1991 during the Gulf War.

EMOS replaces two existing copper cables for Israel:

Tel-Pal (Tel-Aviv to Palermo) initiated in 1975 and carries 3,000
calls.  Mar-Tel (Tel Aviv to Marseille) initiated in 1968 and carries
128 calls.

EMOS will support 20,000 simultaneous calls.

On the satellite (which incidentally comes from the Arab word satala
which means to spin or rotate) end of the picture, Israel will have
its own satelitte called AMOS (African Mediterranean System) which
will have six transponders and will be located at 15E over Zaire.
These six transponders will replace the three Israel currently leases
from Intelsat (Intelsat V F12 at 1W).  AMOS will be a minisatellite
and strictly KU-band and will be operational in 1993.


Hank Nussbacher   Israel

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

Date: Fri, 12 Apr 91 08:44:48 -0700
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: RBOCs and Information Services


According to articles in COMMUNICATIONS DAILY and THE NEW YORK TIMES
on 4/5, Judge Greene has scheduled oral argument for 4/18-19 on
question of RBOC ownership of info services; while in the 4/1 INDUSTRY
WEEK, an A.T. Kearney, Inc. consultant stated, "I don't believe that
the Bell companies bring any distinctive competency or advantage to
offering content-based information services," and that collecting and
adding value to such services is "just beyond their area of expertise."

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

From: "Aaron Y.T. Cheung" <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Aaron Y.T. Cheung)
Subject: Cost of 9.6/19.2 Kbps Leased Line - Bay Area to Midwest
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1991 19:06:42 GMT


Would appreciate information (cost expectations and contacts
information if any) of running a 9600/19200 bps digital (or analog)
leased line (satellite or terrestrial) between East Cost and Midwest.
In particular, looking for between the Bay Area and Minnesota/
Illinois.

Any info appreciated; similar references wanted also.

Thanks,

aaron ([e-mail])

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

From: Wayne Ngai <[e-mail]>
Subject: Books Wanted on NetWare
Date: 14 Apr 91 22:55:00 GMT


    Hi!  I am looking for some good books on the subject
"NetWare".  Could anyone out there please tell me as to what books on
NetWare that they would recommend getting for a person like me who
doesn't know anything about it?  Any suggestions would be greatly
appreciated!  If any of you knows a good book on NetWare for those
people who don't know anything about it such as myself, Please send
email to me as to what you would suggest.


Thanks in Advance!

Wayne

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

Date: Sun, 14 Apr 91 18:14:15 PDT
From: Brian Gordon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fighting the Hyatt Hotel Surcharges


I just finished writing a letter to the president of the Hyatt Hotel
chain -- at the address provided on their "please send us your
comments" form -- complaining about their phone surcharge policies.
The more of us who take the time to do that, the better chance we have
of reversing the trend.

The specific hotel was the Hyatt Regency in Sacramento, but the policy
is, I presume, chain-wide.  Their default LD carrier isn't stated, but
a direct dial calls costs "AT&T operated assisted rates PLUS $0.75
access charge PLUS a $0.20 per minute surcharge".  800 calls are free
 -- except that an 800 call to contact an alternate LD carrier carries
the $0.75 access charge.  That means that a twenty-minute call home, for
which they have no incremental expense, costs you the phone charges
PLUS about $5.00.  That pays for your personal 800 number for a month!

Every letter of complaint helps.  I pointed out that that kind of
rip-off would better suit a $19.95 Motel, not a $100 Hyatt -- and that
many of the $19.95 places don't do it!!  That makes it easier for me
to decide where to spend my hotel dollars.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #293
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25338;
          15 Apr 91 20:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23985;
          15 Apr 91 18:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11588;
          15 Apr 91 17:51 CDT
Date:     Mon, 15 Apr 91 17:39:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #294
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 15 Apr 91 17:38:46 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 294

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How Were Large Call Volumes Handled Long Ago? [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Seeking 9600/4800/2400 Voice CODEC's [Macy Hallock]
    Re: TX CID -- Mandatory Blocking [Peter Marshall]
    Re: Invadion of the Phone Snatchers (Why Bother With $0.25) [Ralph Moonen]
    Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers [Michael Klein]
    Re: 900 Discussion on CNN [Dennis G. Rears]
    Re: Special Screwdriver Wanted [Tom Knight]
    London Code Split (was: Dublin Number Expansion) [John Slater]
    Experimenting With AT&T's Account Management [Joel B. Levin]
    Interesting Real Estate Opportunity [David Brightbill]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 14 Apr 91 16:03 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <fmsys![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Were Large Call Volumes Handled Long Ago?
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA


In article <[e-mail]>:

> What did recipients of large volumes of calls do before ACDs? Did
> someone manually distribute calls?

Well, Western Electric made electromechanical ACD's back into the
'50's as I recall.  The site I remember was a variation of a 701 as I
recall. I can't remember the exact offical designation.  I'd have to
drag out my old catalogs, but I think either SC or AE made something
along the same lines.  These were true ACD's and offered supervisor
positions along with some indication of load.

I also recall seeing an ACD setup based on a 101ESS node slaved out of
the central office.  ACD's were usually used only in larger
installations way back then.

Frankly, ACD's were not used by most organizations of small and medium
size until the '70's.  Small and medium sized installations were
handled in different ways:

We had a lot of dispatch areas that were nothing more that very big
(60 button) call directors with a large rotary hunt line group feeding
them.  Most of the large Police Dept. dispatch areas I saw back in the
'60's were done this way.  They were often supported with a 2040
Dialpak PAX for intercom and call transfer.  (Boy, I barely remember
these for some reason.)

In the early '70's, the first crossbar PBX's with circular rotary hunt
groups were introduced.  Many of these were used as pseudo-ACD's,
often with 1A2 systems behind them.  Early Rolm and Philco electronic
PBX's did not have any real ACD features, either.  They called
circular hunt groups ACD groups, but the introduction of real traffic
oriented ACD algorithims had to wait until CPU and RAM got a bit less
expensive.

> Also, there was a mention some time ago of an ACD that can
> periodically announce your position in the queue, and the average wait
> time from that point. Does this actually exist? I've never heard one
> do that ... as someone who seems to spend a lot of time on hold, I'd
> love to know how much longer.

There are a couple of ACD manufacturers doing this now. Technokron (sp?),
Rockwell, and Aspect have demonstrated these features, and tell me
they are delivering the products.  Several PBX manufacturers are in
the process of introducing these features.  I recently saw a Mitel
SX-2000 set up for this feature, and many others say they will deliver
this soon (Fujitsu 9600, NT Meridian, AT&T, Rolm, Tadiran, and others.)

Other features that are now being seen in the medium size systems that
were previously seen only in larger systems:

- Predictive routing:  When a call lands in the system, the current call
  load is calculated, and the call is set to overflow positions (at the
  same site or at other locations) if the system predicts that the call
  would have to hold beyond certain time period while holding for the
  first choice ACD group.

- Call Center Management:  The system prints out reports showing current
  loading and the past half hour's load.  Full shift analysis and reporting
  also provided.  Some systems use an external processor for management
  reporting and can assist in estimating call center staffing requirements
  based on accumlated history.  This can also be used to show which agents
  are the most/least productive.

- Off Premise Overflow:  Too busy? Send the calls to another call
  center ... This can also be used to send calls to agents working at
  home (kinda like what some of the 900 dial-a-friend services are now
  doing...)

- System Load Display:  The present holding time and number of calls holding
  are displayed on electronic wall displays and/or the agent phones...
  keeps up the pressure to keep things moving...

Side note: We now have auto-attendant systems that add some
intelligent call holding features to a phone system.  If you call and
reach a busy station, the system announces: There is one call holding
presently, press 1 to hold.  (Other use can be made of this feature,
too.)

Public announcement: Dayton Hamvention (currently the largest amateur
radio convention in the world) is April 26-28.  Think of 10,000 nerds
accompanied by massive intermodulation products.  Its a very
worthwhile convention, with more and more emphasis on the overlapping
fields of telecom and computers.  We are currently accepting
suggestions for a simplex frequency for all internet/telecom types to
meet on.


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

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

Date: Sun, 14 Apr 91 17:34 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <fmsys![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Seeking 9600/4800/2400 Voice CODEC's
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA


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

> Ideally I need voice codec hardware that can compress/decompress voice
> down to selectable rates of 9600,4800 and 2400 bits/sec.

There are several companies now doing this.  I have worked with Micom
(800-MICOM-US) and Republic Telecom equipment.  Timeplex, Stratacom
and others do this now as well.  Recently a couple of companies have
advertised in _Data Communications_ and _Network World_ small, modem
sized stand alone units.  The names escape me at the moment...

> If such a single unit or multiple units exist, can they support OPX
> (Off Premise Exchange) and SLT (Single Line Telephone) type interfaces?
> (I'm assuming OPX and SLT are valid interfaces.)

Most any type of line, with the proper signalling modules, can be
supported.  Most of those units accomodate either in-band or out of
band (part of data stream) signalling.

> Any information that can help me identify integrated circuits or
> actual commercially available hardware (now or in the near future)
> will be greatly appreciated.

Sorry, I only work with assembled units, so I can give no codec info.
You can give be a call at my office [phone] (Cleveland) to
discuss this ... or use [e-mail]


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

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

Subject: Re: TX CID -- Mandatory Blocking
From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 91 12:23:52 PDT


Your commentary seems likely premature as the TX PUC matter you are
reacting to is apparently a proposed rule that seems to include a
"baseline line blocking" component.


Peter Marshall

                    halcyon![e-mail]
  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 09:48 MDT
Subject: Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers (Why Bother With $0.25)


Kent Borg <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> friends -- also here in Chicago (suburbs) -- that have had the same
>> experience with Illinois Bell: a refund check for $0.25!

> A few years ago (like five) I got a check for 35 cents -- or some such
> -- from Pac Bell.

A couple of years ago, the Dutch PTT had to refund *every* telephone
subscriber $0.71, because the billing equipment wasn't billing the
first five minutes correctly. The Organisation of Elderly Citizens then
started a law-suit against the PTT, which they won, and the PTT had to
pay back every subscriber.


Ralph Moonen    rmoonen@[hvlpa|ihlpb].att.com    ([phone]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 10:10:54 EDT
From: Michael Klein <blsouth![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Invasion of the Phone Snatchers

> [Moderator's Note: Well, but at least with the IBT refund coupons (I
> refuse to call them checks!) you can redeem them with your phone bill.
> They say that on the front of the piece of paper. I would be
> embarassed to send them a COCOT refund coupon along with my phone bill
> payment, although I guess I could.   PAT]

Based on my recent experience in Atlanta, BellSouth refunds your
quarter as a check, about two to three weeks after the refund was
requested.  The first time I lost my quarter, the operator first tried
to connect me.  When this failed, I was transferred to the "refund
operator".

The check came with an El Paso, Texas postmark, drawn on one of those
banks that mail out the rebates for Kodak batteries and Fruit-of-the-
Loom underwear.


Michael Klein, BellSouth Services, Inc., Atlanta, GA
 ...!gatech!blsouth!klein

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

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 15:52:54 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Discussion on CNN


Robert Thurlow writes:

> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dennis G.
> Rears (FSAC)) writes:

>>  Why should anything be forced upon the marketers of the calls?  The
>> real underlying reason is to protect *STUPID* people from themselves.

> Are you a technology professional?  How many people do you know who
> are not technology professionals?  Do you think it is clear to all
> callers that the '9' after the '1' means they'll get a line item on
> their phone bill a month later?  I know my family wouldn't all know
> this.

   This has nothing to do with technology!!! In this world, there are
countless legal schemes that are made to part a sucker with his money.
900 numbers are but one of them.  I know I will get plenty of flamage
for this but, If a caller does not realize there is a charge for 900
numbers I hope they *GET BURNED AND BURNED BADLY*!  What do they
think, somone is providing the "service" for free?  Each person is
responsible for his actions.

> I think voiding parents of responsibility for their kid's actions is
> stupid, too, but I either want free call-blocking so that I can make
> a blanket decision, or I want a PIN number to permit me to know that
> the call was not made by an untrusted person.

   I agree with the call-blocking, but still it is *your* phone, *your
responsibility*.  If TPC can provide the service great, if not, it is
your problem to keep 900 dialers off of it, not TPC.

>>   Should every business be required to have a phone number so that
>> people can complain?  Of course not.  Why should this be different?

> From the business end of things, I demand to be told a non-1-900
> method of communicating with said company in the case of a dispute;
> either a regular phone number or a postal address will do.  I do not
> want to get shafted by a company and have to depend on my telco to
> tell me how to contact the company, as I think that would place the
> telco in a conflict of interest that could make things touchy.

   To put it simply, you are in no business to demand, you have
nothing to back up your demands with.  You can refuse to call them but
then again if you didn't call them in the first place you wouldn't
have a problem.  If you do have a dispute with them, write the TPC and
tell them of the dispute.  It is then up to the 900 company to collect
directly from you.


dennis

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

From: Tom Knight <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Screwdriver Wanted
Date: 15 Apr 91 21:10:39 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


The fishhook remover on a Fisherman Swiss Army knife (the two pins at
the end of the scaler) fit into most of the two pin security screws.
It's the only use I've found for that blade.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 10:42:28 BST
From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: London Code Split (was: Dublin Number Expansion)


Bob Goudreau wrote:

>> I believe the reason BT didn't choose the "017 & 018" option is that
>> they preferred to keep the entire "01..." sequence clear for as yet
>> unspecified future use.

>> I believe (and I don't speak for my employer on this) that as 01 is
>> already the international dialling sequence (eg the USA is 0101), 017
>> and 018 were out of the question, or just plain confusing.

> Beg your pardon?  I thought (and your own example seems to prove) that
> the international prefix was "010", not "01".  So where's the
> ambiguity for 017, 018, or indeed any 01x (as long as x != 0)?

Indeed. No ambiguity, but I was mistaken originally in claiming that
the entire "01..." sequence was now clear. And I should know, as my
Mercury account shows all too clearly how many international calls I
make :-(

However it's worth pointing out that there is a proposal to
standardise the international access code throughout the world. I
believe "00" is proposed, as this is used in quite a few countries
already. Germany springs to mind. This would fit in with both US and
UK systems without conflict. (Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong! :-)

Sorry, I can't substantiate this, or remember where I first heard
about it (here, perhaps?)


John Slater
Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Experimenting With AT&T's Account Management
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 07:39:53 EDT


I have forgotten the name of AT&T's plan, but I refer to the account
management plan whereby each user of a phone (roommates, for instance)
dial all long distance calls with 0+ and then enter a personal four
digit code beginning with 15 instead of a calling card number.  I have
reported here before that when I dialled calls using 10288+0+ (Sprint
is my default carrier) and entered 1511# or 1512# after the boing I
heard the "thank you" and the call went through, this when calling
from my home phone on a Nashua, NH central office.  I have received my
first billing since I began making these calls, and I have some good
news and some bad news.

The good news: first, as I said, the calls went through.  Second, I
was charged the straight station-to-station direct dialled rate with
no surcharge for use of any 0+ services.

The bad news: the calls, listed on the AT&T page of my New England
Telephone bill, are shown as if they had been dialled with 1+; they
are listed in chronological order with no indication that any group
were distinguished in any special way from any others.  So I can dial
them that way, but without making prior arrangements with AT&T it has
no effect.

Aside: this experiment cost me a small amount of money; except for the
day AT&T was having its eleven cent sale, these calls cost me 20% to
30% more than they would have on Sprint before the Sprint-plus
discount.  Now, before you get excited about that, I should say that
these were all one minute night rate calls forty miles to Boston, and
cost me $.12 or $.13 where Sprint would charge $.10.


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: Mon, 15 Apr 91 11:31:30 -0400
From: David Brightbill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting Real Estate Opportunity


I was down in Panacea, Florida this past weekend and ran across a real
estate opportunity which may be of interest to comp.dcom.telecom
readers.  While trying to locate a sandblast contractor, I came across
a microwave tower with a "For Sale " sign posted in front of it.  It's
a large tower on an acre or so of land.  It has at least five
antennas/feed horns on it.  The sign was gone from the wall of the
equipment building but local folks said that it used to say "Southern
Bell" on it.

The site was maintained, and from the way that the electric meter was
spinning, I'd guess that the equipment is currently in use.  Panacea
is on the Gulf coast about 40 miles south of Tallahassee.  The real
estate sign has an 800 number on it which I didn't copy down ... but
if you ever wanted to own your own microwave facility, come on down to
Panacea.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #294
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02068;
          15 Apr 91 22:44 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24973;
          15 Apr 91 21:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27770;
          15 Apr 91 19:57 CDT
Date:     Mon, 15 Apr 91 18:52:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #295
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 15 Apr 91 18:52:20 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 295

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    "Toggles" are Poor Interface Design [Gordon Burditt]
    "Selective" Call Waiting [Joel B. Levin]
    Telecom Assistance Available for Kurdish Refugees [Carl Moore]
    In Praise of Illinois Bell Installers [Michael P. Andrews]
    Re: Mass Event 800/900? [Bill Woodcock]
    Re: Billed Busy Signals [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: Radio Reception on Telephone [Joshua Putnam]
    Administrivia: Archives Was Offline; Now Back [Many of You]
    That's All For Now! See You In a Week [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Toggles" are Poor Interface Design
Date: 14 Apr 91 20:17:59 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


> BTW, I was discussing per-call and per-line blocking with my Pacific
> Bell friend.  He's involved in the actual CLASS tests on the DMS-100
> switches.  The *67 code acts as a "toggle".  Should Pacific Bell be

It strikes me that designing "toggles" into the user interface is very
poor design.  This is made even worse when there is no feedback as to
whether you turned the feature on or off, and worse still when you
don't know what the default is.  A user of an unfamiliar phone line
won't know the default if it can be ordered differently, and someone
might not know the default of his own line if the request to change it
might or might not have been processed yet, or if his line might have
been "slammed".

The Caller-ID example has the even worse feature that you can't easily
test whether the feature is on or off without cooperation from someone
on a second line.  Some other features, like Transfer-On-Busy
Enable/Disable, Permanent Call-Waiting Enable/Disable (anyone offer
this? - deactivate Call Waiting until it is specifically
re-activated?), or Call Forwarding Enable/Disable have equal or worse
problems with testing if someone designs the activation codes with a
toggle.

Are we getting that short on *XX codes that toggles are necessary?
Anyone got a list of a "standard" set of them?  How many different
"standard" sets are there?  (Does GTE have more "standard" sets than
it does COs?)

A feature might need four codes: Permanent ON, Permanent OFF, Per-call
override ON, and Per-call override OFF, if all of these were available
and made sense.  Call Waiting could use all four - I could turn it off
and temporary-override it on for some outgoing voice calls, yet leave
it disabled for incoming data calls.  Things like Call Forwarding,
Transfer-on-Busy, Reject ID-Blocked Calls, Activate Call Screening,
Activate-900-Like-Billing-For-Incoming-Calls, etc. don't need
temporary overrides.  Caller-ID blocking could use all four but I
doubt changing the permanent default will be available by other than a
service order.  And, of course, many features like Call Trace, Speed
Calling, Screen Out Last Caller, Return Call, Sue Telemarketer,
Refund-900-Like-Billing- For-Last-Call, etc. only need a code to
activate them when needed.


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Selective" Call Waiting
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 07:41:05 EDT


News from the world of New England Telephone bill inserts:

" ...But there may be certain calls you don't want interrupted.
That's why Call Waiting service now includes a new feature, selective
call waiting.  This function enables you to temporarily suspend your
Call Waiting service before or during important calls."

This is followed by a plug for Call Waiting, then how the new free
feature with Call Waiting service works: dial *70 or 1170 before
dialling, and "you must follow these steps before each all to activate
selective call waiting because it's deactivated when you hang up."

Then the best part:

"How Can I Enhance Selective Call Waiting?

"Get Three-Way Calling service.  It allows your selective call waiting
feature to work on incoming calls.  When you receive an important call,
briefly press the switchhook ...."

I thought this was an interesting way to market Three-Way Calling.
The brochure includes a postage paid coupon to order these services,
which includes the further information that Call Waiting costs $3.81
per month with a one time connection fee of $6.08; Three-Way Calling
is $4.51 a month plus $6.08; and if you sign up for both you only pay
the $6.08 once.  (These numbers may only apply within New Hampshire.)


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: Mon, 15 Apr 91 15:50:10 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telecom Assistance Available for Kurdish Refugees


On the ABC-TV network on Saturday 13 April, I heard on World News
Saturday, among news about the Kurdish refugees near the Turkey/Iraq
border, of two pay phones having been put on a mountain in that area
for those refugees.


[Moderator's Note: If there ever were a group of people for whom my
heart goes out at this time, it would be the Kurds; they've been
through so much in the past several months as have the citizens of
Iraq. The phones will help them establish / maintain contact with
family and loved ones.  Do you know which telecom organization did the
installation of the units?   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 05:34 CDT
From: "Michael P. Andrews" <[e-mail]>
Subject: In Praise of Illinois Bell Installers


Just last week I had Illinois Bell add one business phone line to my
house.  We had three residential lines in service.  The previous
occupant of my house ran a travel agency in the basement and had added
lines one at a time until the house was wired with six individual
one-pair aerial drops. The back wall of the house had a two plastic
housings holding a total of three protectors in a loosely attached and
messy arrangement.

The IBT installer that came to add my extra line told me that they
were instructed to replace the aerial drop with a single six pair line
whenever the home had more than three lines. He ASKED MY PERMISSION to
replace the service with a better one. He then installed a neat new
single six pair cable and a new lockable Seicor interface/protector
with a capacity of twelve lines.

Mind you, I would have been happy if the installer had just powered up
one of the unused pairs.  I'm very happy with the new installation and
especially with the IBT installer who worked for three + hours in a
cold drizzle to do a better job.


[Moderator's Note: I think most telco employees are dedicated people
who will do a good, professional job given a chance. There are the
rotten eggs in that profession like all others; fortunatly most know
the importance of reliable telecommunications and it reflects in their
work.  It sounds like you got a good person assigned to the job.  PAT]

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

From: Bill Woodcock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mass Event 800/900?
Date: 15 Apr 91 22:55:21 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


Davis, RISKS-11.42 asked:

> imagine, say, 10,000 kids in the audience [hold phones up to TV
> speaker, which plays DTMF].  You've got 10,000 phones dialing the same
> number simultaneously. How many of those calls do you think will get
> through?

[e-mail] (That's me!) answered:

> In answer to your question, all 10,000 of them will get through.
> Sprint has a service called "Mass Event 900/800" for doing exactly
> this.  It can handle, coincidentally, 10,000 calls simultaneously, and
> is offered to their larger 800 and 900 customers.  I've heard, but not
> been able to substantiate, that AT&T has a similar service.

[e-mail] (Christopher Lott) further asks:

> Can anyone explain more about this?  How is it done?  Does it require
> hundreds of operators "standing by Right Now!"?

As other people asked me after that posting (which I admit should have
been made more explicit) the service works only with prerecorded or
prerecorded/DTMF interactive messages.  The main use for this, as has
been implied, is to pick up an instant mailing list relatively
inexpensively (800) or at a profit (900).  In addition, since it
requires some work on the part of the potential consumer, it's a lits
that's probably going to be pretty well targeted, and responsive, as
direct-mail things go.  My only objection to this is the targeting of
children, as was originally described by Gary Marx in the statement
that started this thread.


bill.woodcock.iv   [e-mail]
355.virginia.st    berkeley.california  94709.1315

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

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1991 9:24:34 EDT
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billed Busy Signals


Jack Rickard asked about billed busy signals.

Sprint tells us that they have answer supervision wherever they are
able to obtain feature group D lines.  This covers about 95% of the
country.  This doesn't guarantee perfection, I guess, because they
also say that busy signals lasting longer than thirty seconds will be
billed.  Can you time your modem to hang up a little quicker?  We use
Sprint and two other long distance carriers, and haven't noticed
that any one carrier bills for a higher percentage of short calls than
another.


Kath Mullholand   UNH  Durham, NH

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

From: Joshua_Putnam <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Reception on Telephone
Date: 15 Apr 91 19:44:05 GMT
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA


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

> In article <[e-mail]> Kyler Laird <lairdkb@mentor.
> cc.purdue.edu> writes:

>> A friend of mine has a problem with radio reception on his home
>> telephone.  The FCC told him to use a choke.  That's it!?  He hasn't

>> tried this yet, but I'd like to know what his other options are.
>> Also, I'd appreciate knowing the theory behind this.

>    On the telephone or the manufacturer ? :-)

> [Moderator's Note: He could also find out where his high-powered and
> probably illegal CB neighbor is located (if that is the type of radio
> interference he is getting) and go cut the guy's coax!   :)     PAT]

I've never known anyone with CB interference on the phone, but that
may just be luck.  Here we always have trouble with AM broadcast
stations.  Depending on the location of the phone lines, quality of
the phone, etc., the talk radio can be as loud as the person on the
other end of the line, sometimes louder.  The only phones that seem to
be immune are our old rotary-dial ones from the dark ages.  (No
touch-tone in my house :-(

The stations are all operating legally, and the phone company used to
provide specially-modified phones back before customers could buy
their own.  (The phones have a capacitor soldered across the speaker
terminals.)  For more serious cases, a phone line filter is available.

The Amateur Radio Relay League (ARRL) Handbook, available in any good
library, has a detailed section on interference that includes
solutions for phone interference and part numbers for the various
filters, chokes, capacitors the phone manufacturers use.


Josh Putnam            [e-mail]              206/463-9399 ext.102
Happy Man Corp.   4410 SW Pt. Robinson Road   Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399


Moderator's Note: If you want to see a place where AM stations make
for bad reception on the radio itself, try an area just outside
Wheaton, IL where the transmitters for WGN (720 AM) and WBBM (780 AM)
are located about a half-mile from each other. When driving within
about a mile on any side of those transmitters, you can tune *nothing*
on your car radio but them. Solid WGN signal across the whole AM band
for quite a distance, then the same from WBBM for awhile. There is a
space in the middle of the two where you get only heterodyne from the
two of them together. Listen in sometime if you are driving past!   PAT]

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

From: Many of You <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1991 17:45:34 EDT
Subject: Administrivia: Telecom Archives Offline; Now Back


[Moderator's Note: This letter from Jeff Wasilko is typical of several
received over the weekend.   PAT]


Pat:

I was trying to get some stuff from the archive at MIT, but can't log
into it. Here's the error message:

Connected to lcs.mit.edu.
220 mintaka FTP server (Version 5.57 Thu Dec 6 10:57:23 EST 1990) ready.
530 User anonymous unknown.
Login failed.

Do you know if they planned to take the archive machine down?

Jeff


[Moderator's Note: No, they did not *plan* on taking it down. What
happened, according to Mike Patton, a sysadmin at MIT who is my
contact there for the Telecom Archives was that Saturday night, some
unknown person uploaded  some really huge files, taking every bit of
free space they had. Then the same person posted notices telling
everyone to come and get the files. This person had no association
whatsoever with MIT and had the nerve to use them for a transfer site
with all that stuff. Mike said at one point Saturday night there were
over 100 ftp jobs going on at once. The machine came to almost a
complete halt and their only choice at the time was to completely
disconnect anonymous ftp 'for the duration'.  Today they fixed it so
there can be no anonymous uploads, and Mike said things should be back
to normal by the time most of you read this.  I'm sorry for the
interupption in service, but it was some abusive person taking
advantage of MIT's facilities.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 17:53:53 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: That's All For Now! See You In a Week


This issue of the Digest is the final one to be issued this week ... I
am leaving in an hour on a trip to Kansas. I will be back over the
weekend, April 20-21, and you'll know I am back when you receive your
next issue -- number 296 -- probably next Saturday night or Sunday
morning.

My thanks to all of you who have sent notes of condolence. Dad is
still alive as of this writing ... he may have a day or he may have
many years left; that's not for any of us to know or decide. The
doctors say he is holding his own, but still very weak and unconcious
most of the time. He is being fed with a tube down his throat, but the
bleeding which began last week ended after a couple days.

I'm taking both cell phones with me, and will report anything
interesting when I return.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #295
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24530;
          21 Apr 91 5:48 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad17728; 21 Apr 91 4:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10621;
          21 Apr 91 0:11 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09822;
          20 Apr 91 23:00 CDT
Date:     Sat, 20 Apr 91 22:04:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  A Personal Note: The Therapy of Grief
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

Because of my father's serious illness, most of you know I went out of
town last Monday to be with my family for a few days. We (my brother,
his wife, their 15-month old child and myself) left at 9 PM Monday,
and drove 750 miles -- a sixteen hour trip by automobile including
food, gas and bathroom stops -- to Independence, Kansas, arriving
Tuesday afternoon.

On Wednesday, April 17, we went to visit dad in the VA Hospital in
Wichita, Kansas, -- 140 miles each way from Independence -- where he
had been in the intensive care unit for a few days.  He had had two
heart attacks while in the hospital, and considerable intestinal
bleeding in another concurrent illness.  Because he had earlier been
in considerable pain, the hospital had, with the concurrence of the
family, medicated him to the extent required that he felt no further
pain. Family members living in the area had been there several times;
but dad was apparently 'holding out' to see the children.  We visited
in groups of two for five minute intervals throughout the day and
evening. 'Visiting' really consisted of simply holding his hand and
speaking quietly to him; he could only respond with facial motions and
occassional single words of speech. Of particular pleasure to him,
judging from his reactions, was the opportunity to see the 15-month
old boy. He had seen the child, (his grandson and my nephew) only once
before, nearly a year earlier.

At 1:30 AM Thursday, April 18, he was sleeping, and the nursing staff
found his vital signs to be consistent with earlier examinations. On
their examination seven minutes later, at 1:37 AM, they could detect
no heatbeat or pulse. The supervising physician at that hour of the
morning examined him about fifteen minutes later to confirm the
findings of the staff, and the official pronouncement was given at
2:00 AM, April 18.

After a busy day Thursday arranging for the disposition of dad's
remains, and signing off on numerous insurance and other documents, we
drove to Tulsa, Oklahama -- about sixty miles each way -- to pick up
my sister, who flew in from Orlando, Florida at 11:30 PM. I fell into
bed at 3:00 Friday morning, only to be up and at Potts Memorial Chapel
at 8:00 AM, as the family's representative at visitation prior to a
memorial service at 11:00 AM. At the conclusion of the service, my
mother's request was that the immediate family linger at the front of
the assembly room to individually greet those who wished to speak with
us. I extended my hand perhaps 200 times to people in the receiving
line whose names I would not know but who apparently knew my father
quite well.

Then on to a private luncheon for the family given by close friends of
my father and mother. After lunch, others took my mother back to her
home while my brother, sister and I returned to the chapel to meet
with employees there for the final process ... then it was a trip to
the aiport in Tulsa to get my sister on her flight back (she had left
a sick child of her own at home); and back to Independence. Because
the town is so small, and 'everyone knows everyone else', it took only
a few minutes for me to speak with her banker, her best friend and a
local attorney who will continue to check her well-being.

Finally about 6 PM last night it occurred to *me* what had happened: I
sat in my room at mother's house and cried. One of dad's favorite
composers was Johann Sebastian Bach; and of Bach's many works, dad
particularly liked 'Come Sweet Death; Come Bless'd Repose' and now I
understand why: Here was a man who lived his life in such a way that
he could look his Maker squarely in the face and without a second's
hesitation say "Lord, why don't you take me right now?" ... dad wasn't
afraid or concerned at all ... and I think he looked forward to being
released. After all, would *you* want to lay there with tubes stuck
down your nose, and needles in your arms delivering intravenous
nourishment to you? As my brother and I stood there beside him the
night before, each holding his hand and letting him communicate as
best he could, his last words to us were "now that you boys are here,
I can go."

The grief that has overwhelmed us the past few days has started a
process of healing in our family ... a therapy rooted in grief. And
although I'll miss dad terribly, his passing will heal our family in
many ways, by bringing us together in love which has been
conspicuously absent for many years.

My brother, his wife, the baby and I left about 7 PM and returned to
Chicago, 'driving straight through' on the same 750 mile, sixteen hour
trip.  Tonight I am very tired -- exhausted, really.  I returned to
find many, many notes of concern from telecom readers and other
friends 'on the net' ... to each of you, my sincerest thanks.

I hope you'll excuse this diversion today from the usual topics of the
TELECOM Digest ... but I just had to talk about it.


Patrick Townson















Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07720;
          21 Apr 91 23:53 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13014;
          21 Apr 91 22:17 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10847;
          21 Apr 91 21:13 CDT
Date:     Sun, 21 Apr 91 20:29:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #296
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Apr 91 20:29:09 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 296

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Phones for $29 [Steven King]
    Re: Documentation Wanted on January '90 AT&T Outage [Ronald T. Crocker]
    Re: Per Line Blocking? [Daniel Herrick]
    Re: Radio Reception on Telephone [Daniel Herrick]
    Re: How Were Large Call Volumes Handled Long Ago? [John Nagle]
    Ameritech Call-Minder [David W. Tamkin]
    Re: Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones [Darren Alex Griffiths]
    Re: 900 Discussion on CNN [Darren Alex Griffiths]
    Re: What Fire?? Channel 2 Uses Criss-Cross [Mark D. Fisher]
    Re: Convenience of Phone System [Leroy Casterline]
    Re: My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack [Leroy Casterline]
    Re: My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack [Chip Rosenthal]
    Re: AT&T Digital Answering Machine [Mike Schuster]
    Re: Source For Special Screwdriver Wanted [Mark Allyn]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones for $29
Date: 15 Apr 91 18:32:54 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, Arlington Hgts IL


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

> In the April 10th {Boston Globe}, NYNEX advertises a FREE cellular
> phone.

One of the providers in Chicago (Cell One or Ameritech; not having a
cell phone myself I don't pay much attention to who's who) was
offering a "free" cellular phone deal.  Actually, it was a zero-fee
rental agreement.  Of course, if you ever moved or switched providers
you'd have to give the phone back ... I don't recall the terms of the
lease, or how much you paid per month, per minute, etc.


Steven King, Motorola Cellular  (...uunet!motcid!king)


[Moderator's Note: They've both had deals like that from time to time,
or similar things with variations. Some deals are okay, others border
on sleaze, like the ones Fretters is always coming up with. I think
you are just as well off buying the phone at the normal rate and
making your own arrangements for service.  Speaking of cellular
service, I was sort of disappointed in Cellular One / Chicago's
performance on my recent trip. I'll discuss it more later on.   PAT]

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

From: "Ronald T. Crocker" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Documentation Wanted on January '90 AT&T Outage
Date: 15 Apr 91 21:16:42 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


WARNING: Personal comments follow and do not indicate the feelings of
my employer with reference to this incident.

There was some publications around the time of the incident indicating
that the problem was a missing break statement in some C code in the
4ESS software.  It was indicated that the generic was installed in the
offending office in December, was up and running with "no" problems
for three weeks. I know more about this, but am bound by agreements to
not disclose it.

The immediate (kneejerk?) reaction by AT&T management was to insist on
everyone at Bell Labs taking a course in C programming, and find a
tool that would highlight missing break statements. Nothing like
shooting the message carrier :->.--


Ron Crocker
Motorola Radio-Telephone Systems Group, Cellular Infrastructure Group
[phone] [FAX: [phone]]  [e-mail] or uunet!motcid!crocker

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Per Line Blocking?
Date: 15 Apr 91 12:28:56 EST


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

> "What?", you say. "Do you want your line to always reveal your number
> to any person you call that subscribes to Caller ID, or do you want it
> to never reveal it?" Now realistically, what do you think 99.999% of
> all telephone customers are going to answer at this point?

> Now as a customer, you order Caller ID. However, the rep becomes
> uncharacteristically candid with you and points out that ten people in
> your area have "unblocked" lines and suggests reconsidering your
> order.

> So come on now, all you per line blocking advocates. Isn't per line
> blocking just the new code for "no Caller ID"?

Maybe you are right, John.  The phone companies seem to think so.
However, as a residential customer, I subscribe to phone service for
my convenience, not anyone else's.

If you have an idea for an information product that is eagerly
endorsed by potential buyers of the data and boycotted by potential
suppliers of the information, you have a product whose time has not
yet come.

If the only way you can acquire the information that you seek to sell
is to take it by force, there are some ethical issues that arise.

I want per line blocking with per call unblocking that works from a
rotary dial pulse phone before they start selling caller id (sic)
here.

I also want them to stop LYING and calling it "caller id" when it is
CALLING STATION id.

But, then, the advocates here in this forum think of it as caller id
and describe a great variety of uses that work only when knowing the
calling station happens to identify the calling party.

Try this scenario on for size -- perhaps there is a teenager with whom
my son logs hours of talk time per week.  Perhaps he offends her so
she refuses to answer calls from him.  How do I get through for my one
three minute conversation per month with her parent?  There are four
or five people originating calls from my phone.  On the basis of
relative volumes, her assumption that caller id (sic) showing my
number identifies a call from my son is a good assumption.

I can imagine a product that reads the caller id (sic) data and looks
the number up in an internal directory and displays a caller name from
the directory.  Because the directory was entered by the owner of the
product, it would show my son's name as the caller.  Any time he was
persona non grata, I would have great difficulty getting through.

I really think that caller id (sic) is not the great boon to mankind
that most of the contributors here seem to think it is.


dan herrick   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Radio Reception on Telephone
Date: 15 Apr 91 17:35:35 EST


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

> A friend of mine has a problem with radio reception on his home
> telephone.  The FCC told him to use a choke.  That's it!?  He hasn't
> tried this yet, but I'd like to know what his other options are.
> Also, I'd appreciate knowing the theory behind this.

Perhaps the basic idea is to find the person operating the transmitter
and choke him.


dan herrick     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: There are all these 'scenarios' people come up with
-- red herrings, really -- as excuses for not having Caller ID.  From
your example above, I take it you would rather force the people to
answer the phone every time it rings -- being unable to tell in advance
who is calling -- rather than sit down with the people as one parent
speaking with another to discuss and correct the misbehavior of your
children.   PAT]

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

From: John Nagle <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Were Large Call Volumes Handled Long Ago?
Date: 16 Apr 91 06:33:40 GMT


[e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko) writes:

> ACDs have been mentioned a few times this week, which got me
> wondering:

> What did recipients of large volumes of calls do before ACDs? Did
> someone manually distribute calls?

     Yes, using "order turrets", special switchboards set up for the
purpose.  But Automatic Call Distribution was introduced in 1932, with
the No. 3. Order Turret.  The problem is very similar to distributing
calls from one level of selectors to the next in a step-by-step
office, and was first solved using that technology.  Definitely not a
new feature.


John Nagle

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

Subject: Ameritech Call-Minder
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 21:32:33 CDT
From: "David W. Tamkin" <[e-mail]>


This afternoon on WBBM AM radio in Chicago I heard a commercial for
Ameritech Call-Minder.  There was a phone number to call about it:
1-800-222-2522.  I'm not sure whether that number will receive calls
from outside Ameritech's region.

I called and found out this much:

The rate for residences is $9.80 per month.  That includes the voice
mailbox and call forwarding on no answer and busy.  Residences will
not be charged for the forwarding hop: that surprised me.  They will
be charged for calls to the mailbox to check for messages, of course.

My parents' Illinois Bell CO is not yet converted for CLASS, so they
cannot order it.  I didn't ask about ordering a voice mailbox without
call forwarding on no answer or busy (they could get regular call
forwarding if they want).  There probably is no price set for such a
thing anyway.

They do not recommend giving out the direct number to the voice
mailbox; their stand is that callers will try to hack the PIN.
Centel's position was quite different, offering the possibility of
giving out the mailbox's phone number so that calls will go directly
there when that's how the customer wants to handle things.

Nor did I ask -- nor hope to get an answer to -- how much of the $9.80
is taxed.  I know that Centel doesn't collect tax on the $3.95 a month
I pay for my voice mailbox from them, but they might tax the $2.25 I
pay for call forwarding on no answer or busy (which includes regular
immediate call forwarding); technically I would be charged for the
forwarding hop to my voice mailbox when a call is forwarded, but my
Centel voice mailbox is within my free calling area.

Ameritech is supposed to mail me printed information about it.  We'll
see what, if anything, arrives.


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

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

From: Darren Alex Griffiths <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell "Airport" Credit Phones
Date: 16 Apr 91 18:34:29 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


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

> In Volume 11, Issue 285, Message 1 of 10, John R. Levine writes:>

> As well, it's a good idea to carry your building access card (CardKey
> (R) or whatever) separately from your credit cards.

When I worked at UC Santa Barbara a number of years ago one of the
researchers was carrying a magnet from the third floor of Physics to
the Free Electron Laser in the basement.  The magnet was quiet
powerful, I think it was used to aim the beam, in anycase, it erased
not only all of his credit and atm cards, his digital watch failed to
work as well.  It's it fun to live in the technological era?  :-)


darren alex griffiths    [phone]      [e-mail]

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

From: Darren Alex Griffiths <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Discussion on CNN
Date: 16 Apr 91 19:39:58 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


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

> He went on to describe 900 number operators as "The worst sort of scam
> artists and snake oil salesmen,"

> He made quite a point of most of the "victims" being minorities,
> unemployed, or otherwise disadvantaged.

I missed the interview unfortunately.  I would be interested, however,
in whether or not CNN did one of their 900-number poles to see what
the audience thought of the question?


darren alex griffiths    [phone]    [e-mail]

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

From: "Mark D. Fisher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Fire?? Channel 2 Uses Criss-Cross
Date: 17 Apr 91 05:55:19 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jens von der
Heide) writes:

> "Hi, I'm calling from Channel 2 News.  Could you tell me if you see a
> building on fire next door ??  Are there a lot of fire trucks around??

> Needless to say, there was no fire activity around.  Later
> that night the mystery was explained.  We recently moved, and, kept
> the same phone number.  The apartment next door to our previous
> address was on fire.  Apparently, the local news station looked up our
> phone in a phone directory that lists numbers by address and probably
> wanted to see if the activity was worth covering.

I once had a very similar experience:

I had moved taking my old telephone number with me.  Then several
months later I received a call from the local tv news.  He asked me
about the fire in my building.  Before I was in a complete panic, we
realized what had happened.

My old roommates were soon looking for a new place to live :-)


Mark D. Fisher

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

Date: Tue, 16 Apr 91 18:03:35 -0600
From: leroy Casterline <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Convenience of Phone System?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (leroy Casterline)
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523


>> Wouldn't it be nice to simply speak into the phone and say 'my friend
>> Tony Jones's third office line please'...

While I was at Winter CES this year, I saw just such a product.  Let's
see, where did I put that spec sheet ... shuffle ... ah, here it is.
Called the ORIGIN Voicephone from Origin Technology, Sunnyvale, CA.
[phone].


Leroy Casterline

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

Date: Tue, 16 Apr 91 11:17:00 -0600
From: leroy Casterline <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack


> The device takes calls on (relative to it) 'line 1' and forwards the
> call on (relative to it) 'line 2'.  You call on the device's 'line 2'

My company just finished developing a call forwarding device for a
client.  This device will forward calls using three-way calling and a
single phone line.  It will forward calls to just about anything,
including cellular phones, pagers, SMR's and international numbers.
Re-programming is accomplished by calling it and overdialing a code
when it speaks the "Please wait, this call is being transferred"
message.  This brings up a voice menu which allows you to change
forward-to numbers, change it's mode, etc.

It can also be used in a mode where it allows the answering machine to
answer the call, then monitors for 'screening' DTMF tones, which will
transfer the call to one of the forward-to numbers on the spot.
Allows you to give the codes to 'important' clients, family members,
etc who can then reach you wherever you are, while other callers (who
don't know the codes) are handled by the answering machine.  One nice
feature of this device is that it allows you to receive calls on your
cellular phone (even while roaming) without you having to give your
cellular number to anyone.


Leroy Casterline

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My New Toy: Call Forwarder From Radio Shack
Date: 18 Apr 91 04:37:38 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX


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

> The schematic calls it a TMS7DC42.

TMS70C42???  That's a T.I. 8-bit micro.

> Where (delta) indicates a symbol that looks a lot like the greek
> letter of that name.

That delta is probably the `ESD sensitive device' marking.


Chip Rosenthal  512-482-8260   Unicom Systems Development
<[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T Digital Answering Machine
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 91 16:45:18 PDT


Randy Borow writes:

> Yes, Mr. Rolfs, there ARE more than one such digital answering
> machines. The newest one has the features I mentioned, since I
> throughly looked it over and tried it at the store. You may have to
> look around.

I'm drawing a blank from AT&T customer service and a few local AT&T
phone stores. Do you have a model number for the NEW NEW AT&T digital
answering machine?


Mike Schuster                                      |    CIS: 70346,1745
NY Public Access UNIX:  ...cmcl2!panix!schuster    |    MCI Mail, GENIE:
The Portal (R) System:  [e-mail]    |           MSCHUSTER

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

From: Mark Allyn <bcstec!sleepy![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Source For Special Screwdriver Wanted
Date: 21 Apr 91 05:01:40 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle


Try Boeing Surplus in Kent, Washington. They are the surplus outlet for
the Boeing Company and you find all kinds of incredibly wierd tools there.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #296
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12673;
          22 Apr 91 1:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15341;
          22 Apr 91 0:26 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15713;
          21 Apr 91 23:18 CDT
Date:     Sun, 21 Apr 91 23:10:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #298
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Apr 91 23:09:52 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 298

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    SaudiNet Update: Email Delays to the Gulf [Todd Looney via Ken McVay]
    Re: Mystery Solved (was: Strange Phone Calls) [Mitch Wagner]
    Two Line Phone Wanted [Christopher D. Swanson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ken McVay)
Subject: SaudiNet Update: Email Delays to the Gulf
Organization: 1B Systems Management Limited
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 90 23:38:39 GMT

 * Originally by Todd Looney
 * Edited by Ken McVay


        ELECTRONIC MAIL SERVICES AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IN MAIL
               DELIVERY DURING THE WAR IN THE PERSIAN GULF

Are electronic mail services proving effective during a massive crisis
such as the war in the Persian Gulf? The answer is a resounding yes!
Such services provide an electronic "link" between friends and family
members that is incredibly efficient when judged by standards of
normal mail delivery.

SaudiNet, a project of The American Public Emergency Computer System
(APECS), is a volunteer group of over seven hundred nodes across the
country who operate computer bulletin boards.  Computer bulletin board
systems (BBS's), are numerous and scattered about the country, and the
world for that matter.  With these systems, it was a logical extension
of the electronic mail that was already in place, to utilize them (the
volunteer systems), to send electronic mail to the troops serving in
the Persian Gulf.

[Ed. Note: CPECS, the Canadian PECS equivalent, provides the same
function for Canadian users, as well as an international uucp gateway
into SaudiNet/APECS]

With SaudiNet, electronic mail is sent to a receiving point on the
West coast, then transmitted over dial up phone lines to a point in
Saudi Arabia where the messages are printed out, folded and stapled,
then handed over to the Military Post Office (MPO), which in turn
delivers the mail to the intended recipient.  SaudiNet has two
distinct advantages over other services, SaudiNet allows a person to
send a letter to "any soldier".  This letter can be sent to a "land
based" or "sea based" service person, and can be a welcome letter of
encouragement to a soldier who might not otherwise receive a letter
from home.  The other advantage with using SaudiNet is the general
consensus among its volunteers that it is "not over until the hugs".
SaudiNet vowes to continue this valuable, non-profit service as long
as it is needed.

The United States Postal Service has had an incredible volume of mail
pass through their system since the start of the crisis.  At the
height of the Christmas mail season, during the week of December 11th,
the USPS was handling 525,850 pounds of mail each day! During mid
February the volume of mail declined to 400,700 pounds per day and
currently (week of April 2nd) the number has dropped significantly,
down to 166,143 pounds per day.

Dennis Hauck, USPS Program Manager for Operation Desert Storm, has
many years experience dealing with military mail.  Hauck is retired
from the US Air Force, fifteen of his twenty years service was spent
in charge of military mail in Saudi Arabia.  He explained to the BBS
News how the USPS handles mail to the Mideast.  After mail is placed
in a "drop box", it then goes to one of five military mail processing
centers in San Francisco, Dallas, Chicago, Washington D.C.  and New
York.  From these, the mail is sent to either Tinker AFB in Oklahoma
or Macguire AFB, in New Jersey.  Hauck says that the USPS tries to
have the mail from the drop box into military hands within three days.
From there it is the military's responsibility.  The mail leaves one
of the air bases on an aircraft bound for Saudi Arabia arriving after
a stop in Europe for refueling and a change of crew.

Once it arrives in the desert, the boxes of mail are sorted and sent
to D'hahran or Khalid Military City, about a four or five hour drive
north of Riyadh.  Captain Weidner, Chief of Army Postal Operations in
Washington D.C., told the BBS News to think of the Mideastern Theatre
being roughly divided into two zones, D'hahran serving troops in the
lower Saudi Arabian area and the Khalid Military City office serving
troops in a more forward position, including but not limited to
southern Iraq.

Once the mail gets to these two Military Post Offices (MPO's) it is
further sorted by a Direct Support Unit (DSU), then sent to individual
units for delivery by military postal clerks.  Hauck points out that
as the volume of mail decreases, so does the availability of aircraft
drop correspondingly.  In other words, mail that is current (day of
delivery to military by USPS) might have to sit and wait for an avail-
able aircraft.  This results in a delay that adds to the confusion.
Both Hauck and Captain Weidner report that their respective services
have not escaped critism by citizens on the delivery of mail from the
U.S.  to their loved ones serving in the Persian Gulf.  Hauck says
that the worst case is a delay of thirty to sixty days before mail is
received by the intended recipient.  In some cases, there have been
accusations that the mail never got there at all.

This critism is not limited to the USPS or the MPO.  Chip Chiappone,
Product Marketing Manager for GEnie is in charge of GEnie's "Letters
from Home" service.  He reports to the BBS News that his service has
received some disparaging letters about electronic mail not reaching
the intended soldier, Chiappone said, "You can't believe how
*relieved* I am that we are not the only service experiencing these
kinds of problems.  I've gotten some letters from people who had
stopped using the USPS to utilize the service and they are complaining
that their letters had not reached their family member." Chiappone
says that their service has been averaging three to four days on mail
delivery but they too have not escaped the delays that are unavoidable
when the military is delivering mail in such a "fluid" situation as
the crisis in the Persian Gulf obviously is.  Unlike SaudiNet, GEnie's
"Letters from Home" service is slated to end on April 30th.

Tony Mattera, in charge of Prodigy's "USA Connect" service, tells the
BBS News that transport of return mail out of Riyadh is being
re-structured because of rapid troop redeployments.  Captain Weidner
confirmed this.  When asked if Prodigy's service is experiencing
complaints, Mattera sidestepped a bit and answered that it is his
understanding that return mail is being checked for explosives,
souveniers and such and the resulting delay could be up to four weeks.
Mattera said that Prodigy's service is scheduled to end on May 30th,
however, Mattera said that the service had been extended before and he
could not rule out the possibility that the service could be extended
further.

*All* of the electronic services contacted by the BBS News told of
delays and complaints of varying degrees.  It is the understanding of
the {BBS News} that mail sent electronically to Saudi Arabia, is being
received by the military in a timely manner.  In fact, Todd Looney,
President and COO of APECS, which oversees the SaudiNet project told
the {BBS News} that letters had been sent to General Schwartzcoff and
received.  The General sent a reply back to SaudiNet, expressing his
interest and support of the system so it is generally held that the
system is working.  The breakdown in the system seems to be when the
letters reach the military.

It is understandable that there are delays because there are troops
being sent home on an almost daily basis as well as re-deployment in
the desert because of the "scaling" down of the military presence in
the Persian Gulf area.  Dennis Hauck also pointed out that the
military has "closed out" 34 APO's as of April 11th.  Hauck said that
the electronic services should be concerned with the closure of APO's.
A service such as SaudiNet could have "their computers smokin' and be
working their particular brand of "magic" to get one last letter to
"Billy" only to find out that he had shipped out the week the letter
was sent."

The "bottom line" is electronic mail is arriving in the Persian Gulf
usually within twenty four hours, once it gets into military hands
however, for a number of reasons there are delays of delivery to the
soldiers.  It may be that the military may need to look at "revamping"
their current mail delivery structure.  Particularly because the
technology exists to sent a letter over a normal telephone line within
a matter of minutes by personal computer.  While the military "wowed"
the American public and indeed the world with their technological
marvels in weaponry, they may need to bring their mail service up to
date to reflect the current technology available to the average
person.

One further note, while the other electronic mail services are rapidly
"scaling down" and even suspending their services that facilitate
getting letters to the troops, APECS will be expanding their operation
to become a permanent public service.  In addition to SaudiNet, APECS
will offer a way for civilians to communicate with their loved ones
who will be rebuilding Kuwait.  Further plans include being able to
provide electronic mail communications to any "crisis" area in the
world from concerned citizens in the United States who would like to
offer their support and encouragement.

APECS Inc. is actively seeking corporate donations to alleviate the
expense that SaudiNet volunteers are bearing in the form of long
distance charges to keep SaudiNet operational.  For more information
about APECS Inc.  contact: Michael Hess, National Publications
Coordinator, [phone].

[Ed. Note: CPECS, while not yet at the point where incorportation is
an active consideration, is now working to expand both the FTN
(Fidotech) network and enhance InterNet gateways, and will continue to
work in parallel with it's American-based cousin. Corporate
sponsorships and private donations are not actively sought, but would
certainly be appreciated, as our transport costs are high. For
specific information on the Canadian effort, contact
[e-mail], or call Ken McVay voice, at 1-604-754-7423.]


Public Access UUCP/UseNet (Waffle/XENIX 1.64) | [e-mail]|
    TB+: 604-753-9960  2400: 604-754-9964     | ..van-bc!oneb!kmcvay    |
   FrontDoor 2.0/Maximus v1.02/Ufgate 1.03    | SaudiNet 90:82/0        |
           HST 14.4: 604-754-2928             | IMEx   89:681/1         |


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

From: Mitch Wagner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mystery Solved (was: Strange Phone Calls)
Organization: UNIX Today!
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 91 17:12:17 GMT


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

> I worked at Bellcore where someone had built an experimental phone
> switch that ran on a UNIX system and was therefore programmable in the
> way I know best.  For outgoing calls, it could read a text file and
> speak through a DECTALK.

> Everyone in my workgroup got an automated ad, saying that if we called
> a certain 800 number, we would win a free vacation.  It was really
> obnoxious.  This was before 900 numbers existed, though.  So I had the
> phone switch call the 800 number every 90 seconds for about 90
> minutes...

> He claimed that his business was legitimate and that he was
> having the phone company trace the calls.  Wouldn't it have been funny
> if he had found out that the "phone company" had made the calls?

> [Moderator's Note: Would it have been funny if he found out the phone
> company was making the calls?  No, I think not. Your employer might
> well have gotten sued and you might well have gotten fired, especially
> if your employer got sued.  Out the door on your ass in a manner of
> speaking.  His individual calls to individual phone numbers might well
> have been obnoxious; they were most likely not illegal. Your repeated
> telephone calls, intended to harrass, were illegal....

Oh, I suppose you're right, but it's hard to get too worked up about
what Mr. Reingold did. I'm one of those who find telemarketing to be
pestilent, this despite the fact that I've often found myself working
for firms that employ telemarketers.

When I worked as a reporter for the (now defunct) DAILY ADVANCE in
Flanders, N.J., I got bitten by our own telemarketers.

We were a small community newspaper, and I got hand-written letter
from a couple who were looking for publicity for some school event or
another. I put the letter aside and, a couple of months later, picked
it up to do a short write-up.

I picked up the phone, called in, identified myself -- "Hi, this is
Mitch Wagner from the Daily Advance" -- and the woman said, "Hold on,
let me have you speak to my husband."

I heard a silence, then a man came on and said, "Listen to me. I have
told you people and told you people that I am not interested, and I
want you to stop harassing me. Now let me talk to your supervisor
right now."

Well, I was having a bad day, so I lit into him. I said, "LISTEN YOU
NEANDERTHAL! I'VE ABOUT HAD IT WITH PEOPLE WHO SEND IN PRESS RELEASES
AND THEN JERK US AROUND ABOUT DOING AN ARTICLE! IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO
HEAR FROM US, WHAT IN THE HELL DID YOU SEND ME THAT LETTER FOR?! I
HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN TO PANDER TO SOME IDIOT'S HARASSMENT
FANTASIES, AND--- "

"Oh," said a small voice on the other end. "You're calling about the
letter about the school?"

"WHAT DID YOU THINK I WAS CALLING ABOUT?!"

"We forgot about the letter. See, we've been getting these calls from
your telemarketing folks every night for a week, and.... "

The article turned out nicely. So far as I know, the couple stopped
getting calls.

About that time, I lived at the end of a long dirt driveway -- a
private road, actually, about a half-mile long. I got a call from the
subscription department at the Newark STAR-LEDGER asking if we wanted
home delivery. I said, "Sure," and they gave me a complimentary
three-week subscription. At the end of the three weeks, I called to
renew, and they renewed, but never delivered. Well, I figured that the
paperboy just got sick of going all that way out of his way just to
drop off one paper, and since no money had ever changed hands, I
forgot about it.

But the STAR LEDGER didn't. I continued getting calls about once a
month, asking whether I'd be interested in subscribing. I'd explain
the situation, offer my conjecture as to why the subscription stopped,
and say that under the circumstances, I could certainly understand why
they wouldn't want to deliver my paper to me. But the representatives
always appeared to be pretty flustered by all of this, and they'd
apologize profusely and offer me a free three week's subscription to
sign up. I would, and I'd get the paper for a day or two, and then
it'd stop.


Mitch Wagner          VOICE: 516/562-5758
GEnie: MITCH.WAGNER   UUCP: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Interesting ... almost the same thing happened to
me with the {Chicago Tribune}.  A high school boy came to my home one
day soliciting subscriptions on behalf of some school organization
which got a couple bucks for each new subscription obtained.  I gave
him my order plus an advance payment, and the papers started coming.
When the first subscription term expired, the Tribune started billing
me, but I would only get the papers about half the time. Two or three
days per week they would not show up.  I called to complain, and the
Tribune would offer me a month free as goodwill. About half of those
would arrive; the others would never show up. Each month I complained,
and each month the Tribune customer service people would write off the
bill and set up another month of complimentary service. After about
six months of me paying nothing and the papers getting delivered about
half the time, they finally quit bringing them entirely.    PAT]

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

From: "Christopher D. Swanson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two Line Phone Wanted
Organization: St. Olaf College
Date: 21 Apr 91 13:12:38


I am looking for a two-line phone that will work on RJ11/14(?) jacks.
(I have two lines on one 'home wall jack').  If you have such a phone,
please e-mail me as I do not read these groups to frequently.

Thanks in advance,


Chris Swanson, Chem/CS/Pre-med Undergrad, St. Olaf College, Northfield,MN 55057
 DDN: (CDS6)   INTERNET:  [e-mail]  UUCP: uunet!stolaf!swansonc
  AT&T:        Work: (507)-645-4528            Home: (507)-663-6424

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #298
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12734;
          22 Apr 91 2:00 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15341;
          22 Apr 91 0:23 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15713;
          21 Apr 91 23:18 CDT
Date:     Sun, 21 Apr 91 22:34:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #297
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Apr 91 21:34:33 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 297

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telecom Assistance Available for Kurdish Refugees [Ron Heiby]
    Re: Books Wanted on NetWare [Barry L. Parr]
    Re: Western Electric Power Cable [Tim Pozar]
    Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit [David Nyarko]
    Re: 900 Discussion on CNN [Ron Dippold]
    Re: 900 Discussion on CNN [David G. Cantor]
    Error Detection Reference Materials Wanted [Eugene Zywicki]
    Request on Frame Relay Products + Specs + Suppliers [Andy Lim]
    Information Needed About DemoSource [Steve Pozgaj]
    Mitel Smart-1 Dialer - Docs Wanted [Julian Macassey]
    The Third Number in a Hunt Group [Thomas B. Clark III]
    U-Lowell Colloquium, April 24 [John C. Sieg]
    A Very Sophisticated ACD From Dytel [Michael P. Andrews]
    Caller*ID from US PBXs [Steven S. Brack]
    The Dangers of Cellular Car Phones [SF Chronicle via Geoff Goodfellow]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ron Heiby <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Assistance Available for Kurdish Refugees
Date: 16 Apr 91 20:33:09 GMT
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL


[e-mail] writes:

> border, of two pay phones having been put on a mountain in that area
> for those refugees.

With the kind of luck they've had over the years, the two phones are
probably COCOTs!


Ron Heiby, [e-mail]    Moderator: comp.newprod

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

From: "Barry L. Parr" <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Books Wanted on NetWare
Date: 18 Apr 91 00:24:18 GMT


In response to the request for books on Netware:

  Netware User's Guide
  by Edward Liebing
  M&T books, Redwood city , CA
  1989
  ISBN 1-55851-071-0

It's an excellent book from the publisher of {Dr. Dobb's Journal} and
{LAN Technology} magazines, with information for both beginners and
advanced users.

Although this book is published by my company, I have no proprietary
interest in it.  I'm in a separate division.

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

From: Tim Pozar <farcomp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Western Electric Power Cable
Date: 19 Apr 91 17:17:22 GMT
Organization: Late Night Software (San Francisco)


In article <[e-mail]> teletech![e-mail]
(Don H Kemp) writes:

> Ah, yes.  A chunk of power cable (either 750 MCM or 500 MCM) with an
> appropriate length of handgrip made, of course, by wrapping the cable
> with "12 cord".  Brings back memories.

    In the radio communications industry you may have used a length of
Andrew LDF4-50 1/2 inch coax.  Nice balance and comes with hand grips!


Tim

       [e-mail]  Fido: 1:125/555  PaBell: 415-788-3904
    USNail:  KKSF-FM / 77 Maiden Lane /  San Francisco CA 94108

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

From: David Nyarko <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit
Reply-To: David Nyarko <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Alberta Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1991 13:23:32 -0600


Could anyone give me pointers to a circuit which would automatically
disconnect an answering machine when at least one phone connected to
the line is off hook (picked up), and restore the normal operating
state of the answering machine, when all phones are back on hook.

Please email to [e-mail]

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

From: Ron Dippold <qualcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Discussion on CNN
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 91 22:12:31 GMT


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

> Abrams is the Attorney General for the state of New York.  He and a
> group of Attornies General from other states with harsh anti-900-
> number legislation have formed a committee to pressure the federal
> government to pass restrictive legislation dealing with the 900 issue.

> He went on to describe 900 number operators as "The worst sort of scam
> artists and snake oil salesmen," and quoted several statistics: total
> income of 900 services in 1990 was between $800 million and $1
> billion; projected income in 1991 is likely to be $1.5 billion; more
> than 30% of the "victims" of 900-based "scams" are over 65.  He made
> quite a point of most of the "victims" being minorities, unemployed,
> or otherwise disadvantaged.

I find it rather strange that they would be going after services that
require _you_ to call them for it to work, rather than after those who
invade your own privacy, namely telemarketing operators.  All my
experiences seem to indicate that the same scam artists and snake oil
salesmen are much more likely to be on the calling end, not the
recieving end.  Neither do the 1-900 operators call you up three times
a day and make demands on your time.

It's probably because most of these 1-900 lines are of the 1-900-****-ME!
variety, so they can hold it up as a campaign against pornography come
election time.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 900 Discussion on CNN
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 91 09:31:45 +0100
From: "David G. Cantor" <[e-mail]>


Dennis G. Rears writes regarding 900 service providers:

> If you do have a dispute with them, write the TPC and tell
> them of the dispute.  It is then up to the 900 company to collect
> directly from you.

If this were true, then most of the problems associated with 900
numbers would simply go way.  Unfortunately (and I speak with much
experience on this matter), the local telco won't remove the 900 calls
from your bills and force the 900 company to collect directly, except
after major hassles.  If the UNREGULATED 900 providers didn't have
force of the regulated telco's behind them, with the implicit threat
of cutting off telco service if the bill isn't paid, then the problem
wouldn't exist.  The sleazy 900 providers wouldn't have a ghost of
chance if they had to enforce bill payment in the usual way.

While cutting off service in this situation hasn't happened, so far
(at least in California), to my knowledge, the hassle in removing
these items from the bill is ENORMOUS!

A simple solution would be to allow the payer of a telephone bill to
specify how much of the payment goes to each billing vendor
(long-distance services, 900 providers, etc.) and then make it the
responsibility of a vendor to collect his own bills if they are not
paid through the telco.  The telcos oppose this strongly.

In many ways, 900 numbers are a substitute for bank credit cards, with
none of the safeguards that are provided for such credit card users by
Federal law.


David G. Cantor   Department of Mathematics   University of California
Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555    Internet:  [e-mail]

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

From: Eugene Zywicki <[e-mail]>
Subject: Error Detection Reference Materials Wanted
Organization: Gandalf Data Ltd., Nepean, Ontario
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1991 17:29:57 GMT


    I am looking for good reference materials/books that discuss
error detection techniques in high speed communications systems.
Specifically I am looking for hardware implementations along with the
kind of error coverage you get.

    I am already familiar with CRC-16 and 32, so please save
bandwidth on those two.

    You can e-mail me directly.


Eugene E. Zywicki          CAnet: [e-mail]
Gandalf Data Ltd.          Voice: [phone]
Nepean, Ontario              Fax: [phone]
Canada  K2E 7M4

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

From: Andy Lim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request on Frame Relay Products + Specs + Suppliers
Date: 17 Apr 91 04:36:11 GMT
Organization: Telecom Research Labs,Melbourne, Australia


Hi there,

Is there anyone out there who can give me the email addresses of
suppliers for frame relay related equip't (like switches)? I would
like to find out the availability, specifications and costs of the
products?

Thanks,


Hui H. (Andy) Lim, PhD           |  Ph:   [phone]
Switching Section, SNRB          |  FAX:  [phone]
Telecom Research Laboratories      |        [phone]
P.O.Box 249, Vic. 3168, Australia |  Email: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Apr 91 12:20:59 EDT
From: Steve Pozgaj <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed About DemoSource


I am trying to find out who rep's this California company here in
Canada.  They make a voicemail PC-based product which I would like to
know more about.

If you can help, please send me some mail, or call at 1-800-268-8183.

Thanks in advance.


Steve Pozgaj @ Digital Media    ...!{{utzoo!scocan}|geac}!dmntor!steve}

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mitel Smart-1 Dialer - Docs Wanted
Date: 21 Apr 91 13:09:32 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tonsured Hippies  Hollywood California U.S.A.


    I have come into possession of a Mitel SMART-1 dialer. It also
says on it: "PAV Chaining.  Positive Account Code Verification with
Chaining".

    It has an RJ-45 jack, DB-25 female and power connector.

    Does anyone have any Docs for this beast? Does anyone have any
simple instructions?

    I will happily pay repro and postage costs.

Yours,


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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Apr 91 13:32:34 EDT
From: "Thomas B. Clark III" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Third Number in a Hunt Group
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine


I have two lines in my home, arranged in a hunt group such that when
line one is busy it rolls over to line two.  Last night I received
several wrong numbers from a woman who insisted that she had dialed a
third number, a number in my exchange but unknown to me.

Checking with my GTE service rep today, I finally found out that in
fact there is a "third number" associated with my two "real numbers."
The service rep explained that it is necessary to have such a number
"for repair purposes" in any two-line hunt group, and that it is
normally transparent to the customer.  The only time it causes trouble
is when it gets wrong numbers.

The wrong numbers come in on line one.  If the "third number" is busy,
it will not roll the call over to line two.  Anyone know the why's and
wherefore's of this?


Tom Clark


[Moderator's Note: In some older central offices a higher number can
be hunted from a lower number; that is, 1234 can hunt to 1235 when it
is busy; 1235 can hunt to 1236 when it is busy, etc. In offices where
'jump hunt' is possible, the higher numbers being hunted need not be
one digit apart, but can in fact be numerically quite some distance
apart, as long as the number being hunted is higher than the one doing
the hunting. Not all of the real old offices still out there can
support 'jump hunt'. The hassle comes when a higher number is not
available for use as a 'second line'.  Then, a numerically lower
number has to be used, but since hunting won't work backwards in the
older offices, a third phantom number has to be tied on to the first
line which is numerically lower than the 'second line'.  I am not sure
of the wiring, or the reason it works that way. By chance is the
number on your 'second line' lower than the number for the main line?
Perhaps someone will write with a more technical explanation.  PAT]

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

From: "John C. Sieg" <mailrus!ulowell![e-mail]>
Subject: U-Lowell Colloquium, April 24
Organization: University of Lowell Computer Science, Lowell MA
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1991 22:23:57 GMT


                  COLLOQUIUM ANNOUNCEMENT
                Computer Science Department
     College of Arts and Sciences, University of Lowell


DATE:  Wednesday, April 24, 1991

TIME:   3:00 p.m., refreshments at 2:30

PLACE:  University of Lowell
        Wannalancit 116 (175 Cabot St., Lowell, MA)
        (directions available from [e-mail])

SPEAKER: Professor B. G. Kim
         Department of Computer Science
         University of Lowell
         Lowell, MA 01854

TITLE:   New Developments in Networking and Telecommunications:
           Gigabit Networks, MAN, and Broadband ISDN

ABSTRACT:

     This presentation focuses on recent developments in communication
network protocols and in telecommunication networks, which are
envisioned to be the networks of the 21st century.  Research continues
to provide faster and more reliable service in data communication
networks.  With the introduction of 100 Mb/s FDDI (Fiber Distributed
Data Inter- face) products, researchers are looking beyond 100 Mb/s
speeds to 1-10 Gb/s speeds. Several proposed protocols will be
discussed.

     Telecommunication industries, spearheaded by AT&T and the baby
Bells, continue to build faster networks as well. A 45 Mb/s MAN
(Metropolitan Area Network) and 150 Mb/s Broadband ISDN are two key
thrusts.  Details of the MAN architecture will be explored, followed
by a brief introduction to the Broadband ISDN.

     The presentation will conclude with a brief excursion into some
open research problems.

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

Date: Tue, 16 Apr 91 01:46 CDT
From: "Michael P. Andrews" <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Very Sophisticated ACD From Dytel


WordPerfect Corp. has an amazing system from Dytel on their customer
support lines.  You hear a pleasant female "traffic reporter" on
connection and every few minutes thereafter with reports that sound
just like radio traffic reports: "Network support has a five minute
wait with five calls holding; Macintosh has a three minute wait with
two calls holding; WordPerfect has a seven minute wait with eight
calls holding ... waits this morning have been moderate."

It's hard to believe that the system is entirely automated. A friend who
worked at Dytel tells me that they electronically assemble these reports
from digital snippets just like the "The number you have reached 5 - 5 - 5
 .." messages from Ma Bell.

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

From: "Steven S. Brack" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID From US PBXs
Reply-To: "Steven S. Brack" <isis![e-mail]>
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix (sponsored by U. of Denver Math/CS dept.)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 91 20:07:18 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Eric Skinner) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 283, Message 3 of 8

> Bell returns the number of the calling trunk, which may be the correct
> number to call, or which may be an outgoing-only trunk leading from a PBX.
> The company's main number or a DID number would be appropriate in this
> case.

    When I dial the local Pizza-Hut delivery number, their display
returns the number of the outgoing trunk (614) 291-276X I'm on, not my
phone number.  It kind of surprised me that local businesses were
getting any ID at all from Ohio Bell, as I didn't think Ohio Bell was
approved to offer a service that looks & acts exactly like Caller*ID.
Anyway, some details about our system: The University runs its own
switch, and you can dial nearly any University phone directly from off
campus by dialing 29N-XXXX, where N-XXXX is the on-campus extension
number, N being a 2 or a 3.

My questions:

    (1) What will Caller*ID show as my number?
    (2) What does E911 get as my number?
    (3) What would an Ohio Bell trace show as my number?

P.S.: Any telecommers in the Columbus area: you may be interested in
the tour of Ohio State's Telecommunications Center.


Steven S. Brack      [e-mail]      I don't speak for OSU.
BitNet: [e-mail]

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

Subject: The Dangers of Cellular Car Phones
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 91 07:19:34 MST
From: Geoff Goodfellow <[e-mail]>


  From: [e-mail] (Dave Turner)
  Subject: Noted from Herb Caen
  Keywords: funny, true

Excerpted From Herb Caen's column in the {San Francisco Chronicle},
Monday, April 8, 1991.

  TALKSHOW: KQED radio announced a few days ago that due to lack of
funding, it was canceling its "Perspectives" commentaries. Next
morning, Doug Edwards was checking the call-in tape for listener
reaction and came across this from a women on her car phone: "My name
is Julia. Longtime listener. I'm very upset that you're canceling
'Perspectives' and I'm considering canceling my support. Please
reinstate --," followed by the sound of squealing brakes, a crash,
shattering glass, and Julia yelling "Oh s---, you've made me so mad I
just rear-ended the f---er in front of me. Have to go now." Click.
Poor Julia. Funds were restored, and "Perspectives" is back on the
air.

[KQED is a listener supported public radio station.]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #297
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14842;
          23 Apr 91 2:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00059;
          23 Apr 91 0:45 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06895;
          22 Apr 91 23:38 CDT
Date:     Mon, 22 Apr 91 23:36:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #299
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 22 Apr 91 23:35:40 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 299

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Contel/GTE Merger [John Higdon]
    Cellular 611 Not Always Free [David E. Sheafer]
    'Dumb' PBX Wanted [Larry Rachman]
    Bitview Data Line Monitor [Ken Mandelberg]
    US Answering Machine in Israel [Joel Spolsky]
    You Can Run But You Cannot Hide [Tim Irvin]
    Cellular Phone Helps Catch Robbery Suspects [Mark Brader]
    Re: Radio Reception on Telephone [Nick Sayer]
    Re: Radio Reception on Telephone [Robert Dinse]
    Re: Radio Reception on Telephone [H. Peter Anvin]
    Re: Source For Special Screwdriver Wanted [Jeff Carroll]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Apr 91 22:13 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: The Contel/GTE Merger


Here is the party line presented to Contel customers as quoted from my
bill insert (heaven help us):

"Shareholders of Contel Corporation and GTE Corporation have approved
the merger of the two companies, following an offer to merge made by
GTE in July, 1990. The merger will be the largest in the history of
the telecommunications industry. The merger is going through various
regulatory approvals and is expected to close as late as the second
quarter of 1991.

"As a result of the merger, Contel will become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of GTE Corporation, headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.
The deal calls for Contel shareholders to receive 1.27 shares of GTE
common stock for each share of Contel common stock.

"Contel serves over 3.2 million customers in 30 states, and provides
cellular service in 36 metropolitan cellular systems in the US.

"GTE provides local phone service to more than 14 million customers in
31 states. [I had no idea so many people were being screwed by GTE!] It
also provides cellular phone service in 34 metropolitan areas.

"The combined company's local exchange operations would be the
nation's largest, with a total of 17.7 million telephone lines, and
its cellular telephone business would be the nation's second-largest
with a service territory containing 50 million potential customers.

"In the interim, there will be no change in the way you do business
with Contel. We will keep you informed of developments."

How depressing! Actually there will be no need to notify Contel
customers when the takeover is complete. While GTE most probably will
not replace all of the digital equipment with SXS, some way will be
found to muck up the service. When calling the business office, the
customer will be greeted by a snippy GTE droid whose job it will be to
terminate the call as quickly as possible. Repair service will no
longer guarantee repair within twenty-four hours (or your monthly
service is free for the month), and will start tearing up repair
tickets and call them "resolved".

It is the end of an era for many happy Contel customers.


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

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

From: "David E. Sheafer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular 611 Not Always Free
Date: 22 Apr 91 12:04:12 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


I recently go my last Nynex Mobile bill and was suprised to see the
following charge:

207 000-0611 ROAM 1 min  0.52

Since I though 611 was free no matter where you were I called Nynex
customer service and asked them.

The woman said she though 611 was always free and to hold while she
checked with her supervisor.  A few minutes later she came and she
told me that 611 isn't always free when roaming.

So it looks like Maine Cellular charges roamers for dialing 611.

Has anyone else had similar occurrences?


David E. Sheafer
internet:  [e-mail]   or  uucp:      samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b
GEnie:     D.SHEAFER             Cleveland Freenet:    ap345
Bitnet:    Sheafer_davi@bentley


[Moderator's Note: I did some roaming of my own with two cellular
phones (one each A and B carriers) on the trip to Kansas and plan to
discuss my experiences soon.   PAT]

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

Date: 22 Apr 91 06:54:07 EDT
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: 'Dumb' PBX Wanted


Does anyone out there know of a 'dumb' pbx product. By that I mean a
box that would connect between a group of stations and a group of
trunks, and switch calls between them, but not under its own control.
Control information would come via a serial (or similar) port; eg. the
PBX and control device would communicate with messages like:

PBX> 'Line 5 is ringing'
CTRL> 'Connect Line 5 to station 7'
PBX> 'Station 3 dialed 9'
CTRL> 'Connect station 3 to trunk 12'

I have heard rumors of 'open architectures' for PBXs, but my limited
research indicates that they are only rumors. Also, cost *is* a
consideration, so the latest UltraTech ZX-10,000 is probably not what
I'm after.

Size of the system would initially be about eight each trunks and
stations, but would grow to about twice that.

One of those 'make your PC into a PBX' products that seemed to be all
the rage a few years ago might be just the ticket, if it came with the
right driver software, or docs, but I haven't heard much about these
products lately? Any pointers, or other comments.


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX      74066,[e-mail]

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

From: Ken Mandelberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bitview Data Line Monitor
Date: 22 Apr 91 14:17:59 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Dept of Math and CS


Bitview sells a data line monitor for $595. This is a handheld box
about the size of a breakout box, that monitors RS232 and displays the
traffic on a LCD display. It has an 8K buffer.

I've used fancy full size data analyzers before, and have found them
useful for tracking down all sorts of problem. Having a relatively low
cost portable monitor sounds like a great idea.

Has anyone tried the Bitview? Is there any competition?


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

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

From: Joel Spolsky <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Answering Machine in Israel
Date: 22 Apr 91 16:37:04 GMT
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158


Hi,

Does anybody know if an American answering machine will work in
Israel?


Thanks,

Joel Spolsky    [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: You Can Run But You Cannot Hide
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 12:44:16 -0400
From: [e-mail]


I recently moved from Tennessee to New Hampshire.  My phone service in
Tennessee included (among other lines and features) a main number and
a distinctive ringing number.  This service was disconnected 2/1/91,
with a recording placed on each number to direct calls to my new main
number and distinctive ring number respectively ( the point of which
is that these numbers are as yet not reassigned -- as you would
imagine anyway ).

Well, I got my final phone bill at the end of February, which was
paid, and I said adios to my old service (or so I thought).  Then a
couple of days ago I get a "Revised Final Bill" from South Central
Bell containing one AT&T long distance phone call made in March some
number I had never heard of (in Tennessee) to Ohio and charged to my
distinctive ring number.  Total charge $2.42.

The bill also contained a "Message" stating that "This Revised Final
Bill contains charges not previously billed to my account.
[paraphrasing from memory here] If you can not make payment in full at
this time, call the business office to arrange a convenient payment
schedule."  Gee, I wonder if I should finance that $2.42.

Well, anyway I called SCB and told them that I had not made this call.
The rep said it looked like a Third-Number call, but I would have to
call AT&T to clear it up.  (BTW, have any of you called AT&T recently?
Their reps are extremely irritating these days, "Thank you for calling
AT&T, how can I provide you with EXCELLLLLENT service today??" and at
the end of the call "If my supervisor were to call you would you say I
provided EXCELLLLLENT service?")  Sorry, I digress....

Anyway, called AT&T, said hey this ain't my call.  I explained to her
that the bill it was on was for xxx-xxxx (Main number), and that the
call was billed to yyy-yyyy (my distinctive ring number) -- which
confused the **** out of her.  She then read off the number the call
was placed from and told me that THAT was my old phone number -- I
disagreed.  She looked it up and told me it belonged to a Hotel and
according to her computer was linked to my old distinctive ring
number.  She removed the charge, and told me to call SCB back to tell
them to remove the link.

Well, not wanting to get billed for every phone call coming from a
hotel, I did just that.  Well, the SCB rep was confused, said such
things are impossible, and that I have nothing to worry about (we'll
see I guess).  She also mentioned that the AT&T rep had failed to
remove the local tax from my phone call ($.16) and that I had better
call them back or my account would end up being delinquent.

Nothing like spending an hour to save a couple bucks, huh.  And
hopefully I would receive a bill next month for every LD call made by
the guests of this hotel.


Tim Irvin

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

Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1991 15:59:00 -0400
From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Helps Catch Robbery Suspects
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


A story printed in the {Toronto Star} on March 2 has just come to my
attention.

It seems that a 25-year-old businessman ("Dave") in the Toronto suburb
of North York was in his bank to make a deposit when three masked
people came in, one carrying a rifle.  Dave quickly returned to his
car, where his assistant ("Sanka", 22) was waiting.  She called 911 on
the car's cellular phone.

The robbers left the bank (with about $10,000) and drove off before
the police could arrive.  Dave gave chase.  The story notes that
speeds "topping 100 km/h (60 mph)" were reached on side streets, and
that "At one point, Dave drove through a red light, trying to attract
the attention of a nearby police cruiser."  That car and other police
cars soon joined in the chase ("following Sanka's directions" -- so
did he really need to attract attention as stated, or was that really
just to continue the chase?).

After "about six minutes", the pursued car went out of control and
three suspects were arrested.  Dave and Sanka were praised by police
for their assistance.

(Discussion of high-speed chases on side streets is not relevant to
TELECOM Digest, of course.)


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

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

From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Reception on Telephone
Date: 22 Apr 91 04:06:36 GMT
Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA


[e-mail] writes:

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

>> A friend of mine has a problem with radio reception on his home
>> telephone.  The FCC told him to use a choke.  That's it!?  He hasn't
>> tried this yet, but I'd like to know what his other options are.
>> Also, I'd appreciate knowing the theory behind this.

> Perhaps the basic idea is to find the person operating the transmitter
> and choke him.

Dan just lit my fuse.

I am an amateur radio operator and have been on the receiving end of
an irate neighbor who had a shoddy "Time Magazine" phone. My
transmitter, operating legally, and in total compliance with FCC
regulations (and then some!) was blamed by the idiot because, of
course, nothing ever went wrong when I was not transmitting.

In RFI troubleshooting, being "the cause" and being "at fault" are two
different things. It's stupid and irresponsible remarks like Dan's
that continue to perpetuate the attitude that force Hams to constantly
be on the defensive. Dan owes all of us (450,000 in the United States
alone) an appology.


Nick Sayer      [e-mail]
N6QQQ  [44.2.1.17]   209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Dinse)
Subject: Re: Radio Reception on Telephone
Date: 22 Apr 91 17:57:15 GMT
Organization: ESKIMO NORTH [phone] SEATTLE WA.


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

> A friend of mine has a problem with radio reception on his home
> telephone.  The FCC told him to use a choke.  That's it!?  He hasn't
> tried this yet, but I'd like to know what his other options are.
> Also, I'd appreciate knowing the theory behind this.

     I am fortunate enough to live close to a 50 KW AM stations
transmitter tower and it has the unfortunate side effect of turning
everything into a radio receiver. A couple of .001 capacitors from
each side of the line to ground seems to work adequately for getting
the RF out of the phone here.

     But another thing that can complicate the issue, the RF would
never be detected and become audio if it weren't for something
non-linear playing detector. As it happens, phones generally have
clipping diodes across the receiver, the purpose of which is to keep
clicks from blowing your ear-drums out, but they also tend to make
good RF detectors.

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

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Reception on Telephone
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1991 15:40:06 GMT

>> A friend of mine has a problem with radio reception on his home
>> telephone.  The FCC told him to use a choke.  That's it!?  He hasn't
>> tried this yet, but I'd like to know what his other options are.
>> Also, I'd appreciate knowing the theory behind this.

Well, a "choke" is a fairly simple device consisting mainly of
capacitors and inductors and the purpouse of which is to short out the
RF radiation before it gets detected in your phone.  It can be
effective sometimes, and totally worthless at times.

> Perhaps the basic idea is to find the person operating the transmitter
> and choke him.

Aaahh, that is why you can always read in ham radio magazines about
angry neighbours coming to the local ham to complain about RFI and TVI
(Radio Frequency Interference and TeleVision Interference) BEFORE they
even have gotten the transmitter out of the box.  Yes, that seems
quite common.


IDENTITY:   Anvin, H. Peter           STATUS:    Student
INTERNET:   [e-mail]   FIDONET:   1:115/989.4
HAM RADIO:  N9ITP, SM4TKN             RBBSNET:   8:970/101.4
EDITOR OF:  The Stillwaters BBS List  TEACHING:  Swedish

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Source For Special Screwdriver Wanted
Date: 22 Apr 91 18:48:20 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


In article <[e-mail]> bcstec!sleepy!allyn@uunet.
uu.net (Mark Allyn) writes:

> Try Boeing Surplus in Kent, Washington. They are the surplus outlet for
> the Boeing Company and you find all kinds of incredibly wierd tools there.

    Yes, and most of them are broken. The usable stuff usually
gets skimmed off before it ever hits the floor of the surplus store,
diverted to area residents with contacts in the Boeing surplus
department, or sold in bulk to quantity buyers.

    Case in point is the local cult of "I want a VAX in my
basement" types, who are well connected to Boeing Surplus about the
impending arrival of any DEC product.

    Last time I was there, though, there was a WHOLE BASKET of
Anderson-Jacobson 300 baud acoustically-coupled modems going for $10
each :^).

    Sometimes you can find servicable used office furniture there,
but IMHO it is definitely a hit/miss proposition.


Jeff Carroll   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #299
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17329;
          23 Apr 91 3:18 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26786;
          23 Apr 91 1:49 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00059;
          23 Apr 91 0:45 CDT
Date:     Tue, 23 Apr 91 0:00:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #300
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 Apr 91 00:00:03 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 300

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing [Larry Lippman]
    Re: Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit [Tim Irvin]
    High Performance Computing Act (Nat'l Research & Education Net) [N. Allen]
    Re: Computer/Telex Interface [Nigel Allen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Comments on History of Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing
Date: 22 Apr 91 23:09:46 EST (Mon)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Donald E. Kimberlin) writes:

>         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.

    The first all-relay central office installation by the North
Electric Company was made in Lima, Ohio in 1914.  This apparatus
design was largely based upon patents issued to Edward E. Clement
beginning in 1906.

> Its name, PAX, is the source of this term in the non-Bell
> telephone industry.

    I always understood the term "PAX" to have been coined by the
Automatic Electric Company.  They certainly used it enough in their
literature and technical manuals!  My 1932 edition of "Telephone
Theory and Practice" by Kempster Miller explicitly gives credit to
Automatic Electric for the term "PAX".

>         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.

    My late-1920's vintage Kellog catalog describes their handset
with the tradename "MasterphonE" (that's really a trailing uppercase
E), "being the product of twenty years of development" - which is
consistent with the 1906 date above.  They also describe the handset
as being constructed from "Kellite", which I suspect is either
bakelite or hard rubber.

    It is also amusing to note that while this catalog gives an
address for Kellog at 1066 West Adams St. in Chicago, they give no
telephone number!

    In my opinion, not all Kellog products were winners, though.

    Kellog produced a bizarre dial intercom system during the
1930's and 1940's which used a single selector that was a cross
between a rotary stepping switch and an X-Y switch (the mechanism is
difficult to describe without a drawing).  This was a dial intercom
which had a basic capacity of 19 stations.  The station numbering went
1, 2, ... 8, 9, 01, 02, ... 09, and 00.  The stepping switch was
positioned at the *total* of the dialed pulses.  If you dialed rapidly
(the inter-digit timing control was crude), you could reach station
"8" by dialing 5 followed by 3, or station "09" by dialing 5 followed
by 6 followed by 8, etc.!  This intercom was really a piece of junk,
though, and while the stations resembled standard dial telephones,
they did not even have sidetone reduction networks.

    Somewhere in my collection I have one of these Kellog dial
intercoms, plus other pre-ITT Kellog artifacts.  I bought most of them
about twenty years ago at a liquidation auction of the Larkin Sound
Company in Buffalo, NY.  Larkin Sound was a major distributor of
Kellog products from the 1920's through 1950's.  Larkin Sound was
rather well known at one time, having been founded by a descendant of
the family who operated the Larkin Products Company, which ran a mail
order operation whose size rivaled that of Sears Roebuck and
Montgomery Ward in the early 1900's.  But I digress...

> Kellogg remained a power in the non-Bell industry until ITT bought
> it in 1952,

    ITT cleaned house at Kellog, with one of the first products to
get the ax being the above dial intercom system!

> 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.

    In my opinion, GTE/AECo copied little from the Bell System.
GTE did many things the AECo way.  The GTE telephones were primarily
descendents of the AECo "Monophone".  The handsets, transmitters,
receivers, network, dial and ringer were *pure* AECo, and had no
design based upon WECo.  As an example, the GTE/AECo "Styleline"
telephone, which externally was similar to the WECo "Trimline", was
totally different in internal design; even the handset cord connector
design was different.

    Offhand, the only significant item of similarity was that the
GTE/AECo 1A2 key telephone system used a clone of the WECo 584 panel.
However, all KTU's and key telephone sets were of totally different
design than that of WECo.  An interesting GTE/AECo "innovation" was a
synthesized music-on-hold generator card; whether its synthesized
"music" (really!) was better than silence is debatable. :-)

    GTE/AECo relied heavily upon the Suttle Apparatus Company for
connecting blocks, jacks, etc.  GTE/AECo also provided modular jacks
long before they became the norm in the Bell System.  I first saw
modular jacks from GTE/AECo around 1970 - before I ever saw them in
the Bell System.  I said to myself at the time that "these dinky plugs
(as opposed to a 505A plug) will never work".  Boy, was I wrong! :-)

> 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-Carlson has led a checkered existence in the past
twenty years.  They were a division of General Dynamics that was
largely based in Rochester, NY; however, General Dynamics closed most
of the Rochester operation around 1970 and moved the corporate
headquarters and much of the operation to Tampa, FL.  Stromberg-
Carlson did a significant amount of military business; I believe that
General Dynamics may have absorbed that business into another
division, while leaving Stromberg-Carlson as a provider of solely
domestic telephone apparatus.  I am not certain of the subsequent
changes, though.  The remains of Stromberg-Carlson changed their name
to Comdial during the early 1980's, but may have now changed it back.
I believe they may have also been acquired by Plessey.  I have been
out of the telephone industry mainstream for too many years to keep
track of these things; perhaps another reader knows of their present
fate.

    Interestingly enough, while Rochester Telephone may have once
depended upon Stromberg-Carlson for switching apparatus, this changed
significantly during the 1950's.  For major central office
installations, Stromberg-Carlson became one of the largest non-Bell
customers of Western Electric, and installed No. 5 XBAR like it was
going out of style.  As soon as they could get it, Rochester Telephone
installed No. 1 ESS, followed by TSPS and newer generation WECo ESS
products.  Rochester Telephone even had one of the first WECo No. 1
SPC's that was running an electronic tandem network (for Kodak?).
They even had one of the first TSPS installations with an RTA, which I
always thought was unusual considering how central the city of
Rochester was to their operations.  Their outlying CDO's may still
have some X-Y, but most should have already been replaced by WECo
(actually AT&T Network Systems) and Northern Telecom DMS-series
apparatus.

>         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.

    X-Y is a progressive control system, not unlike that of SxS.

    I have worked with X-Y apparatus and never liked it.  In my
opinion it was some of the most inferior CO apparatus ever built.  The
X-Y bank multiple wires are extremely fragile and prone to dirt and
grease contamination that cannot be easily cleaned (as opposed to SxS
rotary banks which are easy to clean).  If the wires get bent for some
reason (like by an improperly adjusted or inserted switch, or through
careless cleaning), no amount of adjustment and cajoling will ever get
them straight enough for continued, reliable operation.

    X-Y PABX's were common, especially the Stromberg-Carlson F40
(40-line) and F80 (80-line).

>         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 development 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.

    Leich was acquired by Automatic Electric before it in turn was
acquired by GTE.  The Leich switch mechanism is called "cross-point",
and would be difficult to describe without illustrations.  The Leich
system is common control, but uses a very simple concept with the
common control function being primarily a "link allotter" circuit.
This type of common control is far simpler than say, a marker in a
crossbar system.

    The Leich switch was used for small CO's up to a few hundred
lines.  The Leich switch was far more popular as a PABX, with the two
most common models being the Leich 40 and the Leich 80.  For many
years these Leich products competed with the Stromberg-Carlson F40 and
F80 for the lion's share of the independent operating telephone
company small PABX market.

    In my opinion, the Leich PABX's were far more reliable than
the X-Y PABX's since the Leich apparatus had no mechanical stepping
and timing mechanisms.  The crosspoint switch had hold and select
magnets not unlike that of a crossbar switch; everything else were
relays.  The Leich relays were flat spring in nature; they were fairly
reliable but once out of adjustment were a real bear requiring a
special type of finesse.  I have learned The Hard Way that the more
one adjusts a Leich relay, the worse it gets! :-)

    The Leich PABX was also interesting in that it was a single
stage switch that was non-blocking; i.e., all stations had access to
all trunks.

    During the early 1970's GTE/AECo made a considerable effort to
upgrade the Leich PABX line into the 40B and 80B models.  They
replaced a rather clunky looking console with one that was truly state
of the art.  They provided a touch-tone feature, and made numerous
improvements in electrical and mechanical design.

    I suspect there are AECo/Leich PABX's still in service.  GTE,
in what may be viewed as an unusual move for the time, formed their
own interconnect installation organization in the early 1970's.  They
not only sold the GTE/AECo apparatus to other interconnect companies,
but in certain major cities installed it themselves.  The GTE
interconnect organization was headquartered in Stamford, CT.  They had
various major nationwide accounts during the 1970's, one of which was
the Mariott hotel chain.


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

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Wanted: Answering Machine Autodisconnect Circuit
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 91 12:43:34 -0400
From: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest V11 #297, is written:

> Could anyone give me pointers to a circuit which would automatically
> disconnect an answering machine when at least one phone connected to
> the line is off hook (picked up), and restore the normal operating
> state of the answering machine, when all phones are back on hook.

I have such a device, called PHONE ALONE.  When any extension in the
house is picked up, it disconnects whatever device is connected to it
(in my case an answering machine), but it is advertised to be used
with a phone extension (for privacy).  When the extension is hung-up
it resets to normal operation.

I believe I got this sucker from The $harper Image.  If you can't find
it let me know and I'll try to find out where it can be had.


Tim Irvin

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

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 91 00:30 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: High Performance Computing Act (Nat'l Research & Education Net)
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto


I saw the following message in comp.misc, and thought it might be of
interest to TELECOM readers. "Today" in Raul Rockwell's message is
April 18.

 From: [e-mail] (Raul Rockwell)
 Newsgroups: comp.misc
 Subject: High Performance Computing Act (Nat'l Research & Education Net)
 Date: 18 Apr 91 19:20:49 GMT
 Organization: The University of Maryland University College

I happened to notice that the House passed its version of the High
Performance Computing Act today (H.R. 656, if I remember right).
That's the beastie that would establish a multi-gigabit long-haul
network (Nation Research and Education Network).  This thing has been
kicking around for several congresses, but this time it seemes to be
flying through committees -- if I had to guess, I'd guess that it will
become law sometime this year.

Quick recap of the bill:

(*) it directs a bunch of agencies to allow grant money to be spent on
funding the network.

(*) there are a batch of studies that are to be done, and Congress and
the President are supposed to review some of these studies annually.

(*) National Science Foundation is supposed to be connecting colleges,
universities and libraries to the net.

(*) DARPA does R&D for fiber optics, switches and protocols

(*) NIST is supposed to adopt standards and guidelines (hopefully good
ones).

(*) NASA does research on high performace computing (mostly
aeronautics, and remote sensing stuff).

(*) supposedly, private industry is supposed to be kept in the action
and there is stuff in there about user fees where practical.  [I kinda
hope this is more for high-volume activities that the new net would
make possible, not "small" things like ftping to some college).

Supposedly, the net is supposed to be in operation by 1996.  The cost
estimate is just a hair under two billion dollars.


Raul Rockwell

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

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 91 04:39 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Computer/Telex Interface
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Someone was asking about a computer-to-Telex interface.

I just came across an advertisement in {Unix Review} for a fax server
that can also interface with Telex.  (Perhaps the company also makes a
true Telex server, but I didn't check.) I know nothing about the
company beyond its claims in the ad.

The ad says that FaxLink:

  is a fax server
  allows multi-user systems to access the fax world from user's terminal
  is stand alone and hardware independent
  can send graphic letterheads and user signatures
  retries busy lines, or sends scheduled faxes after hours
  optionally, can Telex via Western Union* services
  saves time and money by directly sending a fax from the user's terminal
  integrates into applications easily

For more information on Fax-Link, contact:

  Intuitive Technology Inc.
  30 Colony Park Circle
  Galveston, Texas 77551
  telephone [phone]
  fax [phone]

*Yes, I know that Western Union sold its Telex business to AT&T.  I'm
just quoting from the ad.

Perhaps other fax servers also have a Telex interface. The original
poster may want to investigate this. I don't know much about fax
servers myself.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #300
******************************