Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss351-400

Text File | 1991-05-26 | 841.1 KB | 21,003 lines

ISSUE 351 WAS DELAYED IN TRANSMISSION AND APPEARS FOLLOWING 354.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14144;
          13 May 91 1:47 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22269;
          13 May 91 0:16 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01538;
          12 May 91 23:09 CDT
Date:     Sun, 12 May 91 22:12:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #352
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 May 91 22:12:03 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 352

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [Carol Springs]
    Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c per Call Charge? [Kath Mullholand]
    Calling Card Rates [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Adding a Modem to System 85 Set [Dave Levenson]
    Butt Set with Digit Grabber [Paul Guthrie]
    Another COCOT Complaint [William F. Wicks]
    Limited Area 800 Lines [Andy Jacobson]
    ITT - Comments Solicited [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993 [Dave Leibold]
    Roaming - Changing Service Areas [Ron Heiby]
    Peculiar Intercept Recording [William Degnan]
    Followup on International Tariffs [Bryan Montgomery]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 May 91 19:14:31 -0400
From: Carol Springs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge?
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die


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

> If you have Sprint Plus, the volume discount plan, FON card
> calls are counted toward the total call volume that determines the
> discount for direct dialed calls, but the FON card calls themselves
> don't get the discount.

If you make, say, $25 worth of calls and get a ten per cent volume
discount, the FONcard charges are indeed discounted at ten per cent as
well.  For example, on a recent bill, my pre-tax charges for 1+ calls
were $21 and my FONcard calls were $6.20, for a total of $27.20.  The
discount was $2.72.

Aside from the 75-cent surcharge, the bad thing about FONcard calls
under Sprint Plus is that night rates do not start at 5:00 p.m. the
way they do with 1+ calls.


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 9 May 1991 20:51:09 EDT
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c per Call Charge?


Our Sprint rep just visited us today, and said the FonCard charge was
25c per call.  This may be just for us because we are on VPN, however.


Kath Mullholand         UNH  Durham, NH

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 91 11:32:02 -0400
From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Card Rates


Here are the calling card rates for the various long distence
companies:

Sprint, Telecom*USA/MCI, MCI .75 on all access numbers

VisaPhone/MasterPhone by MCI .70 on all calls .20/.13/.10 (?)

MetroMeadia .75 on 800 access near the same as 1+ via 950-1011/950-0488 is
   slightly higher.

Allnet 8-6 weekdays .36/min .30/min all other times.. 10% discount to
   home area/weekend ... 15% discount certain cities.

SouthernNet/Telecom*USA - .47 .36 .30 per min on SoutherNet travel card
   950 access same as 1+ ... Star Card .30 surchange
q
AT&T .80 ..Universal Card is 10% off total call so surcharge is .72

ATC - No surcharge for local access number or 950

800 varies by division:

    MicroTel - .65 + .29 /.27 /.24 per min

    Telus -    .65 + .235 .16

    SouthTel  to FLorida .44 .37 .27
              elsewhere  .505 .485 .465

I think that covers everything.

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Adding a Modem to System 85 Set
Date: 10 May 91 03:51:51 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> I just had my phone switched from an 'analog' (standard 2500 set) to a
> AT&T ten button 'digital' set on our System 85 to gain an additional
> two lines.

> In doing that, I lost the ability to use a modem on the line. Is there
> any way to use a standard telephone device (like a modem or answering
> machine) with this phone? It's got a second eight-pin RJ- jack on the
> back marked 'OTHER'...

No, there isn't any way to connect a modem, but there shouldn't be any
need to.  If you've got a digital station line from a System 85 PBX,
replace your digital voice terminal with one that has a data and voice
capability.  It won't give you an RJ-11 jack; it will give you an
RS-232 interface.  You connect that to your data terminal equipment
(or computer) and you get connectivity at speeds up to 9600 bps
through the PBX to other digital terminals.  If your PBX has a modem
pool, it will also allow you to dial outbound calls, and will insert a
modem from its pool if your call goes out to an analog data station.


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: Paul Guthrie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Butt Set with Digit Grabber
Organization: The League of Crafty Hackers
Date: Mon, 06 May 1991 16:29:28 GMT


Does anyone know of a butt-set with a built in digit grabber?  I used
to have a Ziad (??) that did this, but am unable to find Ziad's in the
usual places (Greybar, Famous Telephone Supply).  So, could someone
give me a pointer on where to purchase a Ziad, or a suitable
alternative?


Paul Guthrie chinet!nsacray!paul or [e-mail]   or   attmail!balr!pdg

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

Date: Thu, 9 May 91 14:19:55 CDT
From: "William F. Wicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another COCOT Complaint


The reason I am writin is that I remember (I think) that if you come
across a COCOT that does not allow equal access via 10288, that you
can write or call someone (FCC?) to complain.  I would appreciate it
if you could provide me with this address or phone number for the
Chicago/Suburban area.  I was on my way to a softball game and it
started to rain hard so I decided to pull over to a Shell gas station
and call my manager.  I didn't think I had any change on me so I tried
to use my calling card, and dialed 1028 and immediately after the 8, I
got a computer voice recording saying that this was an invalid
number!!  If you can help me out with this I would be very thankful.
I will also bring this matter up with the owner of the Shell station.

Thank you in advance,


Bill Wicks     Motorola, Inc.
Radio-Telephone Systems Group   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I don't know of any specific organization here
working on the problem. You can lodge complaints with the Illinois
Commerce Commission (telephone division) at their Chicago office, or
you can contact the FCC. The best bet would probably be the owner of
the gas station.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 09 May 91 22:12 PDT
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Limited Area 800 Lines


In TELECOM Digest V11 #333

> Moderator's Note: In olden-times, when AT&T was the sole player, 800
> prefixes did indeed match up to specific states or geographic areas.
> They were also tied into 'calling bands', indicating if calls to the
> 800 number would be accepted nationwide, or only from certain states.
> Now, statewide only or limited area 800 lines are rather scarce. Most
> folks have nationwide coverage on their 800 lines, and the prefixes
> denote *which carrier* handles the traffic except in AT&T's case where
> their (numerous) prefixes still to some extent denote a geographic
> area and/or type of call to be accepted.


Is this incomming WATS service rather scarce? I know of many companies
that have calls routed to different 800 numbers depending on the
calling region. These numbers are not dialable outside of their
region. In fact it seems the larger the company (distributorships),
the more likely this arrangement. I know of only one example, a herb
and spice shop called No Common Scents in Yellow Springs Ohio, who
have an 800 number available in only one region (OH, PA, KY, IN, MI),
but I'm sure there are still many out there. Does anyone know if the
one region only type service is grandfathered, or just fallen to
disuse.

TELECOM Digest V11 #334

> Moderator's Note: This is about the same thing that happened here in
> Chicago. 312 is exclusive to postal code 606xx, while 708 is found in
> the 600, 601, 604, and 605xx areas.  PAT

But Pat, what about 602xx, the huge suburban (708) postal code for
little Evanston?

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

[Moderator's Note: I should have included 602xx, and in fact Carl
Moore noted this in a followup message. Regards limited area WATS
lines incoming and outgoing, I suppose you can still get them, but I
can't imagine it being worth the trouble unless you have a huge volume
of incoming/outgoing WATS calls where every penny counts. I suppose a
lot of large users do fall in that catgory however.   PAT]

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: ITT - Comments Solicited
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 16:30:09 GMT


A recent article recommended ITT for no-surcharge calling cards. Since
I, too, originally selected MCI for "around town" use, I'm interested.

I checked, and found that there is no 10ITT access here, but 950-0ITT
yields a dial tone. What is ITT's profile? Cut rates, deep discount
quality? Are the lines good enough for modem use?  What kind of
international calling plans do they have?


Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer
CMC Rockwell  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed,  8 May 91 23:43:00 PST
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 416 to Split to 416 and 905, October 4th, 1993
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Some recent notes on 416/905 split postings...

Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>:

>  (I'm M6G 1V3) while the areas adjacent to Metro Toronto have codes
>  beginning with L, the postal code boundary coincides with the new area
>  code boundary.  If your postal code begins M, you remain in 416; if
>  you are now in 416 and your postal code begins with L, you switch to
>  905.

Postal area M = new area 416 boundary is correct; however, the mapping
of postal L = 905 will not be exact. Some postal codes in the
Collingwood ON area begin with L, yet are in NPA 705 (to be confused
with the new and adjoining NPA 905). Meanwhile, some of the farthest
reaches of 416 have municipalities whose postal codes begin with N
(southwest Ontario) or K (eastern Ontario).  Dunnville is in 416, yet
postal codes begin with N1A. Cobourg, also in 416, has postal codes
beginning with K9A.

Mark Brader:

>  By the 1991 phone book, the prefixes in Metro Toronto are as follows.
>  Errors are mine.  461-3,5-7,9 means 461 462 463 465 466 467 469.
>  <Toronto prefixes listed>

Actually, there are many more prefixes than Bell Canada lists in its
phone books. There are cellular ones like Cantel's 416-520; then there
are pager ones like 416-379. Then there are various test exchanges
that occupy space on the numbering plan. It seems likely that
Toronto-based cell and page numbers will stay in 416; anything based
outside is 905-bound.

Bell is also notorious for errors in listing its prefixes.  Notice
that 416-226 prefix didn't get listed in the '91 Toronto directory,
though it is supposed to be active.

A 416 prefix chart should be in the Archives ... those in Toronto (or
cellular or pager) will remain in 416 after 1993. Any other place name
will go to 905.

Some other notes about the split:

 - Pearson International Airport, serving Toronto, will be located in
905; travellers would have to adjust to the code split.

 - as for the 210 area code I have mentioned in previous posts, it
still would have been a better assignment in many respects that 905;
the aforementioned similarity with 705 to the north is one
shortcoming; the longer rotary dialing needed for all those
cross-boundary local calls (905 vs 210) is another (Bell Canada
charges a significant monthly premium for tone dialing). Is 210
secretly taken for something already?

 - there is the "Taco Bell" effect of assigning Mexico's old area
code. A recent Howard Johnsons motel guide still lists a Mexico City
number with the (905) code, despite its official retirement as such.


David Leibold    replies: [e-mail]
Dave Leibold - via IMEx node 89:681/1
[e-mail]

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

From: Ron Heiby <[e-mail]>
Subject: Roaming - Changing Service Areas
Date: 9 May 91 13:03:49 GMT
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL


Pat, in your article about "Roaming Through the Midwest", you said, "I
kept entering *18 on the Ameritech phone each time we would enter a
new service area, ..."  How did you know that you had entered a new
service area?  Do you use a map?  Does your phone display the ID
number of the service being used?  Did you just note when you lost
service and picked it up again?  If the last, what about areas like
going North out of Chicago (which you didn't do on your trip, I know),
where the service area for Chicago and for Milwaukee overlap?  Since I
have my home service in Chicago, its easy to see the home-service
(green) light switch to the "Roam" light.  But, someone already
roaming in Chicago wouldn't have that clue.


Ron Heiby,   [e-mail]    Moderator: comp.newprod


[Moderator's Note: My phones do not display the system ID. I just keep
noting them changing from 'rom' to 'no service' and back to 'roam'
again. Each time I saw us going into a new area, I would use *18 to
move the follow-me system to wherever I was at, and at the same time
to cancel it out in the previous territory. Going north from Chicago,
a wise idea would be to do *18 when you enter Wisconsin.    PAT]

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

Date: Wed,  8 May 91 22:24:00 PST
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Peculiar Intercept Recording
Reply-to: [e-mail]


[The following is a posting from (presumably) the Fidonet MDF
echo conference... djcl]

 * Originally to All
 * Forwarded by Dave Leibold

I hit an interesting recording the other day.

"I'm sorry. (NXX-XXXX) ... is a working number. Please try your call
again later."

Interesting combination. Why would SWB be sorry the guy had a
working number? And if it _is_ a working number ... well why
doesn't it ... work?

Regards,

Bill

Origin: Private Line - Austin TX [Have Briefcase/Will Travel] (1:382/39)

William Degnan - via IMEx node 89:681/1
[e-mail]

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

Date: 9 May 1991, 09:25:41 BST
From: BMONTGOM at HVTVM4
Subject: Followup on International Tariffs


Hello,

A while ago there was a posting asking for international tariffs. I
have managed to get together this information. I thought I had noted
the original poster but I had the wrong person. Sorry Jim.

Additionally I would be in interested in any info that you have
regarding calls from US-UK and UK-US. I hope this is of interest;

 pounds sterling $ = US dollars (these symbols are reversed on my
system)

  Using: British Telecom to North America (cheapest rate) 0.603/min
         Mercury              "      "                    0.465/min
         MCI call USA $2 charge+(??) $1.43 for 3 min then $0.930/min
         AT&TUSA Direct $2.5 charge, $1.20 for 3 min then $0.940/min

(Orginally ATT used to vary additional mins (71 & 60c) depending on
time of day but it now appears to be a flat rate as with MCI.)


I hope that this may be of use to you and look forward to any comments
that you have. If required I could additionally find tarrifs from BT to
other destinations. All the best.


Cheers,

Bryan Montgomery

PS There was a posting the other day regarding information for fibre
cables for someone in IBM (or so it seemed). I'm not convinced that
the E-mail address given was correct. If any mail gets bounced,
forward it to me and I'll do my best to find the rightful owner.


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #352
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16710;
          13 May 91 2:54 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03148;
          13 May 91 1:23 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad22269;
          13 May 91 0:17 CDT
Date:     Sun, 12 May 91 23:43:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #353
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 May 91 23:43:30 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 353

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Sad News Reaches Us: Borow Was Fired [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience [Ralph W. Hyre]
    Details of NYNEX Phonesmart(sm) Proposal for MA [Steven L. Finberg]
    International Dialing and Area Codes [Douglas W. Martin]
    Watson Systems Questions [Mike Whitman]
    Please Update Your Switch to Allow 713-743 Prefix [J.B. Milleri]]
    Good Sources for DSU/CSUs? [Jesse W. Asher]
    Steve Jackson Files Suit Against Secret Service, et al. [Brett Slocum]
    Ithaca, NY Central Office Tour Planned [Steve Gaarder]
    Some Abbreviation Questions [Sean Petty]
    Re: MCI Suspends New 900 Applications [John Boteler]
    Re: Calling 905 from 416 Area [Tony Harminc]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri May 10 09:02:42 CDT 1991
Subject: The Sad News Reaches Us: Borow Was Fired


I received the following note in my mail yesterday. Since it was sent
to me personally as a list-maintainence request, I've deleted the name
of the person who sent it. Besides which, based on what he says in the
note, I'm not sure his supervisor(s) would approve of it being sent
 ... at least not the final part.

> Dear Pat, Please remove me from the Telecom Digest mailing list.  We
> are no longer authorized to receive messages from outside of the
> company.  On a final note Randy was terminated on 5/8/91. This has not
> been a very pleasant week in our office.

> Thanks,

(name omitted)

This came from someone at the same AT&T office as Randy ... I'm sorry
this led up to the point that outside email is no longer welcome in
the office.  I've forwarded a copy of this to telecom-priv also.


PAT

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

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience
Date: 10 May 91 13:18:25 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Derek
E. Terveer) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 344, Message 1 of 10


> [e-mail] (Jiro Nakamura) writes:

>> For my new line, I deliberately didn't order touch-tone service ...

> I agree.  For my data line, I specifically ordered it with just pulse

> The only potential disadvantage that I see is if I want my Unix box to
> call long distance and use some sort of calling card code number or
> something like that that requires touch-tone.

You can STILL send touch-tones over your phone line, whether you pay
for it or not.  When you pay your local phone company for 'touch-tone'
that just means you can dial your initial number using touch-tone.
They don't card what you dial once you are talking to your long
distance carrier/information provider whatever.

Calling card example: (manual dial)

pulse 10288 + 0 + 700 555 4141 [switch to tone] + Card Number

(My phone has a push button to switch to touch tone mode, so
it's really handy for this application.)

Modem example: (don't try this at home, my recollection of the Hayes
command set is fuzzy.)

ATDP1073207005554141T {card number digits}

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

From: "Steven L. Finberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Details of NYNEX Phonesmart(sm) Proposal for MA
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 10 May 91 14:16:12 GMT


The same day the official notice of hearings on CPID was published in
the {Boston Globe}, a nice slick pamphlet on Phonesmart(sm) arrived
from NET.

A couple of months ago I had requested information on when any
hearings would be held. They said nothing of the hearings but sent a
promotional piece instead along with an appology for taking so long,
from the External Affairs office.

The two color twelve-page piece extolls the virtues of Phonesmart(sm):

      "How to give your phone extraordinary capabilities"

and lists rates:

    1. Caller ID $4.95/month requires CPE readout.

    2. Call Trace $1.50/mo +$5 " processing fee for two sucessfull
        traces to the same telephone number."

    3. Repeat Dialing $2.25/month (Deamon Dialer goes for up to 30 min.)

    4. Call Return $2.25/month.

        3 and 4 together $3.95/month.

    A one time sign up fee of $5.70 applies to install as many
services as you sign up for at a time.  The sign up fee will be waved
for the first three months after service introduction.

    A mail in order form is included or one can call 1 800 922
8383 extension 980 to get "assistance".

    They plan to only offer per call blocking, which would be
invoked by dialing *67 (1167 rotary). In small type at the bottom of
the CPID page the explain how this is done and that a display will
show P or Private if Per Call Blocking is activated.

    You have to presubscribe to call trace for $1.50 and they
charge $5 if you use it and get a trace back to a given number
twice???  Little type says it works even if Per-Call Blocking is
activated.  Dosen't say what happens if the offensive calls come from
a different phone each night!  Call Trace is activated by dialling *57
(1157 rotary) immediately after the offensive call.

    Repeat Dialing is activated by *66 (1166) after getting a busy.

    Call Return *69 (1169 rotary) returns the last call received
whether or not answered. Works regardless of Per-Call Blocking.

Comments:

    1. They seem to have a fairly detailed sales flyer out, ready
to go, way before the DPU hearings are held.

    2. For those of us concerned about giving out unlisted numbers
Per-Call Blocking is not enough, all we have to do is make a toll call
which is "Call Returned" and the unlisted number apears on the bill at
the end of the month.  Not quite as fast but just as released :-(

 From the {Boston Globe} of 7 May 1991 P78,

"D.P.U. 91-64......

  " The Department will conduct a public hearing...  (in) room,1210
Leverett Saltonstall Building, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston MA on
Wednesday, May 29, 1991 at 2:00p.m.

" A procedural conference for parties who have formally intervened
will be held on May 30,1991 at 10:00 a.m. ......"

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 91 08:54:23 PDT
From: "Douglas W. Martin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Dialing and Area Codes


    1. How are international long-distance rates calculated?  Are
there some one-minute calls that would be extremely expensive?  For
example, does it cost a lot more to call some small town in Vanuatu or
Zambia than to call London or Paris?  I would be interested in some
comparative figures.

    2. There has been talk in this Digest about area codes like 820 to
cover parts of the NANP which are not presently accessable.  What
parts are these?  I would guess parts of the Yukon or the Northwest
Territories, but I thought most of these were accessable via 403-Alberta.
Could someone please explain.


Doug Martin   [e-mail]

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

From: Mike Whitman <pyrdc![e-mail]>
Subject: Watson Systems Questions
Date: 10 May 91 17:43:17 GMT
Organization: Pyramid Technology, Government Systems


I have just gotten a Watson system with some of the manuals missing.
If anyone out there could help me with the following questions I would
appreciate it.

I want to get the system to do the following:

    - message call back
    - set up conference calls
    - do automated surveys
    - use the printer to log all phone activity

If anyone can help, thanks.


Michael C. Whitman    Regional System Engineer - Telecom
Pyramid Technology Corporation   1921 Gallows Road, Suite 250
Vienna, VA 22182  Phone: [phone]     Pager: (800) sky-page pin# 45300

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Please Update Your Switch to Allow 713-743 Prefix
Date: 10 May 91 13:38:34 CDT
Organization: University of Houston


    The University of Houston has just installed a new ROLM CBX
for several departments on its main campus.  Because of the critical
nature of the research being done in these departments it is
imparitive that they receive all calls to them.  Unfortunately we have
experienced blockage of the new prefix activated for their new switch.
If you are the manager of your University's or Company's PBX or know
the person who is, would you please check to see if in the 713 area
code (Houston Texas), your switch is allowing the 743 prefix to be
completed.

    Your assistance in this emergency situation would be greatly
appreciated by the University of Houston and the Texas Center for
Superconductivity.


Joe Miller   Assistant Director
Telecommunications   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well, you have reached an audience here that can
help you, if anyone can. I am reminded of a large firm in downtown
Chicago which uses my services from time to time. They have a large
Rolm PBX, but no one around who knows how to program it. I told them
it was refusing to accept calls to 708-518 (the exchange where my
voicemail is located.) They ignored my several requests to fix it, so
I changed my phone number in their records to 708-518-6335, and told
them when you get it fixed, you'll be able to call me again. They just
about went crazy at that ... but a month later, it was working.  PAT]

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

From: "Jesse W. Asher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Good Sources For DSU/CSUs?
Reply-To: "Jesse W. Asher" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Health Sphere of America Inc.
Date: Fri, 10 May 91 15:50:08 GMT


We are about to purchase some CSUs and I'm looking for a good source
for some.  Right now we are looking at the UDS DDS/MR1 CSU and we'd
like to get them for under $500 including shipping.  Does anyone know
of a good source for these or something that would be equivalent?
Also, how good are the UDS CSUs?  I've heard good things about them
(but they were from a salesperson).  Any _informed_ opinions out
there?


      Jesse W. Asher        NIC Handle:  JA268         Phone: [phone]
                       Health Sphere of America Inc.
           5125 Elmore Rd., Suite 1, Memphis, TN 38134
 Internet: [e-mail]                 UUCP: ...!banana!homecare!jessea

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

From: Brett Slocum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Steve Jackson Files Suit Against Secret Service, et al.
Organization: Honeywell SSDC
Date: Fri, 10 May 1991 12:06:35 -0500


The following appeared on the Illuminati BBS (SJGames house BBS):

5-1-91

   This afternoon, Steve Jackson Games filed suit against the Secret
Service, the US government, various Secret Service agents, Assistant
U.S. Attorney William Cook, and one phone company employee who acted
under color of Federal authority as an instigator of the raid.  Named
as co-plaintiffs in the suit are Steve Jackson as an individual and
three Illuminati users whose E-mail was lost in the raid.

A rather extensive description of the case can be found in the
Electronic Frontiers Foundation newsletter (EFFector Online) #1.04
(May 1, 1991). The net address for EFF is: eff.eff.org Subscription
requests can be made to : [e-mail]


Brett Slocum <[e-mail]> or <uunet!ssdc.honeywell.com!slocum>
NOTICE: my address has changed!
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This one's mine, not my company's."

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 91 19:23:50 EDT
From: Steve Gaarder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ithaca, NY Central Office Tour Planned


A group of us in Ithaca will be touring one of the step-by-step
offices in the area on Tuesday, May 14 at 3:00.  There is room for a
few more people; if anyone is interested, let me know.


Steve Gaarder   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Some Abbreviation Questions
From: Sean Petty <undrground![e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 10 May 91 19:44:09 EDT


 I was recently reading a telephone journal, and came across a few
abbreviations and terms for which I did not know the meanings. I
would greatly appreciate it if someone (anyone) could mail me the
definitions and/or explanations of the terms listed below.

 All help is greatly appreciated!!

What is a loop?
What is a CBI?
What is a TWR?
What does 4096 do?

Help!!


Sean Petty   INTERNET: undrground![e-mail]
UUCP: uunet!cbmvax!amix!undrground!seanp  ICBM: 39.58.1' North  75.61.1' West
50/50: [e-mail]      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: This is a good time to remind everyone of the
glossary and acronym files in the telecom-archives: use anonymous ftp
to reach lcs.mit.edu, then cd telecom-archives.    PAT]

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

Subject: Re: MCI Suspends New 900 Applications
Date: Fri, 10 May 91 10:34:59 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> Since Telesphere provided no ANI nor any accounting detail whatsoever,
> the providers had to take Telesphere's word for it....

> Sprint and AT&T provide ANI data to the provider so that if there is
> collection difficulty, the provider can take matters into his own
> hands. Also, he can keep track of who calls and how much and make sure
> that no individual caller runs up a major bill that would be unpaid
> due to claimed hardship. For this reason, neither Sprint nor AT&T will
> likely have the problems that MCI or Telesphere claim.

Now, follow me closely on this.

As an Information Provider (IP), my system can record the time it
began processing a call and the time it finished processing a call.
Using simple mathematical analysis, I can run a report which shows the
duration of each call. I can then cross-reference these records to the
detail billing at the end of each month, if necessary.

In any case, I know how long the system was in use, therefore I know
how much money the carrier owes me, less holdbacks, no matter what ANI
info I have.

Basically, John's saying that if they want to screw the IPs, they will.

I already figured that!  :(

(I'd still like to know exactly why MCI in particular made this move.)


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

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 91 22:30:01 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling 905 from 416 Area


>> Amusingly, when I dial 1+905+7D from here (416) I get routed to a
>> message from 619 saying that the dialing procedure for Mexico has
>> changed - use 011+52+, in English and Spanish.  Somehow you'd think a
>> switch in what will be the new 905 would be the first to be updated!

John R. Covert:

> Something is wrong here.  When I dial 1+905 from a REAL 416 phone, I
> immediately get the recording "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed
> as dialled."  Right after the 1-905.  No more digits required.  And this
> has always been the case, even before 905 and 706 were taken out of service.

> The old 905 and 706 area codes NEVER worked from Canada; they were special
> area codes that worked from the U.S. only.

Well don't be *quite* so sure.  I have just retried the experiment.
When I dial 1 905 555 1212 from my home phone (416 486) I get a
message in English and Spanish as I reported previously.  It comes
from some distance away (judging by the connection time and quality),
but it does not now have the 619 identifier on it.  The accent in the
English part is clearly American.  When I dial the same call from my
office phone (PBX trunk in 416 492) it gets intercepted at the Toronto
toll switch (not at the local CO) with the "cannot complete your call
as dialed" message.  Since there are quite a few toll switches in
Toronto, it seems clear that my home and office COs home on different
ones that are programmed differently.  My home is served by a #1ESS,
while my office PBX trunks are on one of the few remaining crossbar
switches in town.  Probably your phone is served by a DMS or SP1
switch, both of which have fancier programing capabilities.  Tell me
your CO prefix and I'll tell you what kind of switch it is.

> I suspect that Tony is calling from a PBX with some sort of smart routing.
> Apparently his PBX has some lines to some point in the U.S., which it
> uses for calls to non-Canadian area codes.

Definately not.  I am quite familiar with how our PBX is configured
and we have no lines to the US.  All our US calls go via DDD because
our calling volume to the US is very low.

If you check a Toronto phone book from just a few years ago you will
find 905 documented as the way to reach Mexico City, and country code
52 not listed in the overseas section.


Tony H.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #353
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19272;
          13 May 91 3:58 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14227;
          13 May 91 2:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03148;
          13 May 91 1:24 CDT
Date:     Mon, 13 May 91 0:19:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #354
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 13 May 91 00:19:34 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 354

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Robert J Woodhead]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: Omaha Utility Victim of Phone Fraud [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted [Jeff Scheer]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Seng-Poh Lee]
    Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: 410 Area Code in Maryland [Leryo Malbito]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Date: 13 May 91 01:44:47 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (Charles Bryant) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> I (RJW) wrote.

>> This swine was using the telephone to blatantly defraud people in a
>> callous and totally inexcusable way, and I hope he gets a day in jail
>> on each of the 50,000 counts, served CONSECUTIVELY.  I'll admit, he
>> was an ingenious swine, but that's beside the point.
> Perhaps we need a sense of proportion. That's 136 years.

It's nice to see the world is still full of straight men.  I was
merely expressing my moral outrage with some hyperbole.

Actually, a fair penalty would be to pay back each defrauded person
double the amount stolen, plus a jail term equal to the number of
minutes of their time he wasted.  Let's assume one minute per call,
that would be 50,000 minutes or a little less that 35 days.

Also, I noted Pat's attempt to analogise this with 900 number ads; I
think that he is wrong and there is a clear difference.  First of all,
in 900 ads they tell you WHAT they are selling and how much it will
cost (even if it's "twodollarsforthefirstminuteonedollareach
additionalminute").  Aforementioned swine didn't do that, and that's
probably the law he ran afoul of.  Second, there is the issue of
"fraudulent inducement," of which he is clearly guilty.  The same
would be true of the "Kiddies, hold the telephone up to the TV" scam.


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

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

Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
From: "Steven S. Brack" <nstar!bluemoon![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 12 May 91 15:32:13 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])


holos0![e-mail] (Weaver Hickerson) writes:

>> I see no lies and no coercion.  The people who were charged got what
>> they paid for, a $55 audiotex message.  Is there anybody in Manhattan
>> who can afford a pager who doesn't know that 540 numbers are toll
>> calls?  If there are two thousand yuppie scum who are stupid enough to
>> return a page to a toll number, and they do this for no reason other
>> than that they were asked to, how can it possibly be illegal or even
>> unethical?

> Brad, this is the most ignorant thing I have ever seen.  "Yuppie Scum"
> as you call them, if having a pager is the data point, might be an ER
> doctor or nurse, a plumber, a janitor, HONEST WORKING PEOPLE.  Some
> people have a pager so the wife can call them to order Haagen Daas on
> the way home.  Some pagers allow you to dial the last paged number by
> pressing a button on the pager, without ever looking at the number.
> The "entreprenuer", in my opinion, is the scum in this picture.  And
> you sir, are running close second.

If, in this day and age, you are ignorant enough to dial any numbner
that comes over your pager, without either recognizing the number, or
getting rate information from the operator, then any charges you incur
are solely your own fault.  Ma Bell is not looking out for us anymore.


Steven S. Brack                  |  [e-mail]  |
Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower     |  [e-mail]          |
The Ohio State University        |  [e-mail]          |
50 Curl Drive.                   |  [e-mail]         |
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112   USA  |  [e-mail]  |
[phone]            |  [e-mail]        |

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

Subject: Re: Omaha Utility Victim of Phone Fraud
From: "Steven S. Brack" <nstar!bluemoon![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 12 May 91 15:54:13 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])


        Does anyone know why the OPPD connected its 800 system to
outgoing lines?  It doesn't seem like a bright thing to do.


Steven S. Brack                  |  [e-mail]  |
Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower     |  [e-mail]          |
The Ohio State University        |  [e-mail]          |
50 Curl Drive.                   |  [e-mail]         |
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112   USA  |  [e-mail]  |
[phone]            |  [e-mail]        |

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

Date: Fri, 10 May 91 21:17:07 CST
From: Jeff Scheer <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bravo Beeper Docs Wanted
Reply-To: ivgate!command![e-mail]
Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha


Running a Telephone Answering Service, I discovered completely by
accident that if you input after the number {xxx*xxxx*00 } the 00 gets
the paged person to answer their pages quicker.  This also works with
Alpha/numeric paging systems, provided you know the coding.

Just thought it might help.

JLS

 The .COMmand Center  (Opus 200:5010/23)


[Moderator's Note: How could this be? Did you mean it gets the person
to return the call quicker or it somehow gets the transmission out to
the pager a little faster?  Why would anyone necessarily rush to the
phone faster to call because they saw '00'?   Explain please.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 11 May 91 00:28:12 -0400
From: "Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Organization: FSF Guest Machines


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

>        The "Hayes AT Command Set," a defacto standard used by
> virtually every dial-up modem for more than a decade, has had some of
> its functions patent protected, but that has not kept it from being
> virtually freely used.  Perhaps Hayes has kept a low profile on the
> matter, preferring to let its name be spread by such wide use.
> However, some news did recently occur that Hayes will, on occasion
> protect its rights.  The following is excerpted from an electronic

Interesting how Hayes goes after the smaller retail modem
manufacturers.  IBM and AT&T both also make and sell AT modems. I
don't see Hayes challenging them in court. There are also a host of
other modem manufacturers such as Codex, Universal Data Systems (both
owned by Motorola), General DataComm (who I work for), Racal-Milgo,
etc who also manufacture AT modems.

However, these manufacturers don't concentrate on the retail markets,
prefering to sell to corporate and RBOC accounts. These companies also
make muxes, network management systems, and AT modems form only a
small part of their business.  I'd like to see Hayes go after these
companies. You can bet that they will have a long court battle with
Hayes before they will pay Hayes any royalty.


Seng-Poh Lee    [e-mail]

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

From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones
Date: 11-MAY-1991 01:52:04.63


Hello again,

Recently, Mark Seiden posted a meesage about "*" calls from Cellular
phones.

He noted:

> I am curious (yellow) about * prefixed calls on cellular phones.
> Has anyone got a list?  Are they uniform across service providers? (fat
> chance) ... I noticed that some of the California providers have
> traffic information lines, etc.

> Doug Reuben recently pointed out that although *611 is free, one
> *might* be charged a roaming charge, which is then removed when one
> complains. Are all of the *-prefixed calls free (and supposed to be
> free of roaming charges?)

I *think* the case I was referring to was with Vanguard/Cell One of
Eastern PA. As usual, no doubt, I failed to make things clear. (Sorry,
Mark).

Vanguard/Cell One does NOT assess any airtime charges nor any roamer
($3/day) charges on calls to *611. The problem was between Metro
Mobile/CT and Vanguard.  Apparently, they never got their billing
settled, and Metro read the "tapes" incorrectly. I'm not sure of the
method used to encode calls on billing tapes which are sent from one
cell co. to another, but what I was told by Metro (and who knows how
accurate THEY are?) was that the "*611" call was tagged by Vanguard as
"Free", yet Metro didn't recognize this. Metro's computer (or it's
billing company's computer) didn't see any *airtime* charges, but
figured that since a call was placed in the Vanguard system, I should
be assesed a daily charge, since all Metro/CT customers are assesed
daily charges while in the Vanguard system.

After I called about this, Metro, as usual, tried their usual line
"you roam, you pay" (I'm sure they have this phrase inscribed in Latin
over their terminals or something.) After the usual series of
explanations, I spoke to the Roam coordinator, who then called the
Vanguard coordinator, and they corrected the problem about two months
later. It is no longer a problem.

So ... currently, I know of no system, A or B, that charges either
airtime or roam charges *intentionally*. You may, of course, have such
charges appear on your bill. Rather than take YOUR cell co.'s word for
it, call the company in which you had roamed, and ask them what their
policy is. If they assure you that they do not charge for *611 calls,
then tell your home system about it, and hopefully you won't have to
worry about such erroneous billings again, at least not from the
specific systems in question.

> Does anyone know how these are implemented?  When they translate to a
> real phone number, is there any way of determining the translation?

Generally, yeah, they do go to a real phone number, usually the same
thing as their cusotmer service number. So in the case of CT, *611 on
Metro Highbill will get you the same thing as dialing [phone].
Dialing *611 from GTE/SF will get you the same thing as (800)
366-5665, etc.

You should also note that USUALLY 611 is like *611, ie, they do the
same thing. Some companies allow both, some do not. Thus, in
Connecticut, you can use *611 to call cusotmer service on Metro.
However, if you roam into the NY system, *611 will NOT work, and you
need to use 611. I suspect they do this to avoid problems with calls
near cell boundaries, as the two systems "bleed" into each other a
lot, especially along Long Island Sound.

SNET in CT is weird: In Southwestern CT, 611 gets SNET repair, while
*611 gets SNET Mobile; eslewhere (like Harftord), they both get SNET
Mobile, and recently 611 was just plain blocked. No charges for
either, though.

(BTW, the Metro One/NY 611 number is new. I dunno how Metro Mobile
will "react" to it ... it would be interesting to see if they bill
airtime for it. The Metro 611 system is also set up well -- automated
roam info, custom calling features, etc. Very well done. Previously,
NY had *no* airtime-free customer service number -- you had to call
the 800 number, and when the bill came get the charges removed. Pretty
pathetic ... this new system is a great improvement.)

So basically, 611/*611 calls are free.

> When I was recently in New Orleans, Bell South Mobility advertised
> that 911 was "always free."  (It was unclear whether roamers would be
> charged a roaming fee.) Is this typical practice?

Seems so. I've never been in a system where it wasn't. Sometimes you
need to dial *911, but in any case, it has always been free.

> [Moderator's Note:  In many large urban areas 911 won't work correctly
> from cell phones -- at least the dispatchers cannot get a reading on
> your location. Here in Chicago, *999 gets the Minutemen, a division of
> the Illinois State Police who handle expressway and interstate highway
> duty. ...  ]

Many similar implementations elsewhere: for example, in Mass, it is
"*MSP", which is a free call. (I think *33 also works, or used to,
from Cell One phones.)

Although everything other than 611/911 is not standardized, GENERALLY,
*711/711 is a free call. It is either used for roamer info (a recorded
message as in the case of Metro Mobile), or to "tag" your phone at the
switchroom in order to help diagnose a problem which a customer
reports.  (Metro uses this for both, actually, although I think they
can use *611 as well ... I'm not sure, but I don't see any reason why
they can't "tag" any call.)

But it is not always free. US Cellular/Poughkeepsie uses *711 (or
perhaps *511, see below) as their "Infoline" number. US Cell also
"bleeds" into Western Connecticut, around the Cornwall area. (Near the
NY line). If your phone shows "home", ie, you are using Metro, and you
dial *711, you may instead get the US Cell system, and a nice fat $3
daily charge and a $.90 cent per minute charge for what you thought
was a free call. So you have to be careful in situations like this.

*511 is used in a FEW systems to directly call the roam port for free.
Instead of calling XXX-XXXX and paying just to have the port answer
with a dial tone, using *511 will allow you to call a roamer (or any
customer) in the system and pay only when the party answers. But
again, this is by no means universally adopted, and many systems will
use this for "Info" services which you will pay for. (US
Cell/Poughkeepsie may use *511 instead of *711..it has been a while
sine this has happened.)

*111 is a free call in GTE Mobilnet/SF, and (I think) in their other
CA systems as well. It allows you to call "Technical Repair" directly
to report a technical problem and bypass their endless wait for *611
customer service.

Basically, 611/*611 is the only "safe" number to call, and even then
there can be billing irregularities between systems which will result
in false charges. This is one of the main reasons I roam on the "B"
carriers, which RARELY, if ever, have such problems. (I'm not sure if
it will be posted because it was entirely too long, but I submitted a
post on California and "A" roaming in general, and the above is only
PART of the problem which I attempted to discuss in my longer post).

All other "*" numbers may incur a charge. Check BEFORE you call to see
what the charges will be. *INFO or *22 or *MAP or whatever are almost
ALWAYS charged. Be careful of slogans that say "Call *MAP to get help
anywhere in the Bay Area. This call is free, and you will be billed
only for the actual airtime you use." (Call 800-366-5665, GTE/SF, and
wait a while. You should hear this if they are busy.) In my book,
"free" = no charge at all. I guess GTE sees it differently.

Finally, make sure to check your bill. There may be problems in
billing which result in charges that shouldn't be there. Usually,
mobile companies are glad that you point these out to them (GTE always
is; Metro, well, what can I say? :) ) I was once assesed a $3/day
roamimg charge for calls in the New York system on my bill. This
amounted to over $25. Metro took it off without any problem, but since
there isn't SUPPOSED to be a charge for CT customers in NY, I usually
ignore the "NYC Roaming" section of my bill.

I've got other non-free codes for Mass, NH, CT, RI, NY, NJ, DE, MD,
DC, VA, PA, CA and NV systems, but rather than submit another monster
post, and since this is long enough, I'll leave that for some other
time.

Hope this helped ...

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

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

Date: Sat, 11 May 91 12:24:18 -0400
From: Leryo Malbito <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 410 Area Code in Maryland


Hello! Here are the details of the new Maryland 410 NPA.  It will
essentially change the Eastern part of Maryland, while the Western
part will remain the same.  I know not where specifically the dividing
line is, but obviously places like Salisbury and Ocean City will
become 410, while places like Rockville and Bethesda will remain 301.
Annapolis will probably become 410, but my guess is that Baltimore
will remain 301.  I don't have a map now, but these are relatively
educated guesses.  To find MORE information on the change, call
800.477.4704, which interestingly is reachable from all 50 states! Or
at least the Northeast, as it works from Here. (New York City)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #354
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23722;
          13 May 91 6:24 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22780; 13 May 91 5:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01538;
          12 May 91 23:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25410;
          12 May 91 21:54 CDT
Date:     Sun, 12 May 91 21:07:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #351
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 May 91 21:07:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 351

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem? [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    Re: RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A? [Barton F. Bruce]
    What is the Value of Antique Phone? [David Neal]
    Frequencies of TouchTone Tones [Danny Padwa]
    Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ??? [Jeff Wilkinson]
    Re: Japan and Modems [Jim W. Lai]
    Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience [Yoram Eisenstadter]
    AT&T Card PIN Disclosed [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area [D. Broughton]
    Old Phone Numbers [Roy Smith]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 May 91 02:42 GMT
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem?


On May 5th, I wrote the Moderator to ask him to clarify AT&T's Call
Manager for me.  Here's what he wrote:

> [Moderator's Note: When I used it here (0 + NPA + 7D - pause for tone
> - enter 15xx), the call was processed, and the billing came to my line
> the following month with notations on the bill entitled 'account code
> xx', where 'xx' was the two digits I had entered after the '15' when
> making the call.  It appears nothing further is required to use this
> service.   PAT]

First of all, I think it's good that AT&T is doing this, and I plan to
use the service myself.  Having said that, however ... isn't there a
security problem that arises whenever 15xx can be substituted for a
valid calling card number?  I would hope AT&T has a way of blocking
this particular service for people who so request it ... indeed, it
would seem blocking would become mandatory in certain situations (ie.,
public telephones, COCOTS).


Sander J. Rabinowitz   | [e-mail] -or-  | [phone]
Brentwood, Tennessee   | [e-mail]    |
                       | The usual disclaimers apply.


[Moderator's Note: I beleive it is blocked from payphones, but I don't
know about COCOTS. It would be interesting to find out how it responds
to 10288 plus calling from a COCOT.   PAT]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A?
Date: 9 May 91 02:35:18 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Christopher Tengi) writes:

> Can anybody out there post the definitive method of pairing (with
> color code) for the AT&T PDS scheme?  I saw a post in comp.dcom.lans
> that gave the following diagram:

>                       WH OR WH BL WH GR WH BR
>                       OR WH GR WH BL WH BR WH
>              (RJ-45F)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
>                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
>               pairs:  T2 R2 T3 R1 T1 R3 R4 T4
>                        +--+  |  +--+  |  +--+
>                              +--------+

> The trouble I have is with pair 4.  Which pin is really tip, and
> shouldn't it be white/brown?  Also, is pair 2 really on pins 1 and 2,
> or is it on 3 and 6?

For AT&T 258A, your problem may be that R4 and T4 labels are reversed,
but the wire colors are in the right places. Possibly there is
confusion with the USOC punchdown where 7 and 8 are R3 and T4
respectively. 7 and 8 are T4 and R4 respectively for BOTH AT&T 258A
and EIA.

The issue of pair 2 possibly being on pins 3 and 6 is probably raised
because EIA in their 'wisdom' (read: PERVERSITY) won't use AT&T's
exact punchdown. Their pairs 2 and 3 are swapped from the AT&T plan.
Sillyness bound to cause grief. Perhaps EIA's choice has a tad more
horse sense, simply because having pair 2 on pins 3 and 6 then lets
that pair exactly match USOC.

You HAVE to be paranoid about every adapter or harmonica or whatever.
It MUST be wired to match whatever installation it is going into. If
it is a site without tight control by knowledgable folks, and various
vendors have been adding things over the years, LOTS OF LUCK.

Here is your diagram 'repaired' for 258A.


                       WH OR WH BL WH GR WH BR
                       OR WH GR WH BL WH BR WH
                        1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
               pairs:  T2 R2 T3 R1 T1 R3 T4 R4
                        +--+  |  +--+  |  +--+
                              +--------+

And for EIA:
                       WH GR WH BL WH OR WH BR
                       GR WH OR WH BL WH BR WH
                        1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
               pairs:  T3 R3 T2 R1 T1 R2 T4 R4
                        +--+  |  +--+  |  +--+
                              +--------+

And for USOC
                       BR WH WH BL WH OR GR WH
                       WH GR OR WH BL WH WH BR
                        1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8
                        |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
               pairs:  R4 T3 T2 R1 T1 R2 R3 T4
                        |  |  |  +--+  |  |  |
                        |  |  +--------+  |  |
                        |  +--------------+  |
                        +--------------------+

Now someone will probably claim that 258A in not what AT&T is using for PDS!

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

Date: Wed, 8 May 91 16:04 CDT
From: David Neal <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is the Value of Antique Phone?


Last weekend I saw a antique phone at an auction and was wondering if
any telecom readers knew how much it was worth ... I'm still wondering
if I should have bought it.

It was a Kellogg phone, with a old style speaker on a cord, which hung
of the base with the mouthpiece when not in use.

The handset had pat pend 1906 on it. The base was connected with a
wooden box with a crank handle on the side. I opened the box and the
first thing I noticed was three big magnets which were stamped pat
pend 1896.

Was it just some sort of reproduction fake or was it the real Mc Coy?

Sorry, I didn't write down the patent numbers.

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

From: Danny Padwa <[e-mail]>
Subject: Frequencies of TouchTone tones
Date: 9 May 91 09:45:43 EDT


With apologies for any inconvenience if the answer is already in the
archives somewhere:

Does anyone have a list of the frequencies generated by the buttons on
a tone phone? The question came up when one of my friends impressed us
all by getting an almost-decent "Happy Birthday" using the telephone
keypad as a piano. I suppose I could always whip out a 'scope and
mesuare the tones like we used to do in Physics, but somehow posting
seems a bit easier.

Thanx,


Danny Padwa
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Yo're excused this time. Yes, this comes up
frequently, and there is a file in the archives someplace which gives
the references, but perhaps a couple of readers will dash off a note
to you. No replies needed here in the Digest.    PAT]

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

From: Jeff Wilkinson <medtron![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy or Fraudigy ???
Date: 9 May 91 14:31:23 GMT
Organization: Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis MN


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Simplicitas gratia simplicitatis) writes:

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

>> ... even formatting a disk does not remove old information!

> I beg to differ.  Vehemently so.  I used to design controllers for
> both floppy and hard disks - I did it for about 14 years, using SSI

> The formatting operation must by its very nature destroy the old data.
> Formatting is a write operation that is done without reading to verify

Well, your both right.  Formatting, at the controller level does
destroy everything on the disk (at least as far as mere mortals are
concerned.  The NSA claims that its just a minor incovenience).
However, DOS only does a low-level format on flexible disks.  Hard
disk "formatting" consists of a read test of every sector and a
rewrite of the FAT (ever wonder how Norton and other utilities can
advertise disk recovery, after a format?) No actual media format or
writeover is done.  Therefore, information on a hard disk is still
available to determined disk hackers, after a format.  It takes
special disk utilities to do "low-level" formats on a hard disk (the
BIOS knows how, but DOS doesn't).  Some hard disks, notably those from
Plus Development Corp, give you a warning message and halt the machine
if you try to do a "low-level" format.

Thus, Toby's right, DOS doesn't always clean up a disk with a format.
But Dick's write [sic] too.  The controller makes toast of your data.

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

From: Jim W Lai <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Japan and Modems
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 9 May 1991 18:28:40 GMT


I posted about this recently and received a few pieces of email in
response.  I based my judgment of the lack of availability of US
modems on the ads of mail order companies in some Japanese computer
magazines and the persual of a few stores on a recent visit.  The two
brands of modem that seemed to be most popular on the store shelves
for 2400 baud were Omrom and Aiwa.

Apparently US modems can be bought in Japan and vice versa.  The
reason I was at a loss to explain the situation is because I noted the
ridiculously high cost of 1200 baud modems in Japan.  I fail to find
the protectionism argument satisfactory since even a 100% tariff would
not pose a barrier to the sale of US 1200 baud modems.  Does anyone
know if Japan has strict RFI emissions standards or if there are any
joint ventures with US modem manufacturers?

As an aside, I was told there that the phone lines in Japan were clean
enough to handle 9600 baud.  However, I found their international long
distance system (controlled through another company?) to be somewhat
less reliable.  Due to noise, 2400 baud would probably be the best
that could be relied on.

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

Date: Thu, 9 May 91 17:48:50 EST
From: Yoram Eisenstadter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone vs. Rotary - A Frustrating Experience
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science


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

> The only potential disadvantage that I see is if I want my Unix box to
> call long distance and use some sort of calling card code number or
> something like that that requires touch-tone.

The ability to use DTMF tones for non-dialing purposes does *not*
depend on your subscribing to Touch-tone service (despite the lies
that some local phone companies, like NY Telephone, will tell you).

Having your modem dial the phone number in pulse mode, then switch to
tone mode to enter the credit card number (after a suitable pause)
works just fine on a pulse line -- I've done it.  Once the actual
phone number is dialed and you hear the "bong", you're talking to the
long-distance carrier, which doesn't care whether you pay the local
phone company's ripoff rates for touch-tone or not.

The same principle applies to accessing services like bank-by-phone
from a dial line -- just switch your phone to tone-dialing once you're
connected.

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

From: Jeremy Grodberg <lia![e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed
Reply-To: Jeremy Grodberg <lia!![e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 9 May 91 22:20:30 GMT


I had an interesting, and slightly frightening experience over the
weekend with my AT&T credit card.  My card had just been renewed, and
I was replacing the old one in my wallet with my new one, and since I
usually use MCI but now had the AT&T card in my hand, I thought I'd
check to make sure I remembered the PIN for it.  I tried dialing a
friend long distance using the AT&T card, and used the PIN I
remembered.  It didn't work.

I called AT&T to ask them to change it.  I had set my PIN over the
phone originally, and although I was somewhat worried about this, I
noticed that they had one person take all my personal information
(account number, name, address, SS#, etc.), and a different person
take my PIN, so I took the leap of faith to think that the person who
took my PIN didn't know what account it was for.  I was able to
believe that they were taking good security measures.  Anyway, I
called and told the service rep that I had forgotten my PIN, and
wanted to change it.  Again I was taken through the most rigorous
identification process of anyone I've done business with over the
phone, including banks and stock brokers.  The service rep asked what
PIN I had used, at which point I was stunned; after a brief pause, I
said "I'm not supposed to tell anyone my PIN, you literature says that
real AT&T reps will never ask you for it."  The service rep then
pauses, stammers, and says "Well, I'm looking right at it. <pause for
response from me, which I don't give, because I'm starting to get
sick> OK," she says, "did you use XXXX?" where XXXX was my real PIN!
Not only did she have access to it (which she shouldn't need or have),
she told it to me! Yikes!  I am not amused.  I bet many people use the
same PIN all over the place, and allowing AT&T employees to see
customer's PINs, and access to their credit records and telephone
records, could be an invitation to fraud.  I'm very glad the PIN I
gave them is one I use no where else.

Continuing, now that the service rep assured me I was using the right
PIN, I naturally wanted to know why it didn't work.  She told my that
my card was shipped "in the same mail sack" as a bunch of other cards
which were stolen from the mail.  They had called and left a message
("I'm calling from AT&T.  It's very important you return my call at
800 xxx xxx"), and when I didn't return the call, they blocked my
account.  I didn't return the call because they had cried wolf before,
and when I called them back they couldn't even tell me why they had
called me!  It sure would have been helpful if they had left a more
detailed message.  Even a second phone call would have been nice.  As
it was I just thought it was some spurious sales call or friendly
check to make sure that I had gotten my card, and since I had my card
and didn't want to talk to a salesperson, I didn't call back.

It just goes to show how hard it is to get this stuff right, and how
the risks don't go away, they just transform themselves into new and
unexpected forms.


Jeremy Grodberg   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Introducing Call Management Service in Montreal Area
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date:     Thu, 9 May 1991 13:10:58 -0600


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jamie Mason) writes:

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

>> The MONTREAL AREA is one of the first to be offered Call
>> Management Service (CMS) from

>     Toronto has had it since April 22.  I think Ottawa has had it
> for a while now.  Why don't they just say Montreal is the Nth area to
> be offered CMS, subsituting the correct, but impressively low, N?

>     Does anyone have a list of cites which have a full scale
> Caller-ID system in place, or to be in place REAL soon?

Saskatoon has had Call Display (same as Caller ID) since April 1 of
this year.

>> The service is gradually being extended to include long distance calls.

>     Since at least two other Canadain cities have CMS, why does
> Bell Canada not extend it to long distance NOW?

Currently, we in Saskatoon can get long distance information from
Regina, Prince Albert and Calgary. We probably get it from other
cities but no one call me from elsewhere.


Darrell

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Old Phone Numbers
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Thu, 9 May 91 16:08:51 GMT


    Yesterday I found a fragment of a letterhead or invoice blank
from a business my grandfather owned once.  The telephone number is
listed as "9305-R" (I'm not sure of the digits, but the -R is right).
To put this in context, the place was undoubtedly Norwich,
Connecticut, and the year was probably around 1940 or so.

    I assume the -R means it's the ring side of a party line, but
it seems odd to me that a business would list that as part of their
phone number (this was a small business, just my grandfather with a
truck he owned, maybe one other partner, and it's likely it was his
home phone number).  Didn't each party on a party line get assigned a
different last digit?  If not, how does one dial a phone number like
"9305-R"; do you have to ask the operator to connect you?  I suppose
it's likely that at this time, all calls were completed manually, so
that may not have been anything out of the ordinary.


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


[Moderator's Note: Prior to automatic switching, a letter on the end
indicated one leg of a party line. After automation started, the
letter was dropped and the seventh digit was the deciding factor. He
probably had a party line with the other 'party' being himself at his
residence.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #351
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13259;
          14 May 91 1:20 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05530;
          13 May 91 23:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11609;
          13 May 91 22:45 CDT
Date:     Mon, 13 May 91 22:00:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #355
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 13 May 91 22:00:29 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 355

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Henry Mensch]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Jerry Leichter]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Barry Margolin]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Ronald Greenberg]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Bud Couch]
    Re: Adding a Modem to System 85 Set [Mike Sheridan]
    Re: A Choice of Sending Fax or Leaving Voice Recording [David Newman]
    Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN [Thomas J Roberts]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 91 10:15:58 -0700
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Interesting how Hayes goes after the smaller retail modem
> manufacturers.  IBM and AT&T both also make and sell AT modems.

The chances are excellent that both IBM and AT&T license this
technology from Hayes ... neither outfit is known for taking risks
with this sort of stuff; they want their intellectual property
respected, and behave in kind.


Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 91 09:19:22 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent


In a recent issue of TELECOM Digest, Seng-Poh Lee comments on the
Hayes patent by finding it "interesting" that Hayes went after
"smaller retail modem manufacturers" when many others, including the
likes of AT&T and IBM, also make Hayes-compatible modems.  He
anticipates "a long court battle" with these guys before they pay up.

In fact, he's probably dead wrong.  Historically, the larger vendors
are usually much more willing to pay reasonable royalties than to
fight.  There are a number of reasons for this.  First, the big guys
are not trying to survive by being the absolute lowest-cost producers.
As a result, they can more easily pass through a small royalty than
the scrappy "cut everything to the bone" price competitors, to whom
every penny counts.  Second, they have much more to lose than to gain:
The courts have become much more willing to enforce patent rights of
late, sometimes with BIG penalties.  Companies that ask their lawyers
whether they can safely ignore a patent claim are likely to be
reminded of Polaroid's case against Kodak, which culminated in huge
damages and in Kodak being forced entirely out of the instant
photography market.  Finally, the big guys sell "peace of mind": The
last thing their customers want to hear is that the stuff they
purchased is under a legal cloud.

Naturally, to avoid being taken for chumps by anyone with any kind of
tenuous patent claim, even the big guys will check a claim out
carefully.  But for a claim for which there is a reasonable case --
and certainly one that has already been accepted by a court will look
VERY reasonable -- and for which the licensing demands are reasonable,
the decision will usually be that it's better to pay than fight.


Jerry

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Date: 13 May 91 11:59:16 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy) writes:

> Interesting how Hayes goes after the smaller retail modem
> manufacturers.  IBM and AT&T both also make and sell AT modems. I
> don't see Hayes challenging them in court. There are also a host of
> other modem manufacturers such as Codex, Universal Data Systems (both
> owned by Motorola), General DataComm (who I work for), Racal-Milgo,
> etc who also manufacture AT modems.

Some of the companies you mention have existing patent cross-license
agreements with Hayes.  Thus, no need for any lawsuits.  There are
dozens of other companies you didn't mention that also already license
Hayes patents, either because they accepted Hayes' invitation to do so
or as part of the settlement of other patent lawsuits (e.g.,
USRobotics and Prometheus were parties in the same lawsuit you
referenced, but settled and have taken licenses).  Many other
companies have approached Hayes seeking licenses since the verdict was
announced in the recent trial.  The 170+ other US modem manufacturers
have received, or soon will receive, invitations to do the same.

So, don't jump to the conclusion that just because you haven't seen a
media report of Hayes suing to enforce their legitimate patent rights
against a particular company that (a) there's any need to, (b) they
haven't, or (c) they won't.  And remember that in the case of patents,
there's no REQUIREMENT that the patent holder license to anyone, or
license to everyone in a non-discriminatory fashion.  An injunction
prohibiting the further shipment of infringing products would not be a
pleasant thing for your employer to endure, would it?

> I'd like to see Hayes go after these companies. You can bet that
> they will have a long court battle with Hayes before they will pay
> Hayes any royalty.

I'm sure GDC management would be pleased to know that you're publicly
and actively seeking lawsuits against your company, and that you think
a long and expensive court battle (in the face of a strong
precedent-setting decision) would be desirable. Given GDC's financial
condition, I'm sure your management would think twice before making
such a decision, but they may not think twice about laying off a few
people to raise money for the cause.  Be careful.

I won't comment on this further, except to say that I'm VERY surprised
to see ANYONE, in the current highly-litigious high-tech industry,
virtually inviting lawsuits, to the extent of laying down public
challenges to do so!  At the very least, such comments should be kept
private.  "So sue me" might be a cute thing to say to a neighbor who
has complained of your dog crapping in his yard, but it's insane in
business today.  You sure won't catch ME leaving online messages
asking other companies to sue MY employer!


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

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

From: Barry Margolin <think![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Reply-To: think![e-mail]
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Date: Mon, 13 May 91 16:33:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy) wrote --

[Moderator's Note: See earlier messages this issue for text.  PAT]

If you had read the article carefully, you would have seen that it is
not the AT command set that is patented, it is the escape sequence
with guard time (i.e. the fact that you have to pause for a second
before and after the "+++" to go to command mode).  Not all AT modems
do this.

Also, do you know for a fact that the modem manufacturers that you
mentioned above have not signed licenses with Hayes?  I'll bet most of
them have.  Maybe not specifically for this patent, but probably
general cross-license agreements.  That's common in the manufacturing
world.


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

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 91 14:25:34 -0400
From: Ronald Greenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent


I don't know what are the exact details in this Hayes patent case, but
it sounds like an attempt to patent "look and feel", which can be
highly annoying.  I don't have any recent information about activity
on this topic, but people may be interested in this old message from
Richard Stallman:

  [4155] [e-mail]  bboard  05/30/89 15:02 (56 lines)
  Subject: Protest Against Lotus Successful; Let's Organize Permanently
  Date: Tue, 30 May 89 14:54:09 EDT
  From: [e-mail]
  To: [e-mail]


Despite the threat of rain, we had large turnout for the protest
against user-interface copyright on Wednesday: 160 to 180, depending
on whose count.  (The counts failed to include a couple of professors
who showed up just as we were leaving.)  Bryan Kocher, president of
the National ACM (Association for Computing Machinery), marched with
us.

The organizers made around 30 signs, and many of the other
participants made their own.  The best sign showed a strait jacket and
the caption, "Don't make me wear your suit."  Once we were there, the
picketers all tried their hand at inventing euphonious chants.  The
best ones were:

    1-2-3 is not for me / Say no to monopoly.

    Put your lawyers in their place: / No one owns the interface.

    Hey, hey!  Ho, ho! / Software tyranny's got to go.

    Apple, Lotus, Look-and-feel: / Let's go reinvent the wheel.

And the world's first protest chant in hex:

    1, 2, 3, 4 / Kick the lawsuit out the door.
    5, 6, 7, 8 / Innovate, don't litigate.
    9, A, B, C / Freedom, not monopoly.
    D, E, F, 0 / Look-and-feel has got to go.

We were covered by reporters from the Associated Press, Reuters, Info
World, Computerworld, PC Week, MIS Week, MacWeek, Computer Reseller
News, National Public Radio, the Boston Herald, and the Boston Globe.
The stories I have seen are sympathetic and present our arguments
well.  The AP article was carried in newspapers around the country.
All in all, we have done good work for the cause.

Numerous people said they could not attend but would like to help
fight "Look-and-Feel" in some other way.  To make this possible, I
would like to make the League for Programming Freedom into a permanent
grass-roots organization.

Therefore, I'd like to announce the League's organizational meeting on
Thursday, June 15 at 8:30pm in the 8th floor "playroom" at 545 Tech
Square in Cambridge.  This building is on Main Street, next to the
railroad tracks.

Those of you who came to the demonstration are invited as well.

I hope we will be able to choose officers at this meeting and start
enrolling members.  Then we can aim for various interesting sorts of
protests starting this summer.


 --[4155]--

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 21:23:26 GMT


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

>        The "Hayes AT Command Set," a defacto standard used by
> virtually every dial-up modem for more than a decade, has had some of
> its functions patent protected, but that has not kept it from being
> virtually freely used.  Perhaps Hayes has kept a low profile on the
> matter, preferring to let its name be spread by such wide use.

In the interest of stemming panic out there, let's be quite clear.
The enforcement was to a specific patent, not to the "Hayes AT Command
Set". That patent, although quite important to modem users, does not
cover the "AT" _command_ set.

As a matter of fact, as PN-2120, a document from TIA committee
TR-30.4, the command set has been submitted to the CCITT as part of
draft recomendation "V.25 ter". One of the regular contributors to
TELECOM Digest, Toby Nixon of Hayes is the chairman of TR-30.4, and
can probably post an update of the status of this proposal, if asked.

Communication software writers can, quite freely, write software which
sends the string "AT whatever" and DCE equipment may recognize that
string and act upon it.

The patent upheld is on the method of notifying the DCE equipment that
the next data arriving should be treated as a command to the DCE, as
opposed to data to be transmitted to the far end; that is, switching
to command mode.

Most software defaults to a one second pause, transmitting three plus
(+) signs, followed by a one second pause. Hayes patent is broader,
covering any time delay, followed by any unique sequence. This patent,
however, covers only async data ports used for both data and command.
Synchronous ports, obviously, cannot pause in sending data, and the
use of separate command and data ports is also outside the scope of
the patent.

For those in the external async modem business, the Hayes patent is a
business expense that they will have to factor in. The rest of us can
continue to type in "ATxxx" without worrying that the feds are going
to come after us.


Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox     standard BS applies

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

Date: Sat, 11 May 91 21:42:12 CST
From: Mike Sheridan <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Adding a Modem to System 85 Set
Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs![e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


Jeff, it is not possiable to add a modem to your new set. The "other"
jack is for add on equipment such as a speaker phone (I have one of
those sets in my office and I work on Sys 85).  In order to use your
digital phone line, you would need a data module on your set AND the
other end!!!  Then you would use Sys 85 to tranmit in its own language
(digital) between the two.


Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
 [200:5010/666@metronet] DRBBS   (200:5010/666.0)

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

From: David Newman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Choice of Sending Fax or Leaving Voice Recording
Date: 13 May 91 15:37:20 GMT
Reply-To: David Vincent Newman <cantor![e-mail]>
Organization: MCC  Austin, Texas


Actually, I have a box between the telco and the rest of my phone
equipment that performs a similar function.  When someone calls me, it
picks up after the first ring and looks for FAX tone.  If it doesn't
hear it, it rings the rest of the phones in the house.  My answering
machine is, of course, one of the other phones.  If I don't answer the
phone, the answering machine does, and I have instructions in my
outgoing message on how to leave a message after the tone as well as
how to switch to the Fax machine (by dialing *4, which the
aforementioned box also listens for).  Also, if the box hears a fax
tone at any time during the call, it will switch to the fax machine
automatically.

If someone calls with a FAX machine that does not send FAX tone until
it hears the answering fax machine (I understand that this is true of
older fax machines), then someone has to dial *4 (me or the caller) to
get the line connected to the fax machine.  People who don't have an
automatic fax machine call me, and I can switch them to the fax
machine from any phone in the house by dialing *4.  It's pretty
convenient.

I don't know what the machine does to caller's phone bills, but I
haven't had any complaints, so I'm not too worried.  The only
complaints I get are not really complaints: I get a lot of ribbing
from friends about being a hot-shot with a home fax machine.

I'm not at home, so I don't have the brand name or model number with
me.  I *think* it is a "Western Data Communications TX-101" or
something like that.  It was about $150 at Bizmart, I think.


Dave

P.S.  Standard disclaimer: I'm not connected to Western Data or
Bizmart other than as a satisfied customer.

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

Date: Sun, 12 May 91 18:37:26 CDT
From: Thomas J Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed Understanding ISDN
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 From article <[e-mail]>, by csense![e-mail].
net (John Boteler):

> Toby Nixon typed:

>> Rich Szabo writes:

>>> Can an ISDN line be used as a voice line so that I don't need a
>>> POTS line in addition?

>> You definitely don't need to keep a POTS line around once you have
>> ISDN.

> Unless the power fails at your location. Then, no more ISDN.

Correction: Unless the power fails AND YOU HAVE MADE NO PROVISION FOR
THIS. Then, no more ISDN.

In every ISDN installation I have been involved with (either as user,
or consultant, or designer/engineer - some 20,000 lines in all),
battery-backed-up power has been supplied for the NT1s and the station
sets.  Most users want phones that work during a power outage.


Tom Roberts    AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!ihlpl!tjrob  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #355
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15858;
          14 May 91 2:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13809;
          14 May 91 0:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05530;
          13 May 91 23:51 CDT
Date:     Mon, 13 May 91 22:53:32 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #356
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 13 May 91 22:53:20 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 356

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem? [William F Thompson]
    Re: AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem? [Brian Charles Kohn]
    Re: AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem? [John R. Levine]
    Re: Steve Jackson Files Suit Against Secret Service, et al. [Mike Riddle]
    Re: Steve Jackson Files Suit Against Secret Service, et al. [Mike Godwin]
    Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed [Joshua Putnam]
    Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed [Brian Charles Kohn]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [Steve Shellans]
    Re: What is the Value of Antique Phone? [Mike Berger]
    Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Hollings and the RBOCs [Jeff Scheer]
    Re: 410 Area Code in Maryland [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 May 91 18:09:52 EDT
From: William F Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem?
Organization: Tex and Edna Boil's Prairie Warehouse and Curio Emporium


 From article <[e-mail]>, by 0003829147@mcimail.
com (Sander J. Rabinowitz):

> First of all, I think it's good that AT&T is doing this, and I plan to
> use the service myself.  Having said that, however ... isn't there a
> security problem that arises whenever 15xx can be substituted for a
> valid calling card number?  I would hope AT&T has a way of blocking
> this particular service for people who so request it ... indeed, it
> would seem blocking would become mandatory in certain situations (ie.,
> public telephones, COCOTS).

> [Moderator's Note: I beleive it is blocked from payphones, but I don't
> know about COCOTS. It would be interesting to find out how it responds
> to 10288 plus calling from a COCOT.   PAT]

Well, since I worked on the feature, I'll respond.  A customer can
only use the 15XXXX code from a non-coin, non-hotel sent-paid phone,
such as a residence or a business.  It shouldn't work from a COCOT
since those trunks are marked as coin.  By the way, you can enter up
to four digits after the 15 (and the 15 is changeable).  Just thought
you'd like to know.


Bill Thompson   att!ihlpf!foz

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 91 16:08:28 EDT
From: Brian Charles Kohn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center


In comp.dcom.telecom, [e-mail] (Sander J. Rabinowitz)
wrote on 9 May 91 02:42:00 GMT:

> I would hope AT&T has a way of blocking
> this particular service for people who so request it ... indeed, it
> would seem blocking would become mandatory in certain situations (ie.,
> public telephones, COCOTS).

Uh, if I'm not mistaken, this service only works from your home phone.
That is the security mechanism.

It's not a calling-card service per se ... it's just a record-keeping
tool.


Brian Charles Kohn          AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center
Quality Management System   E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker  ([e-mail])
Consultant                  PHONE: [phone]        FAX: [phone]

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

Subject: Re: AT&T's Call Manager: Security Problem?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 12 May 91 23:57:45 EDT (Sun)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


Being an inquisitive sort of guy, I investigated call manager codes
from pay phones the moment I heard about them.  Around here (Cambridge
Mass, New England Tel territory) a 15XX code entered on a payphone on
an AT&T call gets a quick recording that the service I have requested
is not available and it hangs up.

On NET calls, as soon as I dial 15 it cuts in with a recording reminding
me to dial 11 for collect, 12 for third party, the card number for a
calling card call, or 0 for an operator.

Via MCI or Sprint, they don't know from call manager, but they do know
that it isn't a valid card number, since no Bellcore-format calling
card number or PIN starts with a 1.  (Note that 0 + number via MCI or
Sprint only accepts a local telco card number, not an MCI or FON card
number, unless you fall through to the operator and let her enter it
manually at extra cost.  Don't ask me why.)

The COCOTs around here are always broken, I don't know what they are
supposed to do with call manager codes.


Regards,

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

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

From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Steve Jackson Files Suit Against Secret Service, et al.
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 11:55:08 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brett
Slocum) writes:

> A rather extensive description of the case can be found in the
> Electronic Frontiers Foundation newsletter (EFFector Online) #1.04
> (May 1, 1991). The net address for EFF is: eff.eff.org Subscription
> requests can be made to : [e-mail]

For those with anonymous ftp access, you can find EFFector 1.04, along
with the complaint by Steve Jackson et al and the warrant application
by the Secret Service, at eff.org, cd SJG.

A more complete background paper by John Perry Barlow is also
available at eff.org, cd EFF, file EFF.CP.


[e-mail]                  |   University of Nebraska
ivgate!inns![e-mail]  |   College of Law
[e-mail]  |   Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 91 15:19:45 -0400
From: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Steve Jackson Files Suit Against Secret Service, et al.


Brett Slocum writes:

>   This afternoon, Steve Jackson Games filed suit against the Secret
> Service, the US government, various Secret Service agents, Assistant
> U.S. Attorney William Cook, and one phone company employee who acted
> under color of Federal authority as an instigator of the raid.  Named
> as co-plaintiffs in the suit are Steve Jackson as an individual and
> three Illuminati users whose E-mail was lost in the raid.

> A rather extensive description of the case can be found in the
> Electronic Frontiers Foundation newsletter (EFFector Online) #1.04
> (May 1, 1991). The net address for EFF is: eff.eff.org Subscription
> requests can be made to : [e-mail]

Those who can do anonymous ftp should know that this issue of the
EFFector, the complaint itself, the search warrant, and related
documents are available in the SJG directory via anonymous ftp at eff.org.


Mike

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

From: Joshua_Putnam <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed
Date: 13 May 91 19:32:35 GMT
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA


In <[e-mail]> lia![e-mail] (Jeremy
Grodberg) writes:

> I had an interesting, and slightly frightening experience over the
> weekend with my AT&T credit card.

[details deleted]

> Again I was taken through the most rigorous identification process
> of anyone I've done business with over the phone, including banks and
> stock brokers.

This reminds me of a problem I had with my AT&T Visa Card soon after I
got it.  I was out buying a new laptop computer, which was by far the
largest charge I had then put on the card.  The clerk had to call for
authorization.  What identifying information did they ask for?
Mother's maiden name?  No, although they had that from the
application.  They asked for my ZIP code!  As if anyone stealing my
wallet would not be able to get the code from my driver's license,
voter registration, etc.

I was in too much of a hurry to complain about lax security, so I gave
them my ZIP code, which has been the same for twenty years.  "I'm
sorry," the voice on the phone said, "that is incorrect."

I presented half a dozen forms of picture ID, including my passport,
all showing my correct ZIP code, but they still refused to accept the
charge.  Finally the operator let slip the code she was really looking
for, that of the main post office serving my local one.  So I
"confessed" to my "mistake" and the charge was accepted.  End of
story. (Except, of course, the half-dozen letters it took to get them
to correct their records for future use.)

> It just goes to show how hard it is to get this stuff right, and how
> the risks don't go away, they just transform themselves into new and
> unexpected forms.

You can say that again!


[e-mail]      Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 91 16:20:00 EDT
From: Brian Charles Kohn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center


In comp.dcom.telecom, Jeremy Grodberg <lia!![e-mail]>
wrote on 9 May 91 22:20:30 GMT.:

> I called AT&T to ask them to change [my PIN].  I had set my PIN over the
> phone originally, and although I was somewhat worried about this, I

> I was able to
> believe that they were taking good security measures.  Anyway, I
> called and told the service rep that I had forgotten my PIN, and
> wanted to change it.  Again I was taken through the most rigorous
> identification process of anyone I've done business with over the
> phone, including banks and stock brokers.  The service rep asked what
> PIN I had used, at which point I was stunned; after a brief pause, I
> said "I'm not supposed to tell anyone my PIN, you literature says that
> real AT&T reps will never ask you for it."

I believe the warning refers to the fact that no AT&T rep will ever
call you and ask for it.  In this case, you called them.  It is
assumed that you know who you called; That is not the case when you
receive a call.

> [many people use the]
> same PIN all over the place, and allowing AT&T employees to see
> customer's PINs, and access to their credit records and telephone
> records, could be an invitation to fraud.

One should never use the same PIN for more than one thing.  Most BBSs,
for example, allow the SYSOP to see your password. (UNIX will be our
salvation, eh?)


Brian Charles Kohn          AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center
Quality Management System   E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker  ([e-mail])
Consultant                  PHONE: [phone]        FAX: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Another thing I think our original correspondent
neglected to note was that when calling *any* credit card organization
to discuss changing your PIN, there is going to have to be some
verbalization of the old PIN itself.  Usually, discussions about the
PIN itself are the only reasons the PIN need be recited, however.  PAT]

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

From: Steve Shellans <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me!
Date: 13 May 91 22:07:51 GMT
Reply-To: Steve Shellans <[e-mail]>
Organization: Computer Research Laboratory, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton OR


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

> Hi!  During a recent flight, I had my phone turned on and noticed the
> 'roam' light was on.  I tried to place a call but it didn't go
> through.  We were at about 39,000 feet, and I didn't expect it to. It
> would stay on 'roam' for a few seconds and then go to 'NoSvc'.  But,
> when we were down to about 15,000 feet I noticed the 'roam' light was
> on continuously. I tried to dial again and it worked like a charm.  I
> was using a .6 watt Motorola "Ultra Classic" portable with the small
> (1/8 wave?) antenna, and I wasn't even in a window seat!

> I realize that you're "not supposed to" do things like this, but if
> anything had happened I could always have called 911 ;-)

I don't think this is funny.  The reason you're not supposed to do
things like this is that stray signals from transmitters and other
kinds of electronic equipment can interfere with the navigation
instruments.


Steve Shellans    Tektronix, Beaverton OR


[Moderator's Note: I did not think it was funny either ... maybe next
time he decides to flex the rules a little in his experiments he will
try the one which says 'keep all radios, including cell phones, turned
off in areas where dynamite and other explosive powders are being
used.'  If anything goes wrong, someone will always call 911 :(   PAT]

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

From: Mike Berger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is the Value of Antique Phone?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 21:00:23 GMT


[e-mail] (David Neal) writes:

> Last weekend I saw a antique phone at an auction and was wondering if
> any telecom readers knew how much it was worth ... I'm still wondering
> if I should have bought it.

> It was a Kellogg phone, with a old style speaker on a cord, which hung
> of the base with the mouthpiece when not in use.

> The handset had pat pend 1906 on it. The base was connected with a
> wooden box with a crank handle on the side. I opened the box and the
> first thing I noticed was three big magnets which were stamped pat
> pend 1896.

> Was it just some sort of reproduction fake or was it the real Mc Coy?

I don't doubt that it was authentic.  But value varies widely with
condition.  I'll pay a premium if all the phenolic is intact, the
magneto is in good condition, the original cords still have insulation
intact, etc.  Prices go down drastically as condition degrades.  In
excellent restorable condition, the phone might be worth $ 200.  If
completely intact but rough, it might be worth $ 50.


Mike Berger   Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
AT&TNET   217-244-6067   Internet    [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge?
Date: 11 May 91 15:27:39 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Joel Spolsky) writes:

> I just got my AT&T Universal bill, and noticed that over 50% of the
> cost of my long distance calls is due to the 75 cent per-call
> surcharge which they tag onto all calling card calls. (I guess their
> ads claiming you pay "only low AT&T rates" are a little bit
> dishonest).

Misleading, but technically not dishonest!  "Low AT&T rates" have
included a surcharge for calling card calls for some time.

> Are there calling cards without this extra fee?

I recently spent some time researching this question.  It appears that
a little-advertised but viable long distance carrier called "Cable and
Wireless" offers calling cards with no per-call surcharge.  Having
just lost MCI's "around town" feature, I have asked C & W to take over
as our default carrier, and to send me enough of their calling cards
for our employees.  As soon as we've used their service for a little
while, I'll post a review of the service.


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

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

Date: Sun, 12 May 91 16:48:14 CST
From: Jeff Scheer <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hollings and the RBOCs
Reply-To: ivgate!command![e-mail]
Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha


As a disabled person, it would appear to me that Sen. Hollings is
being kept by the RBOC, to serve their "warped" desires.

It sounds like B*lsh*t to me!  Just like the Tammy Faye Baker School
of Cosmetology that recently opened here.


JJ

 The .COMmand Center  (Opus 1:5010/23)

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 91 8:59:21 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 410 Area Code in Maryland


No, Baltimore is going into the 410 area.

The dates are correct as far as I know (permissive in Nov. 1991,
mandatory in Nov. 1992).  Eastern Maryland is the part getting the new
area code.  If you are local to DC you stay in 301, if you are local
to Baltimore you go into 410.

The new area code will cover the eastern shore, plus the counties of
Harford, Baltimore, Anne Arundel, Calvert, (most of) Howard, and
Carroll, plus Baltimore city.  One exchange that I know of in Howard
County, plus the counties of St. Marys, Charles, Prince Georges,
Montgomery, Frederick, Washington, Allegany, and Garrett stay in 301.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #356
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16150;
          14 May 91 2:35 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13809;
          14 May 91 0:59 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac05530;
          13 May 91 23:51 CDT
Date:     Mon, 13 May 91 23:41:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #357
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 13 May 91 23:40:59 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 357

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why the Bong? [Bob Frankston]
    Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [Brian Cuthie]
    Re: AT&T's Account Code System [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Ken Seefried III]
    Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing [D. Heale]
    Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? Free? [Tim Irvin]
    Re: RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: Faster Answering Pages [Steve Wolfson]
    Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management? [Brian Murrey]
    ATC's New Bill and Customer Service Number [Bill Huttig]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 May 91 15:58 GMT
From: Bob Frankston <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why the Bong?


Bernard Fran Collins <[e-mail]> writes:

> Is there a good reason why a
> credit card call must contain a pause in the dialing in order to wait
> for the bong?  Why can't the card number be delivered to the LD
> carrier without such a pause?

I've got my own response to what "good reason" means.  In the sense of
"there is an historic rational explanation" the answer is "yes".  The
North American ten digit dialing plan is a rigid beast and such things
as boings and other inband signals are attempts to get around this.
Other examples include PBX's that require you to key in a number after
getting an extension number and services that use DTMF codes for a
dialog after completing a connection.

The word good means "given the circumstances the solution sort of
works and we can explain why we made each design decision against the
local constraints of each decision".

If "good" means that the user interface is "good" then the answer is
NO.  The same goes for the blunt instrument of 900/976 blocking, the
problems with 976 remote access, the existence of 540 in some places,
the inability to use 1-617 in 617 and random need for "1-" in 617 for
some 7-D numbers, the use of 950 while waiting for 10xxx, 800 random
availability etc.  This covers a lot of ground so I'll go back to the
boing and its ilk including fax/modem/phone switches that require
something like "2" after the simulated rings to select a modem.

My problem is that I need to be able teach my computer to access
services over this network.  Against the vast array of kludges, I have
my trusty old Hayes dial string (or is it now the CCITT/AT dialing
protocol?) with little control beyond a "," for pausing and no
interaction.  Sometimes, I can include a "wait for dialtone" and a
"wait for silence".  Even maybe "wait for voicelike sounds".  There is
not even a standard way to get to the rooted dialing level, I need to
guess out prefixes such as "9", "9,", "8," or even "P9,---T---"
(Pulse/Tone switching) or whatever imaginative convention is locally
adopted.

Now the question: Has ISDN evolved to the point where it is understood
that the phone network is not to be navigated not only by humans with
fingers and ears and brains and arcane knowledge, but by computers and
humans assisted by computers and that placing a call involves
protocoled exchanges between the participants including premises
systems?  Can I specify that I want to make a connection to a given
service (aka phone number) and give some billing override information
(aka a billing code)?  Can I query the network to determine the
proposed price (vs cost) for a given interaction?  Will I be able to
deal with systems that require additional navigation after call
completion?  Conversely, will my ANI codes allow the caller to add
explicit descriptive/navigation information that would allow me to
reach a specific service (aka internal extension?)

I'll be pleasantly surprised if indeed the protocols are being
designed to take into account developments of the last few decades.
Given that there is Telco interest in protocols such as X.400 and
X.500, perhaps this isn't so far fetched.

Or do I need to wait for the next forty-year design cycle?

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

From: Brian Cuthie <umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System
Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sun, 12 May 1991 15:58:26 GMT


May I suggest looking into the Northern Telecom Norstar system.  It is
the low end system in the Meridian line.

It features phones with alphanumeric displays, LCD line indicators,
reconfigurable buttons, millions and millions of software features,
and a software module that can be replaced in the future with newer
versionbs of the code.

Each set is connected via a single pair of wires.  The system is ISDN
to the sets and internally.  Each set get's 2B+D and can use the spare
B channnel for simultanious data transmission.

There is a developer's kit (which cost megabucks, incidentally) which
allows a PC to monitor/control switch operation.  In fact, you can
even have the PC grab the keypad and interpret keys in some fashion,
displaying prompts on the phone's alpha display, and then the PC can
set up the call.  One PC is capable of providing enhanced features for
all phones simultaneously.

I have had mine for more than a year now and am EXTREMELY pleased with
it/ My only complaint is that the guys at NT are missing the boat by
making the developer's kit too expensive (by expensive, I mean to the
tune of $25k!).  They need to realize that if people buy the kit to
develop applications, they can only be run on NT hardware.  Therefore,
they sell at least one switch for every developed application.  Of
course, these guys want to get greedy too.

I know that they will more than likely read this and say "but it cost
us sooo much to support the developers."  Bunk!  The unbundled price
for the developer's kit is on the order of $13K to get the software,
documents, some equipment, and support.  Then, when you're done
developing your app they want another $15K [!!!!] liscense fee just
for the *priveledge* of selling NT phone systems with your app wrapped
around them!  Geesh guys!  GET A CLUE!

Anyway, opportunities abound if NT ever straightens their act out, or
you have a spare $25K lying around.

Wishing I did,


brian     VOICE:    301-381-1718     Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: 11-MAY-1991 01:32:21.96
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Account Code System


Recently, Jack Dominey ([e-mail]), amongst other
things noted that:

> It's available to customers using DDD, PRO WATS, or Reach Out
> America if the customer is either directly billed by AT&T, or
> by a former Bell Operating Company.  Call Manager is apparently
> not available in GTE or other independent company areas.
> EXCEPTION:  NYNEX and SNET only provide Call Manager billing to
> PRO WATS customers.

This was from some literature printed in February.

I know New York Tel has this now, even in their crossbars. I tried it
out at a friend's house in NYC, and it worked fine.

The same guy later tried it out at some X-bar in Ithaca (607-257), and
*said* it worked there, but he may have just entered a Calling Card
number instead.  I'm not sure he understood it correctly.

SNET allows this in the West Hartford area as well. Haven't tried it
the NYTel areas of CT (Greenwich, etc.), so I'm not sure about those
towns.

Neat thing about the service is that you can hit the octothorpe /
pound/#-key to place a new call. No need to hang up. A real bonus when
you have three-way calling that doesn't care about Answer Supervision.
(IE, you have to hang up for a LONG time to place a new call. Ok, ok,
three seconds isn't THAT long, but ...)

Of course this won't work from payphones, but I am wondering if COCOTs
have this blocked as well at the telco switch? (for those rare few
which allow access to AT&T :( )


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


[Moderator's Note: In a message from a previous issue today, we were
advised it should not work from COCOTS since they are noted as coin
lines.   Let us know if you find out otherwise.   PAT]

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

From: Ken Seefried iii <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Date: 13 May 91 16:20:40 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Seefried iii <[e-mail]>
Organization: The House Of Fun


In article <[e-mail]> nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax.
cs.indiana.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:

> If, in this day and age, you are ignorant enough to dial any numbner
> that comes over your pager, without either recognizing the number, or
> getting rate information from the operator, then any charges you incur
> are solely your own fault.  Ma Bell is not looking out for us anymore.

Okay ... I've had enough.

"Gee ... that girl should have *know* better, in this day and age,
than to walk in the parking lot at night.  Just her fault she got
raped."

"Gee ... that old lady should have *know* better, in this day and age,
than to trust that building contractor.  Just her fault she got bilked
out of her money."

Hey, after all, no one is looking out for us.  It's not the criminal's
fault that he's taking advantage of our lack of vigilence.  That's his
job, right?

I got a buddy who's a plumber.  Gets 30-40 calls a day on his beeper,
from all kinds of numbers (he's got a service that forwards the
numbers of people who have emergencies).  If this guy get's ripped off
in the manner we are discussing, is it *really* his fault?

Quit balming the *victim*, dammit!


ken seefried iii    [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing
Date: Mon, 13 May 91 17:35:05 BST
From: [e-mail]


    The system used in the UK to prevent collect calls to
payphones is that they send alternating tones for a few seconds when
answered which the operator will recognise and presumably treat as
though the call had been refused, these tones are also sent to the
operator when called from a payphone to prevent services not billed by
metering pulses being used.

    Presumably if a PABX or answering machine sent the same tones
it would also stop collect calls. I have come across one PABX system
where this would have been useful as some DID extensions were
redirected to the main switchboard to prevent collect calls being
accepted. However when the switchboard was closed at night a recorded
message was given advising callers to ring the DID number for the
appropriate extention even if that is what had been dialed.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? Free?
Date: Mon, 13 May 91 11:47:18 [phone]
From: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest V11 #347, Mark Seiden writes:

> I am curious (yellow) about * prefixed calls on cellular phones.
> Has anyone got a list?  Are they uniform across service providers? (fat
> chance) ... I noticed that some of the California providers have
> traffic information lines, etc.

> [Moderator's Note:  In many large urban areas 911 won't work correctly
> from cell phones -- at least the dispatchers cannot get a reading on
> your location. Here in Chicago, *999 gets the Minutemen, a division of
> the Illinois State Police who handle expressway and interstate highway
> duty. 911 gets a recording saying to call the operator to report the
> emergency. And 911 is never 'free' ... to the caller, yes, but the
> charges are always reversed to the emergency agency, at least from
> landline phones. I assume cellular is the same where 911 is available,
> such as New Orleans.   PAT]

Along the Interstates in North Carolina (in Cellular Areas) are signs
that tell Cellular users to dial *HP for the Highway Patrol.

Plus in some city (I can't remember which now), there was a radio
station that advertised it's Cellular Traffic number as *WXXX (or
what-ever its call letters were), this rang at the main switchboard
for the radio station (used to report accidents and traffic jams).  It
was free from all Cellular telephones, don't know about roamers.  Not
surprisingly, the radio station advertised the two Cellular carriers
constantly (I assume in trade for this *-number).


Tim Irvin

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

Date: Sat, 11 May 91 18:01:25 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RJ Wiring for AT&T 258A


>> Can anybody out there post the definitive method of pairing (with
>> color code) for the AT&T PDS scheme?

>> The trouble I have is with pair 4.  Which pin is really tip, and
>> shouldn't it be white/brown?

> Lessee now ... regarding your question of color codes, I believe you
> have them right, but my memory is foggy on that one.

You are correct in thinking pair 4 should be white/brown.  The color
codes are:

blue    1                  white     0
orange  2                  red       5
green   3                  black    10
brown   4                  yellow   15
slate   5                  violet   20

Add the values together to get the pair number.  If there are more
than 25 pair colored binders will be used.  Mutiply the binder number
by 25 and add to the pair number. It's really just a base 5 numbering
system.  This works for up to 625 pair.  If I remember correctly, 1000
pair cable has a white-blue binder around the first 500 pair and a
white-orange binder around pair 500-1000, but I beleve this is the
only exception.

Hope this helps.


Pat Turner    Auburn Univeristy, AL
Internet> [e-mail]   Packet> KB4GRZ

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 91 09:25:00 CDT
From: Steve Wolfson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Faster Answering Pages


It could be that the code is used for the different beeps permitted by
the pager.  On our system entering code you can force the pager to
beep in an obnoxious "Danger, Will Robinson!"  mode which is to let
the pagee know that this is a big emergency.  (remember when being
paged at all was supposed to be only for emergencies :-)


Steve Wolfson - Motorola Inc. -- [e-mail]

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

From: Brian Murrey <samsung!towers![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GEnie Management Acting a la Prodigy Management?
Organization: Small System Specialists
Date: Sat, 11 May 91 03:00:23 GMT


GEnie's boss (former boss) Bill Louden is trying to stay alive after
battling lung cancer for the last two years.  I'd wager that had more
to do with his leaving the helm than the Kaplan ordeal.

Whatever.

Brian Murrey - KB9BVN - QTH Indpls : Fidonet: 1:231/30 317-535-9097 :
UUCP:..towers!brian                : Login:Ham Radio  Password:Yagi :

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATC's New Bill and Customer Service Number
Date: 11 May 91 06:50:13 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I received my May ATC/MircoTel invoice a few days ago. I only keep
the account for emergency usage but decided to do some testing.  I
called a local number as 10789-NXX-NNNN and it went through and billed
 .09 for it.  Anyway, there were three calls at nine cents plus four
cent tax came to 31 cents.. I received a seven page bill (Printed on
five sheets of paper) costing 47 cents to mail. (8 1/2 x 11)

Page 1 - Customer Service Numbers /Message/Payment Coupon
Page 2 - Charge Sumary - past payment etc...
Page 3 - Detail of page 2
Page 4 - Summary of Usage by Type and Rate Period
Page 5 - Call Details
Page 6 - Summary by line/calling card ... number of calls, minutes, amount
Page 7 - Summary by area code ... number of calls, time, cost,
         percent of total, day percent, evening and night percents.

I think they got carried away with the new billing system. It is worse
then the old ATC/TELUS/TELTEC bills are ... they are seven pages but
they are only 8 1/2 by 3 1/2 or so.

They also changed their phone number for Customer Service to the 749
exchange in the 800 area code ... which is listed as belonging to
Teleconnect.  ATC has several prefixes assigned to them. Why would
they use MCI (Teleconnect-> TELECOM*USA-> MCI) for their 800 number) ?

I know that they provide MCI's fiber in FL (from the MicroTel Days)
and that they sold TELECOM*USA 780 numbers for HomeLine 800 (or
whatever it was called at TELUS).  I am begining to think that since
ATC is a regional carrier, they use MCI/TELECOM*USA to carry all of
the 800 calls outside of their ten state area and MCI uses them to
carry 800 calls in FL (ATC/MicroTEL). When SouthernBell had a cable
cut the only calls that went through were MCI 800 and MicroTel 10789
access calls.


Bill

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #357
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21284;
          14 May 91 4:37 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04423;
          14 May 91 3:05 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01630;
          14 May 91 2:00 CDT
Date:     Tue, 14 May 91 1:16:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #358
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 May 91 01:16:35 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 358

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Is the GTE Airfone Public? [Leryo Malbito]
    Telemarketing Exclusions [Fred Ennis]
    Security and Online Services [Andy Rabagliati]
    Radio Shack's TeleProtector [Peter Creath]
    Old Telephone That Will Not Ring [Alex T. Jenkins]
    Information Wanted on Panasonic KSU [Jeff Scheer]
    Trying to Trace Hang-up Calls [Oren Haber-Schaim]
    Air Raid Sirens and Bell Canada [Toronto Star via Adam Mottershead]
    The COCOT Trade Rag [Julian Macassey]
    Deregulation in Telecom [Daniel R. Guilderson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 May 91 12:58:33 -0400
From: Leryo Malbito <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is the GTE Airfone Public?


While recently on the Pan Am Shuttle, I was examining the Airfone(r),
and reading the little information card detailing it's features.  Here
I will reproduce some of it, indeed it got me quite agitated.

              THE SKY'S NO LONGER THE LIMIT

WHAT IS THE AIRFONE SERVICE?

The Airfone service is a PUBLIC phone designed for busy travelers who
can't afford to be out of touch with their business while in the air.
So the next time you need to know what's up, simply reach for the
Seatfone(tm) system and get down to business!  (Note: emphasis on
'public' mine.)

HOW DOES THE SERVICE WORK?

The Airfone service is a unique telecommuncations system operating on
a network of more than 75 ground stations strategically located
throughout the US and Canada.  Each ground station is served by radio
transmitter/receivers.  These radios in turn are connected to a
world-wide telephone network. An aircraft with the Seatfone(tm) system
aboard is also equipped with radio transmitters/ receivers and an
airborne computer.  The computer assists the onboard radio in searching
for the best ground station to complete your call.  Once located, your
call is sent via line-of-sight radio wave signals to one of the ground
station radios where it is then integrated into the worldwide telephone
network.

WHERE CAN I MAKE A CALL?

Calls may be placed while flying over the contiguous U.S., Anchorage,
Alaska, Honolulu, Hawaii, the southern regions of Canada and within
200 miles of the U.S. coastline.  Calls can also be placed while the
aircraft is on the ground at most major airports.  Aircraft flying
overseas are out of range of the ground station network, therefore the
system cannot complete your call.

WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I EXPERIENCE A PROBLEM?

Due to the nature of radio wave transmission, there may be times
communication is impaired due to events such as adverse weather
conditions or changes in terrain.  Should you experience any
difficulty, simply notify the GTE Airfone Customer Service
representative by dialing "0" while in flight or 1-800-AIRFONE when
you reach your destination.  If you dial a wrong number, simply press
the new call or dial tone button and redial the correct number.  After
completing your call, dial the GTE Airfone Customer Service
Representative and explain what happened.  Your bill will be adjusted.

End Airfone ad -- all errors are mine.

The rates for this service are $2.00 per minute domestic, plus $2.00
set-up.  800 numbers are also charged at domestic rates.
International calls are $4.00 per minute, plus $4.00 set-up.  DA is
free, as is NPA info.

Here is their little italicized disclaimer in what looks like two
point printing:

GTE Airfone Incorporated operates under an experimental developmental
license issued by the Federal Communications Commision (FCC). The
Airfone service is provided solely by GTE Airfone Incorporated.
Liability of GTE Airfone Incorporated for failure of communications
is limited to call charges only.  Airfone(r), Seatfone(tm), and The
Sky's No Longer The Limit(r) are trademarks of GTE Airfone
Incorporated.

Now, this is all very interesting, as now (on the Pan Am Shuttle,
which I take just a little more than once a month round trip) they have
a phone on the back of the center seat on each side, in each row.
Therefore there are over 80 phones, assuming there are about 40 rows.
I remember only several years ago when there was only _one_ phone per
plane, and it got just about the same amount of usage! If I was to
estimate the number of calls made per trip on all of the phones
combined, I would come up with a number no greater than three or four.

Of course this is speculation, as I admit I am probably incorrect, yet
I cannot help but wonder whether it is more profitable to have so many
calls, and what their estimate of maximum calls at a time per plane
is; ie, how many outgoing lines they have alotted.

BUT the point of my letter was not to promote GTE Airfone, rather to
ask for someone to help me define 'Public'.  The way the Airfone is
set up now, one MUST have some sort of credit card in order to get a
dial tone.  Not everyone has a credit card. I feel they should at
least make some sort of provision regarding the use of an AT&T card.
They accept it, but you must have the actual card, not just the
number.  As I have memorized my AT&T card number (all four digits of
it) I don't carry it around for several reasons.

a) If I lose my wallet it is one less thing to cancel.
b) There is less chance of someone seeing my card number.
c) If I know the number, why bulk my wallet up, even if it IS only
   1 mm thick?

Therefore, even if I DID wish to use this service, I couldn't!
(Assuming I have none of the credit cards they accept.)

I am interested in anyone challenging my definition of public, or
anyone from GTE (such as Robert Virzi, whom I have mailed this to
also) commenting off the record, or anyone who has had more expereince
with the service.

Thanks,

Leryo


[Moderator's Note: I don't really see what the big deal is,
considering nearly everyone has some credit card or another which is
accepted.  It might be interesting though to see them develop a coin /
paper money operated device (a lot like those vending machines at the
post office and the train station) which accept up to twenty dollar
bills into which the money could be inserted on request following the
manual connection of your call by the GTE operator. This would add a
degree of anomynity to the process for those who desired it or did not
have the cards.  You would dial the operator, she would place the call
and on reaching someone would have them hold; split the connection;
get you to put in whatever you wanted for a certain number of minutes;
then connect you and cut you off (or demand more money) when the time
was up.  Perhaps the airports could also sell pre-paid phone cards
like in Europe, ie you buy a card with $10 in phone credit on it and
insert that in the slot when on board.  PAT]

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

Subject: Telemarketing Exclusions
From: Fred Ennis <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 11 May 91 20:55:06 EST
Organization: AFI Communications - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada


I'd like to put forward an idea that has been percolating in my mind
for some time.

Many of us object to outbound residential telemarketing, especially
ADADs, carpet cleaners, subscription salespeople, etc.  Here's the
idea.

For a nominal monthly fee, your dial tone company would disable
telemarketing calls from accessing your line.

How? By selling the telemarketers special lines.  Any firm engaging in
outbound residential telemarketing where there has been no recent
previous contact with the customer (this gets around the dentist
telling you it's time for your checkup or the chimney cleaner you
hired two years ago telling you it's time to clean again), would be
forced by the telco tarriff to use these special CO lines for all such
calls.

The telco would then deny access from those lines to everyone who
signed up for their "telemarketing exclusion" deal.

Winners: People willing to pay a buck or two a month to ensure they're
not interrupted by sales pitches.  Telemarketers who won't waste time
with people who will be ticked off at them.  The telco because it
makes money from both sides.

Although costs would go up slightly for everyone, I think the social
benefits are worth it.

Now, I'd like some feedback from the participants in the newsgroup.
Is it workable? Is there are telco marketing type around here who
either likes the idea or can shoot it full of holes?

I am assuming we have the technology, at least in any CO that can
offer CLID and other such features.

Cheers!


Fred Ennis   Internet: [e-mail]  UUCP: aficom!fred
AFI Communications, P.O.Box 11087 Station H, Nepean ON K2H 7T8

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

From: Andy Rabagliati <[e-mail]>
Subject: Security and Online Services
Organization: SGS-Thomson/Inmos Division
Date: Sun, 12 May 91 05:48:54 GMT


What we are seeing with Prodigy, Lotus Marketplace, Internet, UUnet,
and the like is a nascent industry.

When people start selling information - even selling the organization
of available information, like phone numbers, we should think of
encryption early on.

I am sure Prodigy does not knowingly pry for information, but we, the
net, know what it could do.

Encryption is relatively cheap.  It deals with many of the potential
problems -- wire-tapping, etc.

Why, I could set up a computer service, with a fast, distributed
database system, where the data that passed publicly, the requests,
the password algorithm, billing info, was encrypted.

Maybe the information is commercially sensitive private company data;
even I cant read it off the disk because it is locally encrypted
before writing to any permanent storage. Computer power makes these
cheap options.

The issue then becomes clearer -- I am selling an organizer, someone
else is selling/using the information. Many people confuse the
capabilities of computers with the information itself. They are both
issues that need addressing.

Cheers,


Andy

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

From: Peter Creath <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Shack's TeleProtector
Organization: A small corner of Hell
Date: Sun, 12 May 1991 23:00:29 GMT


I went by Radio Shack today to look for those little gadgets that
disconnect all the other lines when I'm on the modem.  Well, it turns
out you have to buy one for ALL OTHER lines (except the one you want
to use).  They will disconnect the phones they're plugged into.  Is
there ANY gadget that does the same, but I only have to plug it into
the line I want to protect?

(please reply in E-mail)


[e-mail]
[e-mail]    (same thing...)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Old Telephone That Will Not Ring
Date: Mon  May 13 12:52:29 1991


Hi, would anybody care to educate me about how I could fix this very
old and heavy telephone?  It's one of those black units with a
beautiful sounding chime, (three wires, but I only connect two?)

Please reply via e-mail and I'll summarize if appropriate.  Thanks!


Alex T. Jenkins    Aries Technology, Inc., Lowell, Mass.
 ..!decwrl!decvax!ariest!atj or  ...!uunet!ariest!atj

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

Date: Sun, 12 May 91 16:47:23 CST
From: Jeff Scheer <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on Panasonic KSU
Reply-To: ivgate!command![e-mail]
Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha


Please mail me the info on the Panasonic KSU.  I currently use a
Merlin* 410 system in my home, and want to upgrade to something
different.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Ivgate!Command![e-mail]

 The .COMmand Center  (Opus 1:5010/23)

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

From: "[e-mail]"@husc3.harvard.edu
Subject: Trying to Trace Hang-up Calls
Date: 12 May 91 20:06:33 EDT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center


Has anyone encountered resistance from the telephone company when
requesting a standby trace to identify repeated nuisance calls?  Any
magic words recommended to help enlist institutional cooperation will
be appreciated!


Thank you.

Oren Haber-Schaim

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

Subject: Air Raid Sirens and Bell Canada
From: Adam Mottershead <wcsd![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 12 May 1991 11:20:08 -0400
Organization: World Center Systems, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.


I found this article in the Sunday May 12th edition of {The Toronto
Star}.  It may be of interest to TELECOM readers.

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

              WAILING AIR SIRENS CAUSE STIR IN MISSISSAUGA
                    By Carol Moffatt and Peter Small
                             TORONTO STAR

  Thousands of Missisauga residents were shocked from their sleep when
malfunctioning air raid sirens began screeching just after 4 a.m.
yesterday.

  "I woke up around 5:30 and thought it was a machine left on or
something," Mayor Hazel McCallion said yessterday.

  It wasn't until she went outside to check her car alarm that she
realized the noise was coming from sirens in the distance.

  Hundreds of residents phoned the local fire and police departments,
but were told nothing could be done because the federal defence
department was responsible.

  In fact, the siren signalling system is overseen by Bell Canada.

  A defective circuitry in the central office in Oakville was
responsible, said Bell representative Geoff Mathews.

  "It just kind of wore out, kind of like a lightbulb doees.  These
things have a limited lifespan ... once a year you can expect this
sort of thing," he said.

  McCallion didn't agree.

  "The kind of confusion that was reported is not necessary.  If (the
circuits) need to be maintained they should be serviced regularly,"
she said.

  "It will be thoroughly investigated Monday."

  Bell spokesperson Alex Bilyk said technicians receive a call from
the armed forces when the sirens started at 4:15 a.m.  They were shut
off at 5:20 a.m.  but were on again from 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. before being
shut off for good.

  John Richardson of Pinewood Rd. in Mississauga said he and his wife
decided to make the best of it.  "We're having what we call an air
raid party."


Adam Mottershead ([e-mail])

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: The COCOT Trade Rag
Date: 11 May 91 04:23:50 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: On the Blower to the Guvnor,  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In the mail the other day, I received a free copy of the COCOT
industry's trade publication. The rag is called "PHONE +". A years
subscription costs $33.00. It is published by Taurus Publishing Inc, A
subsidiary of Virgo Publishing Inc of 4141 North Scottsdale Road,
suite 316, Scottsdale, Arizona 85251. Phone [phone] FAX (602)
990-0819.

    Most of the mag is geared to the COCOT industry, as are the
Ads, you will see more COCOT company ads than you would believe. But
in the May edition there is also a pretty good article on ACDs
(Automatic Call Distributors).

    So if you want to get in the COCOT biz, or just keep abreast
of the enemy, this trade rag may interest you.

    If John Higdon wants my copy, I will mail it to him.


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

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

Date: Sat, 11 May 91 11:59:25 EDT
From: "Daniel R. Guilderson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Deregulation in Telecom


[e-mail] (David Gast) writes:

> It sounds good on paper, but I don't believe that the real world works
> like this.  What happens is that the big boys push the upstarts out of
> business and formally or informally start a cartel.  Consider Airlines.

The bottom line for me is that I have a choice of who I want to fly
with in the air.  On the phone I either fly with NET or I don't fly at
all.  At least with the LDs I have a choice.  If I'm unhappy with NET
I can't take my business elsewhere.  I have to suffer and the
government doesn't give a rats ass unless they can use it for
political advantage.  I don't like this situation, not one bit.  If
there was even one other choice it would make me feel a little better.

If there is some other way besides deregulation to get many competitors
into the arena then let me know about it otherwise I'm a 100%
supporter of heavy duty deregulation.  (Sometimes things have to get
worse before they get better.)


Daniel Guilderson   [e-mail]
UMass Boston, Harbor Campus, Dorchester, MA  USA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #358
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21533;
          14 May 91 4:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04423;
          14 May 91 3:10 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01630;
          14 May 91 2:00 CDT
Date:     Tue, 14 May 91 1:50:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #359
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 May 91 01:50:28 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 359

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Bay Area Cellular Service [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    No PRELUDE Users on the Net? [Kath Mullholand]
    Blocking Long Distance [Kath Mullholand]
    Information Wanted on Nigeria Phone System [Leroy Donnelly]
    India to US Data Link Needed [Arun Baheti]
    Re: Pac Bell Pays 7% Interest [Henry Mensch]
    More on NPA 404/706 Split [Bill Berbenich]
    Local Competition Approved in CA [Ron Dippold]
    Panasonic Easa-Phone Question [Fred E. J. Linton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bay Area Cellular Service
Date: 13 May 1991  00:00:00 GMT


In a recent set of postings, Steve Forette and John Higdon had
mentioned the differences in service between Bay Area systems. (Sorry,
comments not working tonight, but it was quite recent.)

One thing which was not mentioned (specifically) was the differences
between the roaming agreements which both GTE and Cell One/SF have
with their neighbors.

For example, GTE/SF will allow you to roam to Sacramento, Modesto, San
Luis Obispo, and most other California and Nevada cities (I guess
that's Reno and Las Vegas), and not incur a daily roam charge.
Moreover, the rates while roaming are quite favorable. So, for
example, as I am a customer of GTE/SF, can roam into Sac and pay 15
cents per minute airtime (off peak), and *NO* daily roam charge. I
believe this is true for most (if not all) other California cities,
yet I've heard conflicting stories about LA and Las Vegas, NV. When
*I* tried using LA's "B" system, I was not billed for any daily
charge, yet I believe it was posted here some time ago that LA's "B"
system charges for FMR (Follow Me Roaming) activations. GTE/SF and the
LA system both say this is not the case, and my own experience
indicates this as well, but perhaps there are exceptions to this in
other cities that I have not roamed to yet. In general, though,
roaming is relatively inexpensive on the "B" systems in CA and NV.
(Some systems, like Sac and Modesto, charge for incomplete calls,
which is a pain, but then do some of the CA "A" systems.)

As to the "A" systems, ie, Cell One/SF in particular, when I inquired
as to any roam charges, I was told that if I roamed out of the SF
service area, into Sac for example, I would incur a daily roam charge
and pay higher rates for airtime than I would pay under GTE/SF. A
friend of mine who uses Cell One/SF notes that she pays a daily charge
when she drives down to Monterey, which can get quite high. (Over this
past summer it was $2 per day, I believe they were talking about
raising it to $3). This is a considerable expense as she tends to
drive to Santa Cruz (just north of Moneterey) via CA-1. Since Monterey
is at the south end of a bay, and Santa Cruz is about 20 miles north
of that (direct line), signals from the Monterey system "bleed" over
to the hills just north of Santa Cruz, and thus someone driving down
CA-1 over those hills will frequenlty pick up the Monterey system,
even if the "roam" light hasn't come on yet. I've seen this happen,
and unless one blocks out the Monterey System ID code (SID), one may
unexpectedly be using that system and thus paying the higher rates and
the daily charge.

Again, this may have changed since September when I asked Cell One
about its roaming agreements with other local carriers, but if not,
and you intend to roam in California a good deal, I would suggest
getting an account with the "B" system. For heavy roamers, this will
probably save you some money.

Another (perhaps less significant) problem with roaming on the "A"
systems is that they tend to "bundle" their service areas for the
benefit of THEIR customers, yet bill them as separate entities when
roamers use the system.

To use an example which I have mentioned before in earlier posts,
let's take the Cell One/SF system. Cell One/SF *says* that its system
covers all the way from Santa Rosa (north of San Francisco) to Santa
Cruz (south and a bit West of San Francisco). And indeed, if you are
one of their customers, you will pay the same rates throughout their
system, not worry about roam charges, etc. BUT, if you roam in their
system, they consider EACH area to be a separate system, ie, the
"Santa Rosa System", the "San Francisco System", and the "Santa Cruz
System" (which Metro Mobile calls "Saint Crux" for some
reason..probably their God-awful billing company).

Anyhow, what this means to roamers is that if they drive from Santa
Rosa to Santa Cruz, and make calls (or receive them) along the way,
they will be billed $2 for EACH system, ie, Santa Rosa, San Francisco,
and Santa Cruz, which is sort of cheap, and something Cell One/SF
doesn't tell you about when you ask them what their rates and service
area is. (The SID codes are weird for this sort of thing: Cell One/SF
is 00031, yet the SID number which was quoted to me by Metro Mobile
was 30031, which they said was for the "separate Saint Crux" system.
Metro does this too: Their SID code is 00119, which is the same in CT
and RI, but the New Bedford, MA system is 30119. If I program my phone
for "00119" as home, or "00031" as home, and then roam into one of the
300xx areas, the "ROAM" light doesn't come on. Anyone know how this
works and/or why it is done??)

This is not to say that all the "A" systems are like this. The
Sac/Stockton/ Reno, NV system will charge you only one daily charge,
even if you drive up I-5 to I-80 and head to Tahoe and then Reno, ie,
using all the systems. But there are lots of companies like Cell
One/SF that use "tricky" means to get their daily charges (and charges
and charges..! :) ), something which I have found to be MUCH less the
case of the "B" systems.

The "A" systems are also much more prone to billing errors for
roamers.  For example, when I made calling card calls from Cell One/SF
to Texas, which should result in NO landline charges being billed to
me by the cell co.s (ie, I get billed airtime, and AT&T sends me the
bill for the call from SF to Texas), I was instead billed for BOTH
airtime and toll charges!

It of course took me five hours on the phone just to explain to my
favorite mobile comapny (Metro Mobile/CT, who bills me for "A" calls)
just where San Francisco was, after which about a week to get it
through that calling card calls shouldn't be billed landline charges.
After they grasped this highly complex concept, Metro Highbill took
care of the problem, but it just indicates the total lack of any
coordination or effective means of overseeing billing that many of the
"A" systems suffer from in terms of roaming.

Also note that as a roamer in Cell One/SF's system, any call outside
the Bay Area (ie, outside of 415, northern 408, or southern 707) will
be forced onto AT&T's calling card system, and you will need to use
your card to complete any calls. This is more expensive for two
reasons:

    (1) - You will have to pay the 80 cent surcharge for using your
             calling card, and
    (2) - Even if no one answers, or it is busy, etc., you will still
            pay for accessing the calling card system in terms of
          airtime and daily roamer charges. (This is true with most
          systems, ie, paying for card calls regardless of whether or
              not the card call completed ... yet most other systems allow
             you to dial direct, thus avoiding these costs.)

There have also been two cases where my mobile number (or rather,
prefix) was not programmed into the switch. The most recent case was
over the 4th of July, in the Cell One/Sac-Stockton-Reno system, which,
although promptly corrected the next business day, caused me a good
deal of problems on the 4th.

All of these put together indicate to me that roaming on the "A"
systems has a LONG way to go. And this is not limited to California:
Cell One/Wilmington, DE also forces roamers to use their cards for ALL
calls; Cell One/South Jersey will bill roamers for ANY call they make,
regardless of it is answered or not or if you accidentally hit SEND
and then hang up even before the first ring; the Vanguard/Cell One
System in Eastern PA will bill you separate roaming charges for each
of their "systems" (ie, Allentown, Reading, Wilkes-Beare (sp?)), etc.

Compare this to roaming on the "B" systems: I roam a lot on the "B"
systems along the East Coast. I use Bell Atlantic DC and Phil,
NYNEX/NY and Boston, and SNET. I have turned on Follow Me Roaming,
called myself after it forwarded my calls (three days later! :) ), got
the busy signal, and left it on for about thirty minutes as a test.
When I got the bill the next month, nothing!  That's right -- to my
suprise, the BAMS/Philadelphia did not bill me for the call. I then
tried this in other "B" systems, same thing. I have also talked to
other "B" customers at Apple Comp. in Glastonbury, CT, and they never
noted any calls on their bills which did not complete. It seems then
that the "B"s generally tend to wait for answer superivsion before
billing you for the call.  Th B's have other problems as well, mainly
FMR and small calling areas (ie, few DMXs or links between systems
like the A's have), yet that's a whole other post in itself.

So if you intend to stay within the "home" service area, then both
systems, specifically in San Francisco and perhaps generally elsewhere
as well, are quite similar in terms of coverage in the more urban
areas, although there could be considerable differences in more
out-of-the-way areas. (Eastern CT with SNET, for example, has very
good coverage, with Metro, nothing at all. No doubt this wll change
soon, though...)

But, if you do intend to roam a lot, however, I personally favor the
"B"s, as despite the annoyingly frequent FMR problems, the B's have a
much more professional attitude towards roaming. I realize that there
are many "A" systems with reasonable roam policies. Cell One/Washington
DC or even *dear* Highbill do treat roamers well (it's their customers
that they treat like dirt! ;) ). If you do travel a lot and intend to
use different "A" systems, I think you'll find no end of problems,
"suprises", and hidden charges which you would never be charged for
under the "B"s.

Lecture's over ... anyone still awake? :)

If there are any corrections, additions, or comments, please let me
know. As you may have surmised, I am somewhat interested in roaming
issues and implementation, so anything you have to offer would
undoubtedly be helpful.


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


P.S. Not to make this any longer, but I was reading comp.dcom.telecom on
     my Unix system, and someone asked for some Audiovox programming
     instructions. I posted them a while back, but presently Telnet is down
     so I can't connect to the Unix. Send me E-mail and I'll send you the
     file. (Or I can wait until that article makes it to Wesleyan, but
     that generally takes a few days longer.)

     As to why they aren't on the Archives...err...I guess I never
     bothered to upload them via FTP (if that is what one is supposed to do).
     If anyone wants, I'll send them along for the Archives as well.

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

Date:  Mon, 13 May 1991 10:21:37 EDT
From:  KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: No PRELUDE Users on the Net?


I posted a request for Prelude help about three weeks ago, and had no
response.  Thought I'd try again, in case some of you with only a
little information figured I'd get a lot of responses!  The hotel
associated with the university has a Prelude, and the administrator
needs help deciphering the documentation.  No training is available
from AT&T, so she is looking for a resource for questions and advice.

You can reply to me direct:  [e-mail]     Thanks!


Kath Mullholand          UNH  Durham, NH

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 10:53:49 EDT
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Blocking Long Distance


Is there something about a DMS10 switch that makes it incapable of
blocking long distance calls?  A customer on a DMS10 has been able to
order a 976/900 block on her line, but cannot get any other long
distance calls blcoked.  This doesn't make sense to me -- technically if
it's possible to block one it *must* be possible to block the others.


Kath Mullholand       UNH  Durham, NH

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 91 22:05:14 CST
From: Leroy Donnelly <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on Nigeria Phone System
Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs![e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


Anyone out there have any experience with the Nigeria phone system?
Good and bad?


Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
 [200:5010/666@metronet] DRBBS -- Keep The Royals in Omaha  (200:5010/666.0)

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

Date: Sat, 11 May 91 12:51 CDT
From: Arun Baheti <[e-mail]>
Subject: India to US Data Link Needed


My family is involved with a new business, and has need to transfer
data (text files) from India to the United States once weekly or daily
if possible.  Can anyone suggest possible routes?  Thanks.


Arun

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

From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 11 May 1991 17:11:40 PDT
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Pac Bell Pays 7% Interest


Hmm ... I wouldn't answer those questions either, and I didn't have to
pay a deposit (although the first telebozo I spoke to was insisting
that I had to turn up at a Pac*Bell office with photo ID before the
installation date.  Maybe I should have paid .. :)

(this is recent experience ... like last month!)


Henry Mensch / Advanced Decision Systems / <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: More on NPA 404/706 Split
Date: Mon, 13 May 91 16:08:23 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I just got a little information from the Southern Bell public
information office on the proposed addition of NPA 706 to North
Georgia.  It's all fairly short and sweet.  To those wondering where
706 used to go, it used to get northern Mexico until Feb. '91,
according to a handy little DOS-based program I've occasionally used
called "AC.EXE".

The Metropolitan Atlanta LOCAL calling area will retain 404.  The re-
mainder of north Georgia (outside the Atlanta local calling area) will
become NPA 706.  According to Southern Bell folklore, the metro
Atlanta local calling area is the largest (by square miles) toll-free
calling area in the world.

Let me qualify this by saying that THIS IS NOT DEFINITE, but is what
Southern Bell is favoring at this point, according the public info
office.  Any SBT&T higher-ups watching the net and know of something
different?  If so, please let us know unless there is some compelling
reason for secrecy in the matter.


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

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

From: Ron Dippold <qualcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Local Competition Approved in CA
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 13 May 91 19:21:06 GMT


Here's an interesting one from this Friday's {LA Times} ... seems
that the way has been cleared in SoCal for competition to Pac*Bell and
GTE.  These must let other, smaller, companies make use of their
switches, etc. to compete with them.  I don't know what the long-term
effects would be, but at least a short-term drop in rates seems
possible if any company takes the bait.

The article didn't say much, if anyone else has any info I'd be
interested.


Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks.     |     Ron Dippold

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

Date: 13-MAY-1991 22:54:15.39
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Panasonic Easa-Phone Question


A friend without net access but with a Panasonic KX-T3900-H cordless
base, a KX-T3900-R handset (with broken antenna), and a KX-T3720-R
handset (intact) wonders:

(i) whether the 3720 handset can be used in conjunction with the 3900
base; and

(ii) how one sets the "Code Selection of Handset and Base to same
Code" (as the molded-in instructions cryptically recommend -- yup, no
manuals).

This venue seems like the best place to seek advice -- all advice
welcome.

Thanks very much.


Fred E.J. Linton  Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.  649 Sci. Tower  Middletown, CT 06457
E-mail:  <[e-mail]>  or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com>
Tel.:         + 1 203 776 2210 (home)  or  + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #359
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18042;
          15 May 91 3:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00022;
          15 May 91 2:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03103;
          15 May 91 1:15 CDT
Date:     Wed, 15 May 91 0:37:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #360
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 15 May 91 00:37:47 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 360

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? [Barry Margolin]
    Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? [Tim Irvin]
    Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? [Rolf Meier]
    Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? [Chip Olson]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Randy Bush]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Max Rochlin]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? [D.Sheafer]
    Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? [Tony Harminc]
    Re: Unauthorized Repair Charges [Tim Irvin]
    Re: US Answering Machinesin Israel [Warren Burstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Barry Margolin <think![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public?
Reply-To: think![e-mail]
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Date: Tue, 14 May 91 16:40:14 GMT


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

> BUT the point of my letter was not to promote GTE Airfone, rather to
> ask for someone to help me define 'Public'.  The way the Airfone is
> set up now, one MUST have some sort of credit card in order to get a
> dial tone.

I interpret "public" as meaning that anyone is permitted to use it,
but that doesn't mean everyone is *able* to use it.  On the other
hand, my home phone is private -- only I and people I authorize are
permitted to use it.  If the Airphone required you to have an account
with GTE, that would make it non-public.

> [Moderator's Note: ... Perhaps the airports could also sell pre-paid
> phone cards like in Europe, ie you buy a card with $10 in phone
> credit on it and insert that in the slot when on board.  PAT]

Or maybe the flight attendants could sell them right there on the plane.
Then, when you get the warning that you're down to your last minute, you
could call a flight attendant and buy some more time.


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

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public?
Date: Tue, 14 May 91 12:10:36 [phone]
From: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest V11 #358, Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: I don't really see what the big deal is,
> considering nearly everyone has some credit card or another which is
> accepted.  It might be interesting though to see them develop a coin /
> paper money operated device (a lot like those vending machines at the
> post office and the train station) which accept up to twenty dollar
> bills into which the money could be inserted on request following the
> manual connection of your call by the GTE operator. This would add a
> degree of anomynity to the process for those who desired it or did not
> have the cards.  You would dial the operator, she would place the call
> and on reaching someone would have them hold; split the connection;
> get you to put in whatever you wanted for a certain number of minutes;
> then connect you and cut you off (or demand more money) when the time
> was up.  Perhaps the airports could also sell pre-paid phone cards
> like in Europe, ie you buy a card with $10 in phone credit on it and
> insert that in the slot when on board.  PAT]

The main problem with this is that GTE doesn't want their AIRFONEs
walking off the plane in someone's carry-on.  So, by forcing you to
use a credit card (which they lock in the base of the phone, until you
return the AIRFONE) they are making it much more difficult to steal
the phone.  And if you do, I guess they could charge your credit card
for the value (times some huge fudge factor I am sure).


Tim Irvin

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

From: Rolf Meier <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public?
Date: 14 May 91 18:53:51 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

> BUT the point of my letter was not to promote GTE Airfone, rather to
> ask for someone to help me define 'Public'.  The way the Airfone is
> set up now, one MUST have some sort of credit card in order to get a
> dial tone.  Not everyone has a credit card. I feel they should at

In Canada, the Department of Communications has defined three market
areas for cordless/wireless telephony:

        residential; business; and public

"Residential" is home use of cordless.

"Business" includes wireless PBX and key systems.

The term "Public" would include cellular, telepoint, and presumably
Airfone.  I think the FCC has a similar distinction among the three
types of wireless service.  Therefore, I think that you might want to
take up your point with the FCC, not GTE.  Since this is a trial
service, your comments about payment procedures might be welcomed.

I agree with the Moderator in that I don't see the big deal.


Rolf Meier                    Mitel Corporation

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

From: Chip.Olson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public?
Date: 14 May 91 15:31:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Leryo
Malbito) writes:

> BUT the point of my letter was not to promote GTE Airfone, rather to
> ask for someone to help me define 'Public'.  The way the Airfone is
> set up now, one MUST have some sort of credit card in order to get a
> dial tone.  Not everyone has a credit card. I feel they should at
> least make some sort of provision regarding the use of an AT&T card.
> They accept it, but you must have the actual card, not just the
> number.

I had always assumed that the reason for their insistence on the
actual slab of plastic was to prevent people from, er, accidentally
tucking the phone into their briefcases.  Not that the phone is at all
useful on the ground, of course, but there's probably plenty of people
who would walk off with it just because it's not nailed down.

> [Moderator's Note: I don't really see what the big deal is,
> considering nearly everyone has some credit card or another which is
> accepted.

I'm one of the exceptions.  But then again, my lifestyle isn't one that
involves making phone calls from planes.  :-)

>            It might be interesting though to see them develop a coin /
> paper money operated device (a lot like those vending machines at the
> post office and the train station) which accept up to twenty dollar
> bills into which the money could be inserted on request following the
> manual connection of your call by the GTE operator.

It would be interesting, but I don't see how they could make such a machine
light enough for an airline to want to put it on its planes.  Profit margins
in the airline industry are tight enough without things like this taking up
weight capacity that could be used for fare-paying warm bodies.


Chip Olson, UMass_Amherst   [e-mail] | [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 14 May 91 08:01 PDT
From: Randy Bush <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent


> The patent upheld is on the method of notifying the DCE equipment that
> the next data arriving should be treated as a command to the DCE, as
> opposed to data to be transmitted to the far end; that is, switching
> to command mode.

You mean kinda like one tells an X.25 PAD (i.e. Telenet et al.) to drop to
command mode from data mode,

   <pause> "@" <cr> <pause>

Seeing as the above and similar uses have been in use since the '70s,
how did our friends from Norcross manage to patent it?


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

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

From: Max Rochlin <gupta![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Organization: Gupta Technologies Inc
Date: Tue, 14 May 91 17:01:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy) writes:

> Interesting how Hayes goes after the smaller retail modem
> manufacturers.  IBM and AT&T both also make and sell AT modems. I
> don't see Hayes challenging them in court. There are also a host of
> other modem manufacturers such as Codex, Universal Data Systems (both
> owned by Motorola), General DataComm (who I work for), Racal-Milgo,
> etc who also manufacture AT modems.

Perhaps it's because IBM pays Hayes a licensing fee and the smaller
retail modem manufacturers do not.  I don't know about AT&T, though,
sorry.

   [e-mail]      Max J. Rochlin    decwrl!madmax!max

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

Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
From: "Steven S. Brack" <bluemoon![e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 91 14:03:21 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])


kentrox![e-mail] (Bud Couch) writes:

> As a matter of fact, as PN-2120, a document from TIA committee
> TR-30.4, the command set has been submitted to the CCITT as part of
> draft recomendation "V.25 ter". One of the regular contributors to
> TELECOM Digest, Toby Nixon of Hayes is the chairman of TR-30.4, and
> can probably post an update of the status of this proposal, if asked.

> Communication software writers can, quite freely, write software which
> sends the string "AT whatever" and DCE equipment may recognize that
> string and act upon it.

> Most software defaults to a one second pause, transmitting three plus
> (+) signs, followed by a one second pause. Hayes patent is broader,
> covering any time delay, followed by any unique sequence. This patent,
> however, covers only async data ports used for both data and command.
> Synchronous ports, obviously, cannot pause in sending data, and the
> use of separate command and data ports is also outside the scope of
> the patent.

        This is a valid patent??  I haven't studied patent law in
depth, but I would think that a patent like that would fall under the
realm of overbredth (sp?).  Ha this patent been upheld in court?  It
certainly appears that Hayes has patented a PAUSE-DATA-PAUSE sequence.
If that's true, then Hayes holds license on nearly every piece of data
manipulation equipment ever manufactured.

        If a patent that broad covering a process that basic is
admissible, then the first person to patent the breathing process is
in for a fortune in royalties from all those people using his
"technology" all this time 8) 8) 8).

> For those in the external async modem business, the Hayes patent is a
> business expense that they will have to factor in. The rest of us can
> continue to type in "ATxxx" without worrying that the feds are going
> to come after us.


Steven S. Brack                  |  [e-mail]
Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower     |  [e-mail]
The Ohio State University        |  [e-mail]
50 Curl Drive.                   |  [e-mail]
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112   USA  |  [e-mail]
[phone]            |  [e-mail]


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

From: David E. Sheafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? Free?
Date: 14 May 91 10:54:24 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


In article <[e-mail]>, irvin@northstar105.
dartmouth.edu writes:

> In TELECOM Digest V11 #347, Mark Seiden writes:

>> I am curious (yellow) about * prefixed calls on cellular phones.
>> Has anyone got a list?  Are they uniform across service providers? (fat
>> chance) ... I noticed that some of the California providers have
>> traffic information lines, etc.

  These are the * prefixed numbers for NYNEX Mobile in New England
(MA,RI and southern NH) and the appropriate charges:

 *18  follow-me-roaming activation       No Charge #
 *19  Follow-me-roaming deactivation     No Charge
 *33  Celtics Hotline                    Usage Rates
 *37  StockQuote                         Usage Rates
 *44  WVBF-FM Call to Report Traffic     No Charge
 *63  WPRO-AM Call to Report Trafffic
      in Rhode island                    No Charge
 *64  (*NH) NH State Police              No Charge
 *68  WRKO-AM Talkline                   No Charge
 *76  WBSM-AM New Bedford Traffic
      Conditions                         No Charge
 *77  (*SP) MA State Police              No Charge
 *82  AAA Emergency                      Usage Rates
 *88  Time                               Usage Rates
 *92  WPRO-FM Call to Report traffic
      in Rhode Island                    No Charge
 *99  Weather                            Usage Rates
 *850 WHDH-AM Call to Report Traffic
      or News                            No Charge
  411 Directory Assistance               Usage Rates ##
  611 Nynex Customer Service             No Charge

 # In certain instances the host cellular service carrier may charge a daily
   activation fee for Follow-Me-Roaming activation.

## Plus New England Telephone Directory Assistance and Transport Charges.

Listed features and Charges are provided fo NYNEX Mobile Access Numbers.


David E. Sheafer

internet:  [e-mail]   or  uucp:      samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b
GEnie:     D.SHEAFER      Cleveland Freenet:    ap345

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

Date: Tue, 14 May 91 18:31:12 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones


> Plus in some city (I can't remember which now), there was a radio
> station that advertised it's Cellular Traffic number as *WXXX (or
> what-ever its call letters were), this rang at the main switchboard
> for the radio station (used to report accidents and traffic jams).  It
> was free from all Cellular telephones, don't know about roamers.  Not
> surprisingly, the radio station advertised the two Cellular carriers
> constantly (I assume in trade for this *-number).

Around here (Bell Cellular and Cantel territory) the radio stations
tell you to dial #nnn where nnn is their frequency (or some
variation).  So Toronto station CBL at 740 AM tells you to dial #740,
while CHFI at 98.1 FM has #981.  I had assumed this was some sort of
standard.  No so ?  These calls are not free.


Tony Harminc

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

Subject: Re: Unauthorized Repair Charges
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 14 May 91 13:27:08 [phone]
From: [e-mail]


Following up on an article I sent in on Apr 25 about Unauthorized
Repair Charges on my bill, and my fight to get them removed.  Well,
after sending a complaint to the PUC, and cc'ing New England
Telephone, I got a call (yesterday) from the NET (NH) Home Office.
She was extremely appologetic about the whole messy affair, and she
(get this) actually is going to give me one-months free service.  Who
says monopolies can't be responsive to their customers complaints?? :)
Actually, she was very nice (unusual -- for the phone co.) and I
really wasn't expecting to get anything more than the Repair Charge
Removed, so this was a nice surprise.

She also is going to remove the black marks that the billing rep
scarred my "Permanent Record" with.

So I guess the moral of the story is: complaints to the PUC (cc'ing
the TelCo) seems to get some action, out of usually actionless
company.

Tim Irvin

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

From: Warren Burstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Answering Machines in Israel
Date: Tue, 14 May 91 0:23:03 IDT


I use a PhoneMate 7300 in Israel.  Adaptors between modular connectors
and the connectors used by Bezeq (the Israeli phone company) are
easily available here.

The only problem is that the built-in clock is wrong because the power
line frequency is 50Hz.  I wrote a letter to Phone Mate asking if they
manufactured a 50Hz model, and if it was possible to convert between
the two, but they never answered.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #360
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15595;
          16 May 91 4:00 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00235;
          16 May 91 2:35 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29092;
          16 May 91 1:28 CDT
Date:     Thu, 16 May 91 0:42:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #361
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 May 91 00:41:29 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 361

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    An Update on Randy [TELECOM Moderator]
    Phone/Voice Recognition Systems Survey [Len Jaffe]
    A Civilized COCOT [Ted Marshall]
    Re: Another COCOT Complaint [Ken Jongsma]
    Airphone Charges [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing [Phydeaux]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [Ron Schnell]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [Phydeaux]
    Re: Line Noise [Barton F. Bruce]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 May 91 23:40:55 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: An Update on Randy


I have an update on Randy ....

And so that there is no confusion about who instigated what, let me
say that I called him -- he did not call me.

He opened the brief conversation by pointing out that part of the
conditions under which he was constrained at the present time was that
he was to have no further correspondence with TELECOM Digest, nor was
he to discuss the pending disciplinary action against him with the
Digest.

He said he had NOT -- as of yet -- been fired. He was asked to stay
away from the office, and is using some vacation time at present. He
has NOT been given a final paycheck.

At the time of his interview with the security people on May 8, he was
offered an opportunity to have his union representative present for
the interview. He declined at that point to do so.

He has since requested intervention by his union representative, and
the union has grieved on his behalf. That process is underway now, and
a decision will be forthcoming later on.  Randy said it could be quite
some time before the union and AT&T finish the matter, and that the final
decision, if unfavorable to Randy could then be appealed further.

In order not to cause Randy to possibly be in further difficulty, I
agreed to specifically point out that I solicited his comments -- not
the other way around, and that when he pointed out the requirement
that he refrain from corresponding with us in detail we terminated the
conversation. He concluded the conversation by saying that he accepted
full responsibility for his message which appeared in the Digest, and
that he submitted it expecting it would be printed.

I am forwarding a copy of this to the telecom-priv for any further
discussion that may be desired.


Patrick Townson


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

From: Len Jaffe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone/Voice Recognition Systems Survey
Organization: Cincinnati Network, Cinti. OH
Date: Mon, 13 May 91 14:53:42 GMT


Hi,
I'm posting this for a co-worker since I'm the only one with usenet access
so far (but we're working on it :) )

Leonard A. Jaffe, User                 [e-mail]
Cincinnati Public Access Un*x          {uunet!}cinnet.com!hawkwind
Just Another Hack Perler

       -----------begin coworker's posting-----------

CARS Information Systems Corporation produces integrated
administrative computer systems for colleges and universities.  Most
of our clients are private schools with 1,000-5,000 FTE students,
though we are currently working with schools of up to 15,000 students
in the community college sector.

We are evaluating voice response systems through which we may use the
telephone as an interface to our UN*X computer systems (eg. touch-tone
registration).  So far we have received information about Perception
Technology, Periphonics, Applied Voice Technology (formerly 1776
Corp), AT&T Conversant, InterVoice and Octel Systems.

I am interested in any comments or suggestions you may have, regarding
these and any other vendors.

Please respond via e-mail, and I'll summarize the responses for those
who request it.

Thanks in advance,


Tom Hale           {uunet}!cinnet.com!carsinfo!hale
D. Thomas Hale     Programmer/Analyst  [phone]
CARS Information Systems Corporation, Cincinnati, OH  45241
{uunet.uu.net}!cinnet.com!carsinfo!hale        Standard Disclaimers Apply

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 91 09:48:48 PDT
From: Ted Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Civilized COCOT


Just to show that they aren't all bad, this weekend, I found a very
civil COCOT. If they were all like this one, COCOT wouldn't be a dirty
word.  The machine is located in a chinese restaurant in Los Altos,
California (AC 415).

The following is from memory from the instruction card:

    Local calls $.20 (same as Pac Bell), 15 minute limit.

    Long distance carrier is MCI, for both coin and non-coin calls.
    [I verified that a 0+ call gave an MCI bong.]

    911 allowed and free. [I did not verify this.]

    10XXX and 950-XXXX long distance calling allowed. [102880+ did give
    an AT&T bong.]

    Long distance rates:
        IntraLATA    $.10
        InterLATA    $.10
        Out-of-state    20% surcharge
    [This is how it is written on the instructions; I assume that the 10
    cents is also a surcharge.]

The phone itself looks much like a standard Pac Bell payphone.
However, it does produce its own dial-tone and then generate its own
DTMF string on to the line (receiver not muted). On coin calls, the
money request is a synthesized voice generated by the phone (it come
on immediately after the last digit.)

I did not actually place any calls on it, but the little playing I did
seemed to confirm the printed information. An attempted coin call to
the Los Angeles area (818-886) requested $1.00 for 3 minutes, which
seems about right. 212-555-1212 requested $.70. Other than the
(comparatively small) LD surcharge, it might as well have been a RBOC
payphone.

One funny thing: the phone is operated by "Western # Bell" ("#" = a
white octothorpe (SP?) on a black rounded rectangle (looks like the
keypad key)).  Compare this to "Pacific * Bell" (TM). I guess these
days, no one has a trademark on "<anything> Bell".


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

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

Subject: Re: Another COCOT Complaint
Date: Mon, 13 May 91 8:20:37 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Recently, there have been several posts asking how to complain about a
particular COCOT. I just noticed that all of the Michigan Bell
payphones in this area have been relabeled. That is, the lower info
card on the payphone has been changed. Where it used to just indicate
the 0+ and local carrier, it now has an FCC address for complaints. I
did not write the address down, but if someone really needs it, I
probably could get ahold of it.  It did start out FCC Enforcement
Division, so maybe the FCC is getting serious.

Interestingly enough, a COCOT at the local JC Penney that I've been
having an ongoing COCOT sticker battle with (I put one on, they take
it off), does not have the FCC address on it. They also prevent 10XXX
dialing.


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

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 9:56:47 EDT
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Airphone Charges


While on a flight to Florida, my spouse thought it would be worth it
to call his brother from in-flight.  Never having tried an airphone
before, we weren't sure what to expect in transmission quality.  All
we ever heard, and we stayed on the line for three minutes or more,
was lots of rushing air.  Kind of like holding a big seashell to your
ear!  Since I've heard (read) on the net of using airphones for data
(Am I recalling correctly?) I was fairly sure we were having
transmission problems.  We hung up and did not retry the call.

I wasn't surprised at all to see an $8.50 GTE charge on my VISA bill
the following month.  I was surprised at how difficult it was to reach
GTE.  First, I called the bank.  Not their problem, they said, I was
responsible for reaching the vendor.  No, they did not have any vendor
information other than what appeared on my bill.  Perhaps I should try
<TPC>?  Tried TPC, who said, Gee, if it wasn't on my phone bill, how
could they possibly be expected to help?  Looked in the phone
book -- nothing listed for GTE.

Being a *telecom professional* ;-), I called our local rep from work.
She looked up GTE and found an 800- number for them.  Called that.
They knew nothing about air phones.  Telephone calls from a plane?
What are you on, lady??? was their attitude.  Asked for the
supervisor.  Still got nowhere.  He had no idea where air phone
charges were billed from or how to reach that billing location.
Finally, knowing tat GTE and Sprint were related, I called our Sprint
rep and asked him to hunt down the elusive billing agent.  He had a
number for me in less than five minutes.  (I still think this rep is
one of the best in the bsuiness.)

This month, finally got my credit and a very nice letter of apology.
I wonder, however, how often people just pay instead of trying to find
out where to go for a credit.  I guess if I hadn't had sources, I
would have bullied my bank mor.

What has been the experience of others?


Kath Mullholand       UNH, Durham, NH


[Moderator's Note: When the bank first gave you that rap about how
they could do nothing, you should have gotten a supervisor on the line
and bellowed about how you were not going to pay the charge; they
could charge it back to GTE if they liked; and if that wasn't enough
hassle for them, you'd be glad to file a complaint with the Federal
Trade Commission if necessary detailing the bank's billing practices.
Believe me, the bank *would* have found GTE for you also!    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 91 12:47:32 PDT
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing


> Back in the "good old days" there was a scheme to prevent collect
> calls to coin phones: within each CO prefix one entire thousands block
> was set aside for coin phones, and operators had a list of which
> numbers were suspect.  (For far away places they had to contact Rate &

> [Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell still puts all their coin-phones in
>the 9xxx range for the reason you mention.   PAT]

I don't know how long ago the 'good old days' were, but in New Jersey,
my parents have a number which ends in 9207.  I used to call home
collect from school quite often.  I remember that some time in 1979 or
'80, I started having problems with operators putting me on hold for a
*long* time before they would even *attempt* to place the call.  After
a while I figured out the 9xxx bank of numbers was set aside for pay
phones.  I learned to say "It's a home phone, not a pay phone" when
dialing ... so they'd put it right through and check afterwards.
We've had the same number since 1968, and I remember that all of a
sudden they had this 'new' policy.  When did they start doing this?
Most everywhere I've been, pay phones are 9xxx numbers.


*-=#= 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: We had a prefix here (312 - LOngbeach 1) which was
a real old stepper office. It had a bunch of residences in the 9xxx
series of numbers. Over the last 20-25 years, I think they have mostly
vanished as the numbers were given up and not reassigned to private
parties.  People on that exchange have the same hassle with collect
calls, the few of them there are left in 9xxx.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 14 May 91 00:37:00 -0700
From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me!


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

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

>> I realize that you're "not supposed to" do things like this, but if
>> anything had happened I could always have called 911 ;-)

> I don't think this is funny.  The reason you're not supposed to do
> things like this is that stray signals from transmitters and other
> kinds of electronic equipment can interfere with the navigation
> instruments.

The reason you aren't supposed to use cellular phones in aircraft is
different from the reason you aren't supposed to use FM radios and
Portable computers.  There is an FCC rule against the use of cellular
phones from aircraft because they activate almost every cell in a 50
mile radius due to the confusion of trying to figure out the closest
one.  The FM radio/Computer rules are generally airline policy.  It is
pretty much accepted these days that these things can't really mess up
the navigation equipment.  Most airliners now use longer range
navigation systems like LORAN or various satellite-based systems,
which can't be upset by FM interference.  I usually ask the pilot if I
can use an FM scanner or similar device, and (s)he usually lets me.

> [Moderator's Note: I did not think it was funny either ... maybe next
> time he decides to flex the rules a little in his experiments he will
> try the one which says 'keep all radios, including cell phones, turned
> off in areas where dynamite and other explosive powders are being
> used.'  If anything goes wrong, someone will always call 911 :(   PAT]

If you didn't think it was funny, then why did you encourage him?

In <[e-mail]>:

>  [Moderator's Note: You should have tried a few more tests of things
>  you're 'not supposed to do', such as *711 to ask what carrier it was,
>  and 0 for the operator to find out what place was getting your call.  PAT]


[Moderator's Note: See my reply after next message.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 14 May 91 08:39:35 PDT
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me!


> Warning: Using a Cellular phone on an aircraft is a violation of federal
> law and probably some FAA regulations too. You risk getting arrested.

Yes -- but they don't *tell* you that anywhere, so I assume I'll get
at least one warning (before possible arrest) if I decide to try it
again ... BTW, the connection was pretty good! I guess I'll find out
where I was when the bill comes ;-) We were 20 minutes out of Orlando
at the time.

Pat, I don't understand ... on the one hand you tell me to let you
know all the details if/when I try this again.  A few days later you
wrote that you hoped next time I "[decide] to flex the rules a little
.. try the one which says 'keep all radios ... turned off in areas
where dynamite and other explosive powders are being used.'"

By the way, I don't plan on doing this again, I just wanted to see if
it would work.


[Moderator's Note: I changed my mind; or actually, I am sort of
ambivilent about the whole thing. On the one hand, it is an
interesting test, and the results -- from someone who has
authenticated them through testing -- would be a fun topic here. But
after originally telling you to report further results when you had
them, I got to thinking it really is a bad practice and should not be
encouraged. The chance of a dangerous result is probably remote, or at
least about as unlikely as a dynamite explosion caused by a radio
transmission, but those things *can* happen.  Really, today I don't
know what I think on this topic.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Line Noise
Date: 14 May 91 04:12:47 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> We have been experiencing significant problems with FAX SEND/RECIEVEs.

Call it in, and say you want the repair foreman to contact you.

Get him to promise to let you know if they find a problem on your line
or if it is due to CO problems or problems beyond. Be interested. Be
unwilling to let it persist. Be friendly but make sure it is
understood that you WILL escalate it fast if it isn't resolved
promptly.

That should work. If not, you could try calling the DPU, but probably
better leave that for very last.

The 'executive appeals' number is for consumer complaints. It answers
'Office of the President'. Call 743-9800 (NET&T main switchboard) and
ask for executive appeals. The foreman in question or his boss will be
calling you back shortly thereafter.

Don't abuse it, but DO use it when necessary.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #361
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18100;
          16 May 91 5:12 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17160;
          16 May 91 3:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00235;
          16 May 91 2:35 CDT
Date:     Thu, 16 May 91 1:30:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #362
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 May 91 01:30:23 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 362

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed [Philip Gladstone]
    Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed [Jiro Nakamura]
    Re: International Dialing and Area Codes [John R. Levine]
    Cellular Phones on Planes [Chris Schmandt]
    Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [Peter Thurston]
    CWA on Northern Telecom - Part I [Peter Marshall]
    Telephone Tones Around The World [Rick Broadhead]
    Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists [Tom Gray]
    A Copy of "Hacker's Dictionary" Wanted [John Richard Bruni]
    IDDD Calling [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: Is the GTE Airphone Public? [Louis J. Judice]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Philip Gladstone)
Subject: Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed
Organization: Data General, Development Lab Europe
Date: 14 May 91 15:10:08


On 9 May 91 22:20:30 GMT, lia![e-mail] (Jeremy
Grodberg) said:

> The service rep asked what
> PIN I had used, at which point I was stunned; after a brief pause, I
> said "I'm not supposed to tell anyone my PIN, you literature says that
> real AT&T reps will never ask you for it."  The service rep then
> pauses, stammers, and says "Well, I'm looking right at it. <pause for
> response from me, which I don't give, because I'm starting to get
> sick. OK," she says, "did you use XXXX?" where XXXX was my real PIN!
> Not only did she have access to it (which she shouldn't need or have),
> she told it to me! Yikes!  I am not amused.

The banks take a much different view on the security of PINs (at least
in the UK). The device that actually stores the PINs is kept apart
from the main system and is kept in a controlled (and very secure)
environment. All access to this device is via its (IBM) channel attach
to the mainframe.

This device implements the security policies in force -- i.e.
inability to read the PIN, verify only, audit trails etc.

I guess the difference is that banks are trying to protect against the
loss of significant amounts of money, whilst AT&T is trying to protect
against a theft of service (for which you haven't paid [yet]).


Philip Gladstone         Dev Lab Europe, Data General, Cambridge, UK

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

From: Jiro Nakamura <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed
Organization: Shaman Consulting
Date: Wed, 15 May 1991 00:34:11 GMT


I would like to relate that about a year ago, I forgot the PIN to my
AT&T Universal Card. So I phone AT&T Univ. up and tell them that,
fully expecting them to give me a whole new one. They ask my mom's
maiden name, my SS number, and then *tell* me what the old one was. I
was pretty shocked. :-(

   Compare this with my bank's Phone Access Line PIN number*. No one
knows what my PAL/PIN is except the computer and it won't tell anyone.
They send you the PIN in a sealed envelope (you know, the type that
has carbon paper inside and is printed in one go through a dot matrix
printer and has the tear ends on it).  None of the tellers know it,
and apparently can't find out. It's just like UNIX. If you forget the
old one, the computer has to churn you a new one (no, you can't even
choose your own).

    I like the bank's system, albeit I can't choose the number.

PAL is a system by which I can do inquiries and transfer with my handy
touch-tone phone. For some reason, the PIN has nothing to do with my
regular ATM PIN, so I have to remember two numbers. :-(


Jiro Nakamura           [e-mail]
Shaman Consulting       [phone] VOICE
[phone] FAX/Modem

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

Subject: Re: International Dialing and Area Codes
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 13 May 91 19:10:54 EDT (Mon)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>    1. How are international long-distance rates calculated?  Are
> there some one-minute calls that would be extremely expensive?  For
> example, does it cost a lot more to call some small town in Vanuatu or
> Zambia than to call London or Paris? ...

Glad you asked.  The rate to any particular place depends on the
coutry you're calling, the type of call, and the time of day.  For
calls to Canada, Mexico, and Cuba, the rate also depends where in the
US you're calling from.  The cost is roughly proportional to the
distance with some notable exceptions -- one of the most expensive
places in the world to call from the US is Mexico City, at nearly
$2/minute.  There are also special deals, e.g. I have Sprint World
which for $3/month gives me a discounted off-peak rate to Canada,
Mexico, most of Europe, any many Pacific rim countries.

The rate periods can be exceedingly strange.  For example, the most
expensive time to call Guatemala and Belize, which are in the same
time zone as Chicago, is 5PM - 11PM.  The expensive time to Martinique
is 8AM-5PM, but to adjacent St. Lucia is 4PM-7PM.  The most expensive
time to call Bulgaria is 1PM - 2AM which is 8PM - 9AM their time.  For
western Europe the times are sensible, 7AM - 1PM which is 1PM - 7PM
their time if you're calling from the east coast.

Here are some particular rates from AT&T's May 1990 International
Telecommunications Guide, available free from 1-800-874-4000.

London:    $0.98-1.44 first minute, 60-94 cents/minute thereafter.
    $9.48 for the first three minutes person-to-person, any time.

Paris:    $1.15-$1.71 first minute, 65-106 cents/minute thereafter.
    $11.83 for the first three minutes person-to-person, any time.

(The Sprint World rate to either is 58 cents/minute outside of the
7AM - 1PM peak time.  I expect MCI and AT&T have similar discount rates.)

Vanuatu: $11.83 for the first three minutes person-to-person, any time,
    $2.72 - $3.30 / minute thereafter.  Not dialable, all calls go
    through the operator, all calls billed as person-to-person.

Zambia:    $1.55-2.59 first minute, 80-133 cents/minute thereafter.
    $11.83 for the first three minutes person-to-person, any time

The most expensive places to call, via AT&T anyway, are Afghanistan
and Bhutan which cost $13.33 for the first three minutes,
person-to-person only, and $3.30-$3.92 per minute thereafter.


Regards,


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

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

From: Chris Schmandt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phones on Planes
Date: 14 May 91 15:58:04 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA


Recently I've gotten rather fond of placing calls while sitting on the
plane at the gate.  Good for last minute things (esp. if you can board
early and try to get some work done) and getting arrival time messages
out that might actually be correct!  (also much cheaper and clearer
than Airfone)

Knowing about the dangers associated with generating RF while flying
(see recent discussion here) I first when up to the cockpit and spoke
with the crew, who said "it's really not problem while we're on the
ground but we prefer that you don't use the phone once we push back".
This seemed very reasonable to me.

Then on a recent flight I was told by a flight attendant that I
couldn't use my phone (on the ground, at the gate).  I explained the
above, but said that the captain was the boss and I'd wait while she
went to ask him.  She came back many minutes later (plane had already
started to taxi) and told me they looked it up in a rule book and that
I could not use my phone on the plane at all.

Now, I suspect that there wasn't a listed reg, or they didn't have it,
and they just stalled me until it wasn't an issue.  But, being an
(occasionally) law abiding citizen, I'm curious if anyone knows the
real story?


chris

PS: In response to the recent area code request, if someone has an
up to date file, or version of the areacode scripts in the archives,
could they update the archives (on lcs.mit.edu...) thanks.


[Moderator's Note: The issue just previous to this discussed this in
some detail -- sorry I did not have your message in time to include
with those.  Apparently the main problem is that once in the air, the
use of a cell phone causes lots of ground sites to be triggered all at
the same time, causing some confusion and congestion for the cellular
carrier. The old theory of radios causing interference to the
electronic equipment on the aircraft does not really carry a lot of
weight these days, one correspondent noted. On the ground, there
should be no problems at all.  PAT]

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

From: Peter Thurston <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 91 17:01:52 BST
Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge?


Well here in the UK British Telecom (now BT), has just dropped the
20p surcharge - if that's any help!


Peter Thurston

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

Subject: CWA on Northern Telecom  - Part I
From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 91 10:18:04 PDT


The March edition of CWA's "Information Industry Report" contains a
"Special Report" on Northern Telecom that should be of interest for
various reasons, including NT's signficant role in the telecom privacy
area and the perspective of the source of the report.

According to the CWA report, "...in 1990 ... evidence was uncovered
which disclosed that for a period of 13 years, the company had
illegally wiretapped the telephone calls of its employees and
monitored their private conversations through microphones hidden in
the...sprinkler system. Management is believed to have used this
secret surveillance to create a hit list of union supporters...."

CWA further indicates that "Based on this evidence CWA and other
individuals filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Northern
Telecom under federal and state statutes." The union says that the
suit "is now being actively pursued before a federal judge in
Nashville...."

This look at NT takes a broad historical view of the company. For
example, the report suggests that "More than any other manufacturer,
Northern Telecom was positioned to take advantage of deregulation of
the U.S. telephone system and the divestiture of AT&T. In 1972
Northern Telecom's revenues barely reached the $500 million mark. It
still relied on Canadian customers, primarily its parent company Bell
Canada, for 80% of its sales and the United States accounted for only
$35 million in revenues, or less than 7%....  Two elements changed all
that. An early jump from analog to digital technology and the breakup
of the Bell system propelled Northern...to be the second largest
telecommunications manufacturer in the United States and the fourth
largest in the world...."

The report indicates that NT's "position in Canada is secured by its
special relationship to Bell Canada, which formally owned it outright
and now still holds a majority ownership of 53.1% of its stock."
According to the report, NT "gets the lion's share of Bell Canada's
purchases and is estimated to control more than two-thirds of the
Canadian market for telecommunications equipment."

Re: the BOCs, CWA states that NT's "penetration of the U.S. market,
and particularly of the ... BOCs, has been the critical trigger to its
growth.  In less than a decade it leveraged the breakup of the Bell
System to achieve virtual parity with AT&T in central ofice switches
and to build alliances with the BOCs to distribute PBX equipment."

[CONTINUED]


  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA
                           PEP, V.32, V.42


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Marshall sent this in two parts. We will have
Part II in a future issue of the Digest, probably later today.    PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 14 May 91 16:13:23 EDT
From: Rick Broadhead <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Tones Around the World


As many of you know, ringing signals and busy signals vary from
country to coun try.  So do the tones a caller gets if all circuits
are busy.  Transit tones, t he tones which precede ringing, also
differ from one country to the next.

For example:

* Iceland's busy signal is a short sharp tone repeated at frequent
intervals.

* Bangladesh's ringing signal consists of two short tones repeated at regular
intervals.

* Tonga's ringing signal is a short tone followed by a longer pause.

My white pages directory used to provide this information, but it
hasn't been included the last few years.

Does anyone know where I could obtain a complete, country-by-country
list of telephone tones and signals?

If there's any reading available on the subject, I'd also welcome that
information, since I find the topic of telephone tones rather interesting.

Any information would be really appreciated.  Thanks!


RICK BROADHEAD  e-mail:  ysar1111@yorkvm1    [e-mail]

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: You're All A Bunch of Terrorists
Date: 14 May 91 19:29:52 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

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

>>> service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the
>>> government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other
>>> communications when appropriately authorized by law.

>> All this really states is that the government should have the right to
>> wire tap if it gets a search warrant. I don't see anything draconian
>> about this.

>> You may also note that this text does NOT specicifically refer to
>> encryption.

> Actually, this "sense of Congress" resolution has been causing us here
> at MIT Project Athena great distress, because it effectively bans
> certain types of encryption.  We're working on "privacy enhanced

Encryption may be important in certain areas. However shared bandwidth
systems are the future of the telecom network. In these systems,
communications from many users will share the same physical medium. It
is important that any survelliance be restricted to only those under
suspicion and not to the innocent users (and probably unknowing users)
of a multiplexer system.  The telephone line to your house is likely
terminated on a subscriber multiplexer system. A simple piece of
equipment on this multiplexer could allow the systematic monitoring of
all telephone loops in your neighbourhood.  I have seen accounts where
such systems have been used to intercept long distance trunk traffic
on microwave links. ANI and routing information is decoded. It is
reasonable that systems such as this be restricted and that the
reasonable use of wire tapping be allowed.

Only traffic specifically authorized by the search warrant should be
intercepted.

Additionally users can present the network with encrypted data.
Encryption will take place end to end with no involvement of the
network. This will be the nature of the new ISDN networks. The network
will provide a shared transport function with services being performed
on the periphery.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: A Copy of "Hacker's Dictionary" Wanted
Date: Tue, 14 May 91 13:33:21 PDT


Pat:

Re the Anterior pager article and Goodfellow, I was wondering about
the book he wrote.  Is the Hacker's Dictionary in print and where can
one find it???

Thanx,

John

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

Date: Mon, 13 May 1991 9:59:45 EDT
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: IDDD Calling


Is there a list available of the number of digits to be expected when
dialing overseas?  I know when I call the AT&T operator for help, I
can usually get the structure of a valid number, for instance, two
digit country code, three digit city code, seven-digit local number.
Such a list for at least the major countries in Europe and Asia would
be very helpful.  Does one exist somewhere in a non-proprietary form?


Kath Mullholand       UNH, Durham NH

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

Date: Wed, 15 May 91 10:39:28 PDT
From: "Louis J. Judice  15-May-1991 0933" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airphone Public?


> (many bytes of text complaining about having to lug around a cumbersome
> credit card in order to make an Airphone call)

I have a question for the poster ... when you buy dinner in a resturant
and they give you the check, do most resturants accept your credit
card number which you've memorized?

If most merchants have no problem with this, I'd like to know, so I
can save the extra .1 or .2 ounces of plastic I always seem to have to
carry.   :)


ljj

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #362
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18243;
          16 May 91 5:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17160;
          16 May 91 3:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac00235;
          16 May 91 2:35 CDT
Date:     Thu, 16 May 91 2:09:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #363
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 May 91 02:09:12 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 363

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones [Macy Hallock]
    Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones [David Lemson]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer [Larry Jones]
    Re: Omaha Utility Victim of Phone Fraud [Kath Mullholand]
    900 Number Fraud on My Line [Cliff Helsel]
    Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [Alex Beylin]
    Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing [John R. Levine]
    Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [Christopher Lott]
    Re: India to US Data Link Needed [Roy Smith]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 May 91 07:53 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones: Uniformly Coded? Free?
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


>> I am curious (yellow) about * prefixed calls on cellular phones.
>> Has anyone got a list?  Are they uniform across service providers?

OK, I'll throw in my $.02 here:

In Cleveland/Akron Ohio:

1-800-525-5555 is the Ohio State Highway Patrol emergency reporting
line.  You can report any traffic emergency, DWI driver, etc. to it.
No cellular company in Ohio is supposed to be charging airtime for its
use.  I've used it several time, it seems to ring into a single
dispatch for the state and messages are relayed to the correct
authority by the state computer or radio nets.  This number is setup
expressly for cellphone use ... and the dispatchers know it.  Seems to
be a well run, well trained arrangment.

This number was setup before most cell carriers were able to agree on
how to setup shortcut dialing ... and before 911 was widely installed.

911 rings to 911 dispatch in most areas.  Very uneven info about
charging for airtime.  This state has a 911 law that says calls to 911
are not chargable to the caller.  In some, but not all, cellular
areas, dialing *911 is the same as dialing 911.

Other * numbers:

GTE Mobilnet initiated a uniform set of * service codes a couple of
years ago and pushed the industry very hard for standardization on
their scheme.  So we have *70, *71, *71, *18 and others for control of
features here.  Mobilnet does charge for the airtime (.5 minute) when
these features are invoked.

*111 is tech service, *611 is billing/customer disservice, *411 is
info (chargable airtime on this) and *711 is undefined for the moment
(may become roamer service, I'm told)

My technical sources at Mobilnet tell me that the * services are used
for internal service codes (like *70) or speed dial numbers to outside
lines (like *611).  Billing is done on all calls by the switch, and
the billing dept. prices the calls according to current company
policies.  I'm told that ANY number can be setup as a speed call or
redirected.  This is used to block 900 and 976 calls, and has been
used to block certain other problem numbers in the past.  The Motolola
EMX's they use have a pretty decent set up for translations.

Moblinet, like many other cell carriers, has made agreements with
local radio stations for special numbers for traffic reporting (dial
*TV8, etc).  These are all billed/not billed according to the
agreement made for that service.  Presumably I could cut a deal with
Mobilnet for *MACY to call me ... and even be a free/no airtime
call ... if I worked out some type of arrangement with them.

I have asked my sources at Mobilnet for more information on the
standards they are putting into place in the near future concerning
enhanced type cellular services.  I'm told their recent change from
Motorola to AT&T as a primary switch vendor was partially due to the
better support of special service features of the AT&T product.  (I
wonder if revenue enhancement is coming to Mobilnet....)  More on this
when I get it.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr. N8OBG  216-725-4764 Home
[e-mail]   [e-mail]   uunet!aablue!fmsystem!macy
Please use only these three reply addresses.

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *-Prefixed Calls on Cellular Phones
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 16 May 1991 01:38:11 GMT


[e-mail] (Tony Harminc) writes:

>> Plus in some city (I can't remember which now), there was a radio
>> station that advertised it's Cellular Traffic number as *WXXX (or
>> what-ever its call letters were), this rang at the main switchboard
>> for the radio station (used to report accidents and traffic jams).  It
>> was free from all Cellular telephones, don't know about roamers.  Not
>> variation).  So Toronto station CBL at 740 AM tells you to dial #740,
>  while CHFI at 98.1 FM has #981.  I had assumed this was some sort of
>stand ard.  No so ?  These calls are not free.

Champaign-Urbana has one station , WLRW 94.5 FM with a free dial-in
("only from Ameritech" (the wireline carrier) phones) as *945.


David Lemson   University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant
Internet : [e-mail]         UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson

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

Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
From: "Steven S. Brack" <bluemoon![e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 14 May 91 14:35:11 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])


[e-mail] (Ken Seefried iii) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@iuvax.
> cs.indiana.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:

> >     [I say that dialing an unknown number w/o checking what
> >      charges are levied is not such a bright thing to do
> >      anymore.]

> Okay ... I've had enough.

> "Gee ... that girl should have *know* better, in this day and age,
> than to walk in the parking lot at night.  Just her fault she got
> raped."

        There is a *slight* difference between a person, of his own
volition, dialing a phone number and taking the consequences, and a
rape victim.  Besides, if the "young woman" could ask an operator
whether that parking lot had a rapist in it, then it would be her
fault.  All you have to do is ask the phone company, and they'll tell
you in what manner the number is billed.

> "Gee ... that old lady should have *know* better, in this day and age,
> than to trust that building contractor.  Just her fault she got bilked
> out of her money."

        No, blind trust is not a good idea.  But, in this case, again
not related to what wew were discussing, the contractor (I'm assuming)
lied.  The audiotex vendor, on the other hand, simply asked beeper
users to call his number.  No lies there.

> Hey, after all, no one is looking out for us.  It's not the criminal's
> fault that he's taking advantage of our lack of vigilence.  That's his
> job, right?

        Once again, no.  But if a burglar calls you up and asks you to
leave your home unlocked, or simply to send him money, and you do,
then I don't think the "criminal" is to blame.  That situation would
be more analogous to the audiotex "scam" everyone thinks is so
terrible.

> I got a buddy who's a plumber.  Gets 30-40 calls a day on his beeper,
> from all kinds of numbers (he's got a service that forwards the
> numbers of people who have emergencies).  If this guy get's ripped off
> in the manner we are discussing, is it *really* his fault?

        If your buddy the plumber doesn't understand such simple
concepts as dialing the operator for rate information on unrecognized
numbers, then he really shouldn't use any telecom device more involved
than a 500 set (not that he couldn't get himself burned there, too 8).
If you decide, of your own free will, to call a telephone number, then
you are agreeing to pay for the telephone service you have requested,
be it a $0.25 local call or a $25.00 audiotex number.

> Quit balming the *victim*, dammit!

        The "victim" acted of his own accord, and got what he
requested from the telco.  No one represented the call to be anything
other than what irt was.  If he or she needed more information about
the charges attached to the number he or she was dialijng, the
information was only a DTMF away.  I wasn't "blaming" anyone who
didn't voluntarily contract for a service offered them, "dammit."


Steven S. Brack                  |  [e-mail]
Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower     |  [e-mail]
The Ohio State University        |  [e-mail]
50 Curl Drive.                   |  [e-mail]
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112   USA  |  [e-mail]
[phone]            |  [e-mail]

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

From: Larry Jones <sdrc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer
Date: 15 May 91 16:08:01 GMT
Organization: SDRC, Cincinnati


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

> In this month's SouthWestern Bell Bill, there is note explaining that
> the PUC has ruled that 976/900 calls must be blockable for free on a
> one time per line basis.

Here in Ohio, the PUC ruled exactly the opposite -- Cincinnati Bell
had been offering one-time-only free 900 blocking and PUCO ordered
them to stop!  PUCO insisted that they charge a fee sufficient to
recover their costs.  Ain't regulation grand?


Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
Domain: [e-mail]             Path: uunet!sdrc!scjones

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

Date: Wed, 15 May 1991 13:11:10 EDT
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Omaha Utility Victim of Phone Fraud


Jack Winslade posted info about fraud through a voice mail system.
Just a few days ago we received a very interesting letter from AT&T
warning us that our voice mail system could be used to access outgoing
lines and make fraudulent calls for which we could be held liable.  I
immediately called AT&T to ask them what the prevention for this was.
they were "not at liberty to say.."  The representative would not
answer any questions about what we should or should not do to prevent
this fraud.

I can understand AT&T not wanting to print an instruction manual for
voice mail fraud, but if they are going to send a warning letter, they
should be willing to assist us in avoiding the pitfalls.  As it is, we
can only guess whether our system is secure.


Kath Mullholand        UNH  Durham, NH

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

Subject: 900 Number Fraud on My Line
Date: Tue May 14 16:46:28 1991
From: Cliff Helsel <[e-mail]>


This may be of interest to persons living in an apartment complex.

Last month I opened my phone bill and found a new amount due of over
300 dollars.  The calls that contributed to this large amount were
mainly calls to 900 numbers.  I believe there were eight or so calls
at 35 dollars a crack.

The first thing I did was to contact the apartment complex manager and
find out whether I had any type of service performed on the dates
(span of two days) that the calls were made.  No service had been
performed so that pretty much ruled out a dishonest service person.  I
contacted the phone companies (local, AT&T, Sprint, MCI) and had them
remove the calls from my bill.  They agreed to do this as long as I
put 900 blocker on my phone.

I guess what happened was that a person was going around to the back
of the apartment buildings and tapping into the "boxes" that had all
the wiring for the apartment phones and placing calls to 900 numbers.
I can just picture some guy in a trench coat holding a telephone with
alligator clips :-) anyway, I just thought it was interesting.


Cliff Helsle    [e-mail]   or [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 14 May 91 08:35 EDT
From: Alex Beylin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI


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

> May I suggest looking into the Northern Telecom Norstar system.  It is
> the low end system in the Meridian line.

Couple of questions, if I may:

1. Can this system use standard phones in addition to NT phones?

2. What are the limits for number of incomming lines and phone sets?

3. How is modem support handled?  Can I make a "direct connect"
   between an incomming line and a modem port on my PC based on hours or
   can the switch detect modem on the line and automaticly transfer the call
   to a pre-assigned extention?

4. What is the pricing like?

Thanks in advance,


Alex Beylin     [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 14 May 91 10:23:07 EDT (Tue)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>    The system used in the UK to prevent collect calls to
> payphones is that they send alternating tones for a few seconds when
> answered which the operator will recognise and presumably treat as
> though the call had been refused,

In the good old days in the U.S. when men were men and telephone
exchanges were soldered together from relays, a common way to identify
a pay phone to the operator was to use a special line relay with a
weight on the end of the contact.  When the line connected to the
operator, the weight would make the relay bounce and produce a
distinctive sound she could recognize.

Apparently, it was possible to make a collect call to a pay phone.
The called party put the appropriate money into the phone.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Tue, 14 May 91 19:51:11 -0400
From: Christopher Lott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge?
Organization: University of Maryland Dept of Computer Science


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

> a little-advertised but viable long distance carrier called "Cable and
> Wireless" offers calling cards with no per-call surcharge.

I called their customer service number (800-486-8686).  Reps are not
exactly on the ball, but after some messing around, I got some
information.  A traditional calling card, something like a Sprint FON
Card, is apparently available only once you have 1+ service or
designate them as a secondary carrier. They won't set one up the way
Spring and MCI will.

Anyhow, I got some quotes.

"Regular" long distance service (using their network from home phone):
Maryland (301-69) to Ohio (614-48) night rates $.12/min  (par)

"Focus 3" service is geared towards businesses; rates are better in the day
Above call using this service at night was about $.15/min     (poor)

"Travel Service" is the calling card
    $.80 per call fee
    $.49 per minute, no matter where you call (time insensitive also?)

So I dunno who told you about the "no fee calling card" or whether you
made a Deal, but a no-fee calling card doesn't seem to be available to
me.  Or maybe I was misinformed.


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, 14 May 91 20:09:52 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: India to US Data Link Needed
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City


> My family is involved with a new business, and has need to transfer data
> (text files) from India to the United States once weekly or daily if
> possible.  Can anyone suggest possible routes?  Thanks.

    I'd say a pair of Telebit Trailblazer modems running over
plain old dial-up phone lines, using kermit or uucp as a transport
protocol.  Trailblazers have built an amazing reputation for getting
data through over the worst phone connections imaginable, and have
kermit and uucp (and xmodem?) support in rom which optimizes data
transfer rates when using those protocols.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #363
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11560;
          17 May 91 3:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01294;
          17 May 91 2:06 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31625;
          17 May 91 0:56 CDT
Date:     Fri, 17 May 91 0:41:49 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #364
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 May 91 00:41:32 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 364

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? [John R. Levine]
    Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? [Roger B.A. Klorese]
    Re: Adding a Modem to System 85 Set [David Ptasnik]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Mark Fulk]
    Re: AOS Regulation [William Clare Stewart]
    Re: ATC's New Bill and Customer Service Number [Alan Toscano]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: 900 Number Fraud on My Line [Bob Frankston]
    Re: 900 Number Fraud on My Line [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: How is the Cost of Features Calculated? [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge? [Jeff Carroll]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 15 May 91 12:52:59 EDT (Wed)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

> I had always assumed that the reason for their insistence on the
> actual slab of plastic was to prevent people from, er, accidentally
> tucking the phone into their briefcases.

The seat phones found in every row of air shuttle planes have a cord
but still require you to physically swipe your card through a slot on
the side of the phone, even if it's an AT&T card.  As has been
suggested elsewhere, the number of people who would be on a plane,
want to make a phone call, but not have a credit card is vanishingly
small.  Part of the deal with the air phone seems to be that it
requires no effort at all on the part of the plane crew.  Any version
that accepted cash or even had the flight attendants selling phone
cards would be too much work.

For serious airphoners (airphoneys?) GTE has a special airphone card
which requires a hefty up-front fee of about $100, but gives the user
a much lower per-minute rate when it is used.

Also, I am pleased to report that their customer service actually
seems to work.  I made an airphone call, got a connection so bad I
couldn't hear anything, called the airphone operator ("What?" "I said
I got a bad connection." "You'll have to speak up, we have a terrible
connection.")  called again later, and the indeed the bad call didn't
appear on my phone bill.


Regards,

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

PS: Whoever suggested that a public phone has to accept cash isn't
thinking clearly.  Coinless pay phones have been around for years.

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

From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public?
Date: 15 May 91 21:11:42 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, California


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

> The main problem with this is that GTE doesn't want their AIRFONEs
> walking off the plane in someone's carry-on.  So, by forcing you to
> use a credit card (which they lock in the base of the phone, until you
> return the AIRFONE) they are making it much more difficult to steal
> the phone.

The new back-of-the-seat phones do not hold your card, but they are
connected by a cord to the seatback.


ROGER B.A. KLORESE     MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
MS 6-05    930 DeGuigne Dr.   Sunnyvale, CA  94088  [phone]
[e-mail]     {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!rogerk

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Adding a Modem to System 85 Set
Date: Wed, 15 May 91 14:24:19 PDT


> Jeff, it is not possiable to add a modem to your new set. The "other"
> jack is for add on equipment such as a speaker phone (I have one of
> those sets in my office and I work on Sys 85).  In order to use your
> digital phone line, you would need a data module on your set AND the
> other end!!!  Then you would use Sys 85 to tranmit in its own language
> (digital) between the two.

I think you'll find that there is a work-around to this problem.  One
of the things that can be plugged into the "other" jack (at least on
the analog sets) is a General Purpose Adapter.  You can plug in a
modem (certainly up to 2400 baud), a fax machine, any single line type
device, into the GPA (it has a standard RJ-14 receptacle).  The GPA
has a three position switch on the front: Basic (grabs on outgoing
line when the single line device goes off hook), Auto (in conjunction
with programming, this sends ring voltage to the single line outlet
and allows faxes, answering machines and modems to answer calls), and
Join (interrupts an existing voice call and bridges the call to the
single line outlet on the GPA).

Thus you can have data connectivity thru the system 85 using a modem,
but not directly from an RS-232 port on your PC.  The system 85 treats
the modem transmission just like a voice, converting it into it's own
language for transmission through the system, and returning your voice
or modem transmission to it's original form at the destination of the
call (another telephone on the system, or a line port going out of the
system).  It is possible on the Merlin( the system 85's smaller
half-brother) to set the phone up for simultaneous voice and data
calls, establishing two talk paths to the phone.  I forget off the top
of my head if the 85 can do this as well.


[e-mail]

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

From: Mark Fulk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Wed, 15 May 1991 19:21:59 GMT


Others have made some good points about overbreadth of the patent, and
prior art.

I am bothered by another aspect: triviality.  My three year old son
has more complicated and better ideas every day.  If the Hayes patent
holds water, I'm going to patent the phrase "excuse me" in its use to
interrupt a conversation.

Seriously, a patent should only be granted if the invention solves a
problem that many have found difficult, or if the new solution is not
trivial to find and offers significant advantages over older methods.

I AM in the process of patenting a few of my own ideas, all of them
much more complex than the Hayes patent, and have in fact rejected the
notion of patenting other ideas as, well, patently ludicrous.  (pause)
+++ (pause) is, in my view, not even an idea.  I have decided not to
patent much better inventions (such as a nice way to keep track of
transient allocations in LISP, for example).


Mark

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

Date: Wed, 15 May 91 19:54:30 EDT
From: William Clare Stewart <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AOS Regulation
Organization: ENOBOZOS: Bus error


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

> A new law that protects your rights as a telephone customer was
> recently signed by President Bush.
> The "Telephone Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act" is the
> Federal Government's response to customer complaints about the
> practices of some companies that provide operator services.

Did the blurb have any references to the bill number?  I'm always
skeptical of things that say President Bush is trying to protect my
rights :-)


Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs
AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ

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

From: Alan Toscano <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATC's New Bill and Customer Service Number
Reply-To: A Alan Toscano <[e-mail]>
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Tue, 14 May 1991 12:00:51 GMT


[e-mail] (Bill Huttig) writes:

> They also changed their phone number for Customer Service to the 749
> exchange in the 800 area code ... which is listed as belonging to
> Teleconnect.  ATC has several prefixes assigned to them. Why would
> they use MCI (Teleconnect-> TELECOM*USA-> MCI) for their 800 number) ?

ATC "purchased" the 800-749 exchange from Telecom*USA about a year
ago.  Newer 800 prefix listings reflect this change.  From my home,
calls to vacant numbers within the 800-749 exchange clearly yield ATC
recordings rather than Telecom*USA recordings.


A Alan Toscano     Internet:        <[e-mail]>
P O Box 741982     ATT/MCI Mail: atoscano      Telex (UT):  156232556
Houston, TX        CIS:         73300,217      Prodigy:       BHWR97A
77274-1982         Work:  [phone]      Home:  [phone]

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

From: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Date: 14 May 91 06:09:56 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


> [Moderator's Note: What the guy did was certainly not very nice, but I
> cannot really see the difference between what he did and someone who
> calls a large number of people at random with a recorded announcement
> saying to call a 900 number, then quickly glossing over the cost of
> the call (to the 900 line). Surely with the recorded voice calls
> urging one to call a 900 number there will be children who call
> without permission and people who still are not aware of the cost. If
> the folks who urge you to call a 900 number don't get prosecuted, then
> neither should the joker who paged a bunch of people to call his 540
> number.  PAT]

This comment is absurd.  If you get a call with a recorded
announcement asking you to call a 900 number, you usually have a
pretty good idea why you might want to call that 900 number (to enter
a contest, get sports information, talk to singles, join a travel
club, talk sexy with someone, or whatever).  You have a pretty good
idea it's not one of your patients/clients/customers whose calls you
should return, and you know it's a service, even if you don't know it
costs money.  Glossing over the cost of the call includes revealing
it, even if it's left to the end and mumbled.  It may be sleazy
marketing, but it's recognizable as marketing.

If you get the number on a pager, the cost is NOT revealed, and
there's no way to tell, assuming you don't know the 540 exchange is
special (does the New York City phone book mention this?  My phone
book (Fort Worth) does not mention 900 numbers as special, although it
does mention 976 and the mysterious 703 exchange that's blocked by
default) that it's not an important call from an individual you should
return.  I'd say there is a fairly clear case for intent to fool
people in this situation.  As marketing, it's pretty lousy marketing,
since it doesn't even say what the product is or who's selling it.


Gordon L. Burditt   sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 15:56 GMT
From: Bob Frankston <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Number Fraud on My Line


If I understand your message, someone stole service by using your
line.  In order for you to get the charges removed, you must agree to
be unable to ever use a 900 number yourself. Doesn't sound right. If
telco's are to play the role of verification, authorization and
billing agent for various services, they've got to take some
responsibility for providing access to the service.  After all, there
are even some useful 900 services. Rather than blanket call blocking,
some capability for password (PIN?) protection would make more sense.

On the related topic of pager bombs (the problem of people leaving 540
numbers on pagers), one writer suggested that one should never dial a
number without first calling the operator to ask the rate.  I guess in
a totally paranoid world, one should never take any action without
proper precautions.  Who knows which package contains a bomb, which
diskette contains a virus (passively inserting it into a Mac will
cause it to run so you can't even examine it with normal means) or
even which car will suddenly start from a red light and run you down?.

There must be a tradeoff between normal precautions and paranoia.  I
should be able to make the presumption of safety for normal
activities.  I do lock my doors as a matter of course, but having to
verify the billing for each phone number on my pager seems to be going
too far.

Back to 900 numbers.  They are very, very convenient (which is the
whole point) and rely on the heuristic of using physical possession of
a phone (line) to establish identify and authorization.  This is a
good first cut but rather crude.  Some services do have 800 number
counterparts which allow for credit cards as an alternative form of
payment (at a surcharge and I'll pretend that credit cards over the
telephone are safe).  It would be nice if 900 numbers were viewed as a
macro for a service selection, authorization and billing mechanism so
that the components can be provided independently.  For example, a
dialing prefix to allow for credit card payments for 900 numbers
(0-900??)  and the option to increase the authorization/verification
requirements.

Yes, I know that trying to do this "right" would have probably
resulted in the services not being offered at all, but that doesn't
mean that one should omit the later design refinement cycles.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 16 May 91 09:41 PDT
Subject: Re: 900 Number Fraud on My Line


Cliff Helsel <[e-mail]> writes about finding lots of 900
number calls on his bill, and speculates about a "guy in a trench coat
holding a telephone with alligator clips :-) "

Actually, it's easier than that, due to the pleasure of multiple wiring.

If you take off the wall box in your apartment, you'll probably find a
whole rats nest of wires that go through the box, and on to the next
apartment.  Two of those wires carry your phone line.  The others
carry the phone lines of other apartments in the building, probably
those above and below you.

It's not hard for somebody to open the box and explore the other pairs
looking for dial tone.  If you live in an area with an accessable ANI
readback number, that person can identify the numbers and can probably
discover which one belongs to which apartment.  The miscreant can
either choose a line at random and dial away, or take the precaution
of verifying that you are not home before treating himself to phone
calls at your expense.

Note that your neighbor can listen to your phone calls as well.  All
lineman's test sets have a talk/monitor switch, and any phone can be
made to do this as well, by putting a .047 mfd capacitor in series
with one side of the line going to the set.

The most frustrating thing is that I can't think of a single thing to
do about it.  Watch your phone bill carefully.


edg

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How is the Cost of Features Calculated?
Date: 14 May 91 00:00:38 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

>  Is it just my paranoid, conspiracy-seeking mind or do the RBOC's
> always seem to introduce all these new, fancy services with a monthly
> price tag of between $3 and $8.

Yup.

But wait 'til they introduce ISDN...   :^)


Jeff Carroll    [e-mail]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Any Calling Cards Without the 75c Per Call Charge?
Date: 13 May 91 23:58:03 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> I just got my AT&T Universal bill, and noticed that over 50% of the
> cost of my long distance calls is due to the 75 cent per-call
> surcharge which they tag onto all calling card calls. (I guess their
> ads claiming you pay "only low AT&T rates" are a little bit
> dishonest).

> Are there calling cards without this extra fee?

I don't honestly know whether this is the case any more since I turned
over bill-paying to my wife several months ago, but it used to be that
Sprint charged no more for "calling card" calls than for calls from
home.

In fact, it *used* to be that you dialed both kinds of call the same
way.

And it *used* to be that Sprint was a whole hell of a lot cheaper than
AT&T ...


Jeff Carroll    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #364
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14223;
          17 May 91 4:50 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19931;
          17 May 91 3:21 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01294;
          17 May 91 2:07 CDT
Date:     Fri, 17 May 91 1:31:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #365
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 May 91 01:31:07 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 365

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [Carl Moore]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [Ted Marshall]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me! [David Lemson]
    Re: Cellular Phones on Planes [Brian Kantor]
    Re: Airfone Charges [Ed Hopper]
    Re: Airfone Charges [Eric Dittman]
    Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public? [Leryo Malbito]
    Cellular Information Wanted [Tony Harminc]
    Cellular 911 Calls [Blake Farenthold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me!
From: "Steven S. Brack" <bluemoon![e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 91 19:12:03 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])


[e-mail] (Steve Shellans) writes:

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

 [Talks about activating his cellphone in an aircraft]

>> I realize that you're "not supposed to" do things like this, but if
>> anything had happened I could always have called 911 ;-)>

> I don't think this is funny.  The reason you're not supposed to do
> things like this is that stray signals from transmitters and other
> kinds of electronic equipment can interfere with the navigation
> instruments.

        While using a cellphone in an aircraft is not a good idea (it,
in fact, has the potential of denying cellular service to users over a
multi-state area), aircraft navigation equipment is really very hardy.
The frequency and power put out by a cellphone shouldn't have an
appreciable effect on airline equipment.  It may, however interfere
with the equipment used in general aviation aircraft.

> [Moderator's Note: I did not think it was funny either ... maybe next
> time he decides to flex the rules a little in his experiments he will
> try the one which says 'keep all radios, including cell phones, turned
> off in areas where dynamite and other explosive powders are being
> used.'  If anything goes wrong, someone will always call 911 :(   PAT]

        In all seriousness: can a cellphone trigger explosives?  It
seems that a radiodetonator would need to be very selective about what
signals trigger it.


Steven S. Brack                  |  [e-mail]
Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower     |  [e-mail]
The Ohio State University        |  [e-mail]
50 Curl Drive.                   |  [e-mail]
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112   USA  |  [e-mail]
[phone]            |  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: They are very selective about signals, however a
very close radio signal often times can overwhelm receivers in the
area, overloading them with the signal from the nearby unit. I've
never heard of a cell phone (or any radio) causing an explosion like
this, but I guess it is possible.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 15:20:03 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me!


"They don't *tell* you that anywhere"?  That causes concern with
reference to people who are new to that.

I have still from time to time seen signs about "blasting area -- turn
off two-way radio".

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 13:45:27 PDT
From: Ted Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me!


I am wandering away from cellular and telecom in general, but I feel
that someone needs to respond to this. Note: I am not an Airline pilot
or in any way associated with an airline. However, I am a private
pilot and am familiar with aeronautical radio navigation.

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

> [...] The FM radio/Computer rules are generally airline policy.  It is
> pretty much accepted these days that these things can't really mess up
> the navigation equipment.  Most airliners now use longer range
> navigation systems like LORAN or various satellite-based systems,
> which can't be upset by FM interference. [...]

This is just plain wrong! Loran-C and GPS (satellite) navigation are
being used in air navigation, but, to my knowledge, mostly in smaller
aircraft.  GPS, in particular, cannot be used 24-hours/day because
there are not yet enough satellites in place. Over-ocean operations do
use other forms of navigation, including inertial navigation, but
almost all domestic US enroute navigation is via VOR (VHF
Omnidirectional Range). Also, bad weather approaches into all major
and many minor airports are via ILS (Instrument Landing System).

Both VOR and the lateral directional portion of the ILS use the
frequency range 108-118 MHz. Note that this is right above the FM
broadcast band.  Now, say that you are on an airliner shooting an ILS
approach with an ILS frequency of 110.1. If you have an FM receiver on
board with an IF frequency of 10.7 MHz (very common) and you tune it
to 99.4 MHz, it may well leak an RF signal at 110.1. That may not be
strong enough to interfere, but if it is, I would not like to be in
the next seat as the pilot shoots an approach in a 200-foot overcast
and 1/2 mile visibility.

Bottom line: don't assume that that FM broadcast band radio you
brought on board won't cause problems. Maybe it won't, but you're
betting many lives on that.


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

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 01:51:58 GMT


[e-mail] (Phydeaux) writes:

>> Warning: Using a Cellular phone on an aircraft is a violation of federal
>> law and probably some FAA regulations too. You risk getting arrested.

> Yes -- but they don't *tell* you that anywhere, so I assume I'll get
> at least one warning (before possible arrest) if I decide to try it

Would someone who actually *knows* please check whether or not there
is an FCC regulation against cellular use in airplanes?  It is not
written anywhere that I have seen in a lot of Southwestern Bell Mobile
Systems literature, and several people whose LIVES are personal
communication (one of whom happens to be my dad.. :-) ) (Double grin
on the above statement.. :-) ) have told me that they did not believe
that there is any law against cellular use in aircraft.


David Lemson   University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant
Internet : [e-mail]         UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones on Planes
Date: 16 May 91 15:53:35 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


This discussion has come up before; dunno why it keeps coming up over
and over again without the Moderator referring people to the previous
go-round.  Anyway, what I understand is:

1. in a private aircraft, under FAA rules, the pilot in command
determines what electronic devices may be used.  Thus you ask
permission of him (or yourself, as appropriate).

2. in a commercial aircraft, such as an airliner, again, under FAA
rules,the airline sets the policy, and the pilot is generally not
permitted to override that policy.  Most airlines have a policy
prohibiting all RF-radiating devices such as walkies, cellphones, etc.
Some have will grant exceptions to that policy if the device is
certified by the airline to not cause interference; after that point
it's up to the pilot.

3. The FCC (different agency) prohibits the use of cellphones
(explicitly cellphones) in flight because of the potential for
multicell interference.

So my understanding is: you might as well pack your cellphone when
travelling on a commercial carrier, unless they're fudging the rules
and letting you use it on the ramp, and you shouldn't use it once
you're in the air no matter what kind of transportation you're using.


Brian

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu May 16 10:15:04 CDT 1991
Subject: Re: Airfone Charges


A couple of points:

First regarding the acceptance of AT&T Calling Cards by GTE AirFone
and some surprise by one correspondent at that fact:

AT&T & GTE announced that the AT&T Calling Card would be accepted some
time ago with a fair amount of fanfare including advertising in
in-flight and regular magazines.  I recall an ad with an AT&T Calling
Card that had sprouted wings.

Second, with regard to Kath Mulholland's difficulty in finding a way
to contact AirFone, a word in defense of GTE.  Please keep in mind
that big companies are segmented and that it is common for front line
grunts to NOT have information on divisions other than their own.
Should they? Perhaps.  We have an 800 number within AT&T to call in
order to attempt to find "who's in charge" of a particular area.  Not
everyone, unfortunately, has the presence of mind to use it.  (No I
can't tell you what it is, I am specifically prohibited from doing so.
It is considered an "internal" number).

While a perfect world would have every rep totally knowledgeable about
every aspect of the business, I don't really think it is realistic.
YOu wouldn't go wandering into a Chevy dealer to ask questions about
EDS would you?

Now with regard to a logical approach to things, if I had been
confronted with Ms. Mullholland's problem, the logical approach to me
would be to contact the airline.  Additionally, I believe some printed
materials in the plane (either ads for the phone in the in-flight rag
or the dialing instruction card) contains a customer service number.


Ed Hopper

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

From: Eric Dittman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Airfone Charges
Date: 16 May 91 16:46:09 CDT
Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(KATH MULLHOLAND) writes:

[problems with using the GTE Airphone and getting credit for the
   call deleted]

> This month, finally got my credit and a very nice letter of apology.
> I wonder, however, how often people just pay instead of trying to find
> out where to go for a credit.  I guess if I hadn't had sources, I
> would have bullied my bank more.

> What has been the experience of others?

I had a problem with a call on the Airphone last Christmas season.
When I landed, I called the number for credit.  I don't know why you
had so much trouble finding out how to give credit, because the phone,
the instruction sheet, and the information sheet all have a notice
saying to call 1-800-xxxxxxx (some name, AIRFONE, I think) if you have
any problems or questions.  The 800 call is even free from the
Airphone, but I couldn't use it because I couldn't hear anything as
well.

When I called the 800 number, the person was very nice and took down
the information on the problem.  When I got my American Express
invoice the next month, both the charge and the credit were on it.
Simple, easy, with no heartburn (strange to be able to say that about
GTE!).


Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility
[e-mail] [e-mail]

Disclaimer:  I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test
             Facility.  I don't even speak for myself.

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 18:53:26 -0400
From: Leryo Malbito <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is the GTE Airfone Public?


In TELECOM Digest V11.362 Louis Judice compares my dilemma to that of
a patron of a restaurant attempting to use his memorized credit card
number. Although I have somewhat toned down my argument after
realizing that it didn't have much substance and thinking of several
cases which disprove my point, this is not one of them.

The point here is that I was talking about a telephone, not a
restaurant.  NY Tel Calling Card phones and AT&T calling card phones
which both do not accept coins DO accept card numbers.  The NY TEL
phones will ONLY accept numbers, as they have no slot for coins nor
for cards.  All the phones in the airports I have encountered, even
those which accept cards, always accept just the number.  This is the
case with phones.  Restaurants are an incorrect analogy.


Leryo

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 17:54:01 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Information Wanted


Can someone recommend a good book or document on cellular mobile ?  I
am not looking for a Mickey Mouse (tm?) overview, but for something
that describes in some detail the process of setting up a call,
hand-off, paging, roaming, etc.  I have the reference document from
the DOC which consists of state descriptions for a finite state
machine, and doesn't make a good introduction.  Because this document
is intended for makers of mobile *sets*, it doesn't cover how the base
stations and the overall network work.  I am most interested in the
North American standard, but also in descriptions of other systems
worldwide.  I understand the UK system is a minor modification to the
NA one.

 From what I have read, some aspects of the system design seem quite
bizarre.  I was expecting a neat separation of the hardware and
software design, but it looks as though they are sort of munged
together.  Does someone here know something of the background - i.e.
how did this system come to be the way it is ?


Tony Harminc

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

Date: Wed, 15 May 91 12:13:15 CDT
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Organization: pro-party BBS, Corpus Christi, TCX (+[[phone]]
Subject: Cellular 911 Calls


> [Moderator's Note  In many large urban areas 911 won't work correctly
> from cell phones ...

Here in Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems Area (Corpus Christi, TX)
SWBMS promotes FREE 911 Calls and urges you to use the service.  A
call to 911 gets you a Southwestern Bell (RBOC not Mobile Systems I
THINK she Identifies herself as Southwestern Bell) operator who seems
to have no idea you dialed 911.  You end up having to ask her to
connect you to 911 ... she does, and then spends about three to five
seconds telling the 911 operator you are a cellular caller (but NOT
your cellular number) and giving her operator number.  This whole
process adds almost fifteen seconds to completing the call, and I find
that ANNOYING if not dangerous.

FYI I toured the 911 dispatch center a couple of months ago. Three
monitors at each dispatch station ... a Computer Aided Dispatch system
with a huge X-windowed monitor that had three active windows on it ...
one showing the calls that the operator (different person) had taken,
one showing available units and taking assignments if who got which calls
and one for querying licence plate records. The second (looked like
CGA) was associated with the trunked 800 mhz radio system ... showed
units in that dispatchers channels and who was transmitting ... the
third was off.

The 911 Answer station was a regular phone with a rectangular AT&T box
about the size of a digital clock that I assume showed the incoming
phone number ... Corpus does not yet have the service that gives
addresses as well (though we have been paying taxes for it for some
time) and that it takes as long as 20 minutes to call SW Bell in San
Antonio to get an address.

The whole dispatch station is protected by a halon fire protection
system..  when the alarm goes off they operators and dispatchers have
a couple of minutes to evacuate the dispatch area before the
(apparently deadly) halon is released.  while evacuated dispatch
continues over walkie talkies from the parking lot but 911 calls go un
answered.

As a side note, I was on a ride-along last week and the entire
dispatch system crashed for four plus hours ... they were using
scratch pads to dispatch, and couldn't look up license plates and
identification information.  The radios still worked though the
officer I was with said they had been down (radios) last week for an
extended period.


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


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #365
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16663;
          17 May 91 6:05 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09719;
          17 May 91 4:32 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac19931;
          17 May 91 3:21 CDT
Date:     Fri, 17 May 91 2:11:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #366
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 May 91 02:10:45 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 366

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Henry E. Schaffer]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Tony Harminc]
    Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing [Carl Moore]
    Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer [John Higdon]
    Re: A Copy of "Hacker's Dictionary" Wanted [Tom Perrine]
    Re: Old Phone Numbers [Robert Swenson]
    Re: *-Prefixed calls on Cell Phones/(NYNEX) [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: AT&T's Account Code System [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: Bay Area Cellular Service [Marty Brenneis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 02:46:32 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> bluemoon!sbrack@cis.
ohio-state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:

> ...  All you have to do is ask the phone company, and they'll tell
> you in what manner the number is billed.

> If your buddy the plumber doesn't understand such simple
> concepts as dialing the operator for rate information on unrecognized
> numbers,  ...

  I've been getting kind of steamed at some of this discussion - (I
think that this scam is wrong, even if technically it is legal) but I
think that this poster has shown one type of solution.  If *everyone*
asks for rate information for *every* number they dial when they don't
recognize the area-code/exchange, I bet it wouldn't take too long for
the telcos to figure out some better method which doesn't take this
much effort!


henry schaffer  n c state univ

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Date: 17 May 91 02:12:47 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


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

> The "victim" acted of his own accord, and got what he
> requested from the telco.  No one represented the call to be anything
> other than what irt was.  If he or she needed more information about
> the charges attached to the number he or she was dialijng, the
> information was only a DTMF away.  I wasn't "blaming" anyone who
> didn't voluntarily contract for a service offered them, "dammit."

I'm getting a little annoyed at your sophilism, sir.  Let ME give you
an example.  I set up a little shop.  Outside the shop, I place a sign
that says "Please come in."  If you think to ask, I will tell you that
when you do so, you will be automatically charged a $50 cover charge.
Otherwise, as soon as you put one step in the door, bingo, $50,
whether you like it or not.

Now, do you really think that is fair?  Quite frankly, if you do,
then you've got your head in the sand.  More likely you'd be
screaming for the cops!

And what about the poor schmuck who misdials the number by accident?

The solution, as has been mentioned before, is a description of
charges and a grace period.

And with that, I will say no more (probably to the relief of everyone,
our esteemed Moderator most of all!)


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

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 15:40:14 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud


There's been quite a bit of discussion about who's to blame in the
"pager calls with chargeable call-back numbers" scam.  But I am amazed
that it appears that many (all?) US phone systems allow seven-digit
calls to be billable.

Here there is a rule (unwritten but pretty strong) that you can't be
billed for a seven-digit call.  You have to knowingly dial 1 (or 0) in
order to call a billable number.  This applies to 976 as well as
long-distance calls.

Are you USAers happy with the possibility of paying for seven-digit
calls?  Why is there no 1+ requirement to let you know ?  It seems a
little silly that everyone should have to remember a huge list of
prefixes in order to avoid placing expensive calls, whether 540 or 976
type, or just normal toll calls within the NPA.


Tony Harminc

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing
Date: 16 May 91 17:27:50 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


 My aunt's phone number is 813-xxx-9xxx and her number is fairly new.
It is serviced by GTE of Florida.

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 15:38:34 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing


There might be at least one Connecticut phone number ending in 9xxx
which is not a pay phone.  Many years ago, I answered a ringing pay
phone in Newark, Delaware on 302-366-9xxx, and heard a LOT of white
noise in the background and a (British-accent?) operator trying to
complete a collect call.  I said I didn't think I could take it, and
that she had reached area 302, 366-9xxx; the operator said "302, 203
 -- oh, wrong number!"

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 10:29 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Third Party Billing Fraud, and New England Tel's Answer


Larry Jones <sdrc![e-mail]> writes:

> Here in Ohio, the PUC ruled exactly the opposite -- Cincinnati Bell
> had been offering one-time-only free 900 blocking and PUCO ordered
> them to stop!  PUCO insisted that they charge a fee sufficient to
> recover their costs.  Ain't regulation grand?

Here in kinder, gentler California, the "free" blocking is picked up
by the information providers. In its usual mismanaged way, Pac*Bell
originally offered "California 976" without any organization, control,
or blocking even proposed. Calls from outside the state could easily
reach California 976 numbers and since no billing mechanism was in
place, the IP just got stiffed. In fact, a favorite pastime of
out-of-staters was to call 976 numbers in CA since they were, in
effect, free (except for the toll charges).

Then an outcry went up from both telephone customers and the IPs.
Customers complained that little Jerry could call the heavy breathing
sex numbers and run up the family phone bill. IPs complained that
Pac*Bell was graciously removing charges right and left ("recharges")
and that it was impossible to get a handle on revenue.

Then came blocking. People at Pac*Bell realized that a few characters
typed in at RCMAC could prevent calls to 900/976. So they put a
grossly inflated price tag on the concept of blocking and then slapped
the information providers with the "cost". Pac*Bell became the telcom
hero of the day. And it found yet another scam to drain the pockets of
Californians.

Since the blocking scheme cannot be used except in stored-program-type
offices, and the PUC requires blocking be provided to all who request
it (if at all available), a cheap and dirty way to get out of a
crossbar switch is to order blocking. A friend had a crossbar number
in an office that was also served by an ESS. Pac*Bell informed him
that the ESS was "closed" (not accepting new lines) even if he wanted
custom calling features. I told him to request 900/976 blocking. He
now has an ESS-served number, changed at no charge by Pac*Bell.


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

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

From: Tom Perrine <tots!tots.Logicon.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Copy of "Hacker's Dictionary" Wanted
Date: 16 May 91 19:16:59 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


In article <[e-mail]> John_Richard_Bruni@cup.
portal.com writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 362, Message 9 of 11

> Pat:

> Re the Anterior pager article and Goodfellow, I was wondering about
> the book he wrote.  Is the Hacker's Dictionary in print and where can
> one find it???

The Hacker's Dictionary is really a de-mystified version of the
"Jargon file" which was kept online somewhere. My original Jargon file
is from 1977 or so. This came out of MIT and Stanford. Unfortunately,
I no longer have an online copy :-(

My copy of the Hacker's Dictionary is from 1983. I don't think that
there have been any new editions yet (see below).

Bib data:

Hacker's Dictionary
Guy Steele (and others)
Harper and Row, 1983
ISBN 0-06-091082-8

There is apparently a project underway to revise the hackers
dictionary and produce a second edition.

Try [e-mail].


Tom Perrine (tep)    Internet: [e-mail]
Logicon - T&TSD      UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep
P.O. Box 85158       GENIE: T.PERRINE
San Diego CA 92138   Voice: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 1991 15:09:42 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Old Phone Numbers


Talking about old phone numbers; party line phones, etc., when I was
growing up in Berkeley, Calif, before and during WWII my home phone
was Berkeley 1199-W. The phone of a house across the street was
Berkeley 1199-J. Some frends of ours in Albany, the next city to the
north, had Berkeley 1199.

The Berkeley exchanges (Berkeley, Thornwall, Ashburry) were manual
until quite late in time - about 1946 when they were converted to
dial. They were almost the last area to go dial in the San Francisco
area, always excluding the famous exchange in San Francisco, China.
The operators in China knew each resident of Chinatown by name, calls
could be placed within the exchange by name, and the operators could
frequently track someone down if he/she was away from home.  All gone
now.

During WWII the Berkeley area manual exchanges became very overloaded.
New phone connections were almost impossible to get, but they could be
gotten in extreme cases.  All phone numbers were four digit except
that during the war, some numbers in Ashburry were five digit.  The
young woman who became my wife had a five digit phone number.

Exchange names:

Berkeley became BErkeley became BErkeley-7 became BE7 became 237.
(Our friends in Albany had been moved to LAndscape-5 with the same
four digits.) Along the way our part of town became LAndscape-6 which
became LA6 which became 526 except for pay phones which became
CEdar-7.  Note this is the same numbers as BErkeley-7 (237).


Bob Swenson


[Moderator's Note: Ah yes, speaking of China, have you ever seen the
famous photograph which AT&T used in their centennial history book a
few years ago? It was full of fascinating old photographs, but my
favorite was the one entitled 'San Fransisco, China Exchange'. From
right after the start of this century, it showed an old-fashioned
switchboard with a Chinese woman operator, and a young girl playing on
the floor next to her.  PAT]

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

Date: 16-MAY-1991 18:19:24.11
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *-Prefixed calls on Cell Phones/(NYNEX)


Just a quick (minor) addition:

David E. Sheafer ([e-mail]) wrote:

> These are the * prefixed numbers for NYNEX Mobile in New England
> (MA,RI and southern NH) and the appropriate charges:

>  *18  follow-me-roaming activation       No Charge #
>  *19  Follow-me-roaming deactivation     No Charge

> # In certain instances the host cellular service carrier may charge a daily
>   activation fee for Follow-Me-Roaming activation.

Hmmm ... there are other systems that charge for this? If anyone knows
of any, could you please drop me a note?

NYNEX/Boston (Mass, RI, and NH) bills AIRTIME and a daily charge for
BOTH *18 and *19 calls. (Follow Me Roaming Activations and
Deactivations).  This is the ONLY system that I know of which does
this.

Thus, hitting *18 or *19 once, and not doing anything else that day
will result in:

        $ .75 FMR ACT
        $3.00 Dialy Access Charge
        $ .22 Tax
        -------------------------
        $3.97 Total NYNEX/Boston charges.

Also note that if FMR won't activate (ie, it is not working, or slow,
which is VERY common in the Boston system), you will still be charged.

Additionally, if you don't receive the confirmation tone (a three-way
dial tone, sort of), you will still be billed, and you will be billed
for any additional *18/*19 afterwards. This happened to me once - The
system did not return the dial tone, I hit *18 several times during
the day, wound up with a bill for $25 for the DAY!.

Note also that there is what seems to be a SEPARATE system (at least
for roamers) on the Cape, and if you somehow access that system (it
comes in around Hingham at times), you will also be billed the whole
$3.97 all over again.

I'm not too happy with this, which is why I don't use them too much,
even though GTE/SF removes all these charges for me. I've gotten bills
from GTE with $30 of NYNEX/Boston charges, all due to FMR, which GTE
had to remove. I know GTE absorbs the cost for this, so I hate to keep
doing it.

I don't know of ANY other system which does this, but there may be, so
look out! This is VERY unusual for a "B" system, and many systems,
such as Bell Atlantic, are quite upset about this. NYNEX is making a
LOT of money this way, while the other "B"s, probably in the interest
of their customers (to an extent) do not asses this charge. In my
opinion, NYNEX/Boston is being patently unfair, and by taking
advantage of other "B" roamers, is making the FMR system (which is
marginal at best) even less useful.

Just some more thoughts on roaming ..:)  (or really, :(   )


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


[Moderator's Note: Ameritech charges $4.50 per month to have *18
activated on your line. Of the various B carriers I am familiar with,
they are also the only ones to hedge when you activate it, by
responding that ' ... follow me roaming will be activated on your line
in approximatly 30 minutes ...'. None of the others respond with a
message giving that delay, however Ameritech has never taken that long
when I have used *18.   PAT]

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Account Code System
Date: 16 May 91 18:05:28 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


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

> Neat thing about the service is that you can hit the octothorpe /
> pound/#-key to place a new call. No need to hang up. A real bonus when
> you have three-way calling that doesn't care about Answer Supervision.
> (IE, you have to hang up for a LONG time to place a new call. Ok, ok,
> three seconds isn't THAT long, but ...)

One problem that I sometimes have is while calling a voicemail system.
I dial with my account code, the voicemail system answers, and I hit #
to get into a particular mode (directory lookup).  I sometimes hit it
before supervision and get thrown back to AT&T.  A bit of a pain.


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

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

From: Marty Brenneis <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bay Area Cellular Service
Date: 16 May 91 04:43:08 GMT


It's interesting to learn about the local cell services and confirm I
made the right choice: GTE Mobilnet.

Why GTE?? (I know their landline services are junk) They have better
service all around. The Cellular One sales force did nothing to sell
me on their network.  They spent their time knocking GTE's switch,
even the sales woman at Big M was knocking the GTE switch, saying it
was inferior. She didn't know GTE has a Motorola switch.

I use FMR regularly and the only time I had a problem was when Cell One
decided to add my ESN to the hot sheet. No one could explain how it
got there.

The few times I've had a service complaint I got a call from a real
technoid who could speak tech talk and would later get back to me and
explain what was hosed in the system.

The big technical difference is the cell sites. GTE has many low level
sites whereas Cell One has fewer high level sites. I thought the idea
was to keep the sites low and have lots of them.

The other thing I learned a few days ago is how GTE bills for
interlata calls.  They have least cost routing amongst several IXCs. I
found out when I called to try and select a "dial 1 IXC". Cell One
apparently will let you select an IXC.

Sounds like cool folks to me dude!


Marty the Droid   Industrial Magician    droid@well

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #366
******************************






ISSUES 367 AND 368 GOT REVERSED. 367 WILL APPEAR AFTER 368.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07986;
          19 May 91 3:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23898;
          19 May 91 1:53 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31597;
          19 May 91 0:43 CDT
Date:     Sun, 19 May 91 0:38:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #368
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 May 91 00:38:20 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 368

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Mike Spann]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Brian Cuthie]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [James Turner]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [John Stanley]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Martin McCormick]
    Re: Cellular 911 Calls [David Lemson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 91 12:08:00 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft


> In all seriousness: can a cellphone trigger explosives?  It
> seems that a radiodetonator would need to be very selective about what
> signals trigger it.

   Under proper conditions, blasting caps can be set off by an RF
field.  A few years ago, while installing a fiber link between two
CO's near here I had some caps left over after we blasted a trench
through rock on a section of highway right-of-way.  Being the curious
sort, I decided to see if I could set a cap off with a CB or VHF
radio.  I cut one leg of the wire to a resonant length (about 50 feet,
slightly higher for the CB), and grounded the other leg to a ground
rod.  Using a 2 meter amateur transmitter feeding 150 watts in to a
5/8 wave (3db gain) antenna, the cap exploded from a distance of 20
feet (this was probably overkill).  The CB did not set the cap off at
a distance of 7 feet. Note: I buried the cap in the ground, I'm not
stupid.

    There are several reason that caps are almost never set off
accidentally.  First, lead wires are NEVER allowed to be grounded, and
splices are not even allowed to touch the ground.  Secondly, the
shooting line (wire from caps to blasting machine) is twisted together
to prevent an induced potential between the wires. Finally, the end of
the shooting line is shunted until it is attached to the blasting
machine, then the blasting machine will shunt the line until the fire
switches are depressed.

    In conclusion, I believe it would be virtually impossable to
detonate a blasting cap with a cell phone.  But just to be safe ...


Pat Turner   KB4GRZ    internet:  [e-mail]

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

From: mike spann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft
Date: 17 May 91 19:38:21 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Spann <[e-mail]>
Organization: gammafax


In article <[e-mail]> bluemoon![e-mail]-
state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:


> In all seriousness: can a cellphone trigger explosives?  It
> seems that a radiodetonator would need to be very selective
> about what signals trigger it.

> [Moderator's Note: They are very selective about signals, however a
> very close radio signal often times can overwhelm receivers in the
> area, overloading them with the signal from the nearby unit. I've
> never heard of a cell phone (or any radio) causing an explosion like
> this, but I guess it is possible.  PAT]

Digging way back into my memory, I do remember a story (maybe even
true) where police officers were told not to dump their spare bullets
into the same bag as their hand held radios.  The story I was told was
that should the push-to-talk button be pressed, the electro-magnetic
waves could cause a round to go off.  When pressed to explain, their
technical expert said that the oxides between the primer and the case
could act as a rectifier at 150 MHz, and convert some of the five watts
of radio energy into a DC voltage.

Supposedly, this DC voltage could set off the primer and therefore the
bullet.

I thought this was a flimsy excuse, but it seemed to be accepted by
all the experts who were trying to figure out why some cop accidently
shot himself.

I am not sure what this has to do with Telecom other than side effects
of seemingly harmless acts are often difficult to fully comprehend.


Michael Spann                           [e-mail]
Voice:  [phone]            Fax:    [phone]
UUCP:   ...!uunet!gammafax!mikes       CIS:    73747,441

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

From: Brian Cuthie <umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Aircraft
Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 18 May 1991 04:33:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu.media.mit.edu (Chris Schmandt) writes:

> Recently I've gotten rather fond of placing calls while sitting on the
> plane at the gate.  Good for last minute things (esp. if you can board
> early and try to get some work done) and getting arrival time messages
> out that might actually be correct!  (also much cheaper and clearer
> than Airfone)

Actually, the avionics in a plane undergo some incredible testing for
succeptibility to RFI.  They are tested to not be affected by flying
right by a 50 MegaWatt television transmitter.  I doubt seriously that
a 600 mw cell phone is going to be an issue.

Clearly you don't want to use a cell phone in a plane as it would tie
up a *lot* of cells.  However, there are mechanisms within the
cellular system to keep this from being catastrophic.  It's just
resource wastefull, since cells that reuse the same channel must be
shut down (on that channel).  After all, it's no worse than someone
using a handheld cell phone from the 80th floor of a building or from
atop a mountain.


brian


[Moderator's Note: Come to think of it, I've used my handheld a couple
times from the observation deck at Sears Tower here, and from the
Hancock Center. In fact, in the Hancock Center the Traffic Reporters
have their office: you look through a glass window and a sign says to
dial *123 on your Ameritech cell phone to talk to the person on duty.
I wonder why they encourage a cell call like that from such a height.
Of course, aircraft are quite a bit higher.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 91 11:01:14 EDT
From: James Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft


I don't know if anyone has actually posted the FAR (Federal Air
Regulation) that applies to this kind of stuff, but I thought I'd give
you the verbatim text:

FAR Part 91 (General Operating and Flight Rules)

91.21 Portable Electronic Devices

  (a) Except as provided for in paragraph (b) of this section, no person
may operate, nor may any operator or pilot in command of an aircraft allow
the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following
U.S.-registered civil aircraft:

   (1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate
   or an operating certificate; or

   (2) Any other aircraft while it is operating under IFR.

 (b) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to -

   (1) Portable voice recorders;

   (2) Hearing aids;

   (3) Heart pacemakers;

   (4) Electric shavers; or

   (5) Any other protable electronic device that the operator of the aircraft
   has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or
   communications system of the aircraft on which itis to be used.

 (c) In the case of an aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier
 operating certificate or an operating certificate, the determination requried
 by paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be made by that operator of the
 aircraft on which the particular device is to be used.  In the case of
 any other aircraft, the determination may be made by the pilot in command
 or other operator of the aircraft.

COMMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS:

 (a) - Not that these regs are binding over US-registered planes only.  What
 you do on a British Airways flight from JFK is between you and them.

   (1) This is basically any commerical air carrier.

   (2) This is anyone flying under instrument conditions (poor visibility).
   This means any pilot in any aircraft, not just commercial.

 (b)(5) Note that the person making the decision must determine that the
 device WILL NOT interfere.  This is different from prohibiting devices that
 WILL interfere.  Basically, if you're not sure, you can't permit it.

 (c) Also note that the Pilot in Command (Captain) of a commercial flight is
 not allowed to make this determination.  It must be made by the owner (read
 lawyers).

Hope this will help clarify things.


James M. Turner        | > (LET ((DISCLAIMER 'INTERLEAF-NOT-RESPONSIBLE))
Senior System Engineer
Interleaf, Inc

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

Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft
From: John Stanley <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 91 20:17:57 EDT
Organization: Mad Scientist


[e-mail] (David Lemson) writes:

> Would someone who actually *knows* please check whether or not there
> is an FCC regulation against cellular use in airplanes?

   I attempted to mail this to the first questioner, but his return
address was mangled.

 FAA:

   Use of electronic equipment onboard aircraft is covered by Federal
Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 91, Section 91.21. This section
prohibits use of any electronic device on board an aircraft, with a
VERY short list of exceptions. Para. 91.21(c) specifies who may
authorize exceptions and allow other equipment. For holders of an
operating certificate (i.e. air carriers) the OPERATOR of the aircraft
must make the authorization. This is NOT the pilot. Some have opined
that the pilot is the official representative of the operator, but
this is contradicted by the next sentence in 91.21(c) which says the
pilot or operator may authorize use in other aircraft. If the pilot
were authorized to make exceptions to 91.21, there would not be a need
to specify 'pilot' as an authorization agent for other aircraft.

 FCC:

   The use of land cellular telephones is prohibited by exclusion.
Section 2.106 of 47CFR lists frequency allocations by type of service
(land mobile, etc.) and 22.902 lists those frequencies allocated to
the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service. The
frequencies specified in 22.902 are allocated to land mobile service
in 2.106.

   The FCC issued a Public Notice, clarifying the rules. The text of
that notice follows (note that the date is 1984 and some sections of
the rules have changed numbers) (also, I have talked to both the
people listed as contacts, within the last two months, and the status
of the situation is stil the same):

PUBLIC NOTICE
Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554

News Media Information 202/254-7674.
Recorded listing of releases and texts 202/632-0002.

         COMMON CARRIER PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES INFORMATION

           CELLULAR UNITS NOT AUTHORIZED FOR AIRBORNE USE

Report No. CL-142                                     October 11, 1984


The Mobile Services Division has received several inquiries regarding
the use of cellular mobile and portable units in airplanes and
helicopters.  The public should be aware that such use on cellular
units is _not_ permitted inder the Rules.  Use of a cellular unit
while airborne is likely to cause serious interference both within the
cellular system and in other cellular systems, because an airborne
unit will have a transmitting range much greater than the land-based
unit for which cellular systems are engineered.

Under the Commission's rules, airborne mobile units must be
individually licensed for air-ground service and may only communicate
through base stations licensed for the 450-MHz air-ground service and
may only communicate through base stations frequencies listed in
Section 22.521.  See also Sections 22.9(c), 22.15(i)(3), and 22.509.

There are no cellular frequencies available for air-ground service,
and persons owning, installing, or operating airborne cellular units
will be subject to enforcement action.

For further information, Contact Michael Ferrente on 202 653-5560 or
Claudia Borthwick on 202 632-6400.

  - FCC -

_SEE_ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - CC Docket No. 88-411, FCC 88-278,
Released September 2, 1988, 3 FCC Rcd 5265 (1988).

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 91 15:01:31 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft


Recently somebody was wondering about the warning signs seen around
areas where explosives are being used, advising people to turn off
their cellular phones and two-way radios.  While I am not an
explosives expert, I can comment on the reason for this prohibition.

     Some of you have probably had the unpleasant experience of
hearing a CB or other type of radio transmission over something that
wasn't supposed to be a radio such as a stereo amplifier or telephone.
This happens because the radio frequency signal is changed from
alternating current to direct current by solid-state components in the
system getting the interference.  The DC signal is an extra voltage
introduced randomly into the system which can have unpredictable
results.

In an amplifier, it causes noise or actual audio to be heard.  In a
computer system, it may scramble data and cause a system crash.  While
the detonators used on a construction site, for example, may not be
radio controlled, the wire leading to them can act as an antenna.  A
nearby radio transmitter might just develop enough current in the wire
to trigger the detonator.

Finally, mobile phones and frequency-trunked radios should probably be
turned clear off because they can automatically transmit as a result
of a command from the controlling system such as the answer to a ping.
When considering the things that could go wrong, the expression
"safety first" really applies.


Martin McCormick   amateur radio WB5AGZ    Oklahoma State University
Computer Center    Data Communications Group    Stillwater, OK

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular 911 Calls
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 20:20:05 GMT


[e-mail] (Blake Farenthold) writes:

> Here in Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems Area (Corpus Christi, TX)
> SWBMS promotes FREE 911 Calls and urges you to use the service.  A
> call to 911 gets you a Southwestern Bell (RBOC not Mobile Systems I
> THINK she Identifies herself as Southwestern Bell) operator who seems
> to have no idea you dialed 911.  You end up having to ask her to
> connect you to 911 ... she does, and then spends about three to five

In St. Louis (also SBMS) there are two numbers for 911: 311 for
Illinois and 511 for Missouri (or is it the other way around?  Once I
was in an accident and dialed the wrong one by mistake because I was
so shaken up -- the Illinois man was nice about it, though, but I did
have to hang up and redial).  Every time I've called 511, I get a 911
operator who then connects me with the emergency line of the police of
the city I happen to be in!  I suppose that if someone was hurt, he or
she wouldn't take the time to put you on hold (I hope!)  and connect
you with the right city, but it's rather disheartening to be put on
hold when you call 911. (Especially when it's you who was in the
accident, you end up telling your story twice - grrr...)

> FYI I toured the 911 dispatch center a couple of months ago.

[story about dispatch center deleted]

> The whole dispatch station is protected by a halon fire protection
> system ... when the alarm goes off they operators and dispatchers have
> a couple of minutes to evacuate the dispatch area before the
> (apparently deadly) halon is released.

Incidentally, Halon works by sucking up all of the available oxygen,
thus killing the fire -- that's why it's a bad thing to be in the same
room with vast amounts of Halon.


David Lemson   University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant
Internet : [e-mail]         UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #368
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08176;
          19 May 91 3:40 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23898;
          19 May 91 1:49 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31597;
          19 May 91 0:42 CDT
Date:     Sat, 18 May 91 23:43:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #367
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 18 May 91 23:43:01 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 367

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Modems, Networking, Other Stuff [TELECOM Moderator]
    Administrivia: Change in BITFTP Policy [Thomas Lapp]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [George Pell]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [[e-mail]]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [John R. Covert]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [H. Peter Anvin]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Scott Dorsey]
    Re: Cellular Information Wanted [Ron Dippold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 May 91 19:59:06 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Modems, Networking, Other Stuff


I am very much in need of a 9600 baud modem -- on a loan basis, unless
you want to give me one as a gift! -- for use in getting the Digest
out each day. The volume here has become a bit of a problem at 2400
baud, and the US Robotics modem assigned to this task has started
getting a little flakey. Other expenses in recent weeks have left my
budget for new computer stuff at an all-time low level. If anyone has
one to spare, pulled from service, etc, please let me know the terms
under which you'd be willing to part with it, either on a loan basis
or permanently.

Next topic: Mail from here to mcimail.com has been a BIG hassle
lately. It appears to be an isolated problem at this site, and is
under investigation. It is not a question of it leaving here, getting
to Reston, VA or somewhere in-between and bouncing ... it just can't
get past mmdf here, with mmdf claiming 'no such host'. Not everytime,
mind you, just once every third or fourth time. The admin sent me a
note saying the name server was being switched from epsilon (one
machine here) to delta (the machine I am on). Maybe that will help.
I've sent some replacement issues out today, and thus far mmdf took
them all without arguments and back-talk.  MCI'ers missing issues over
the past couple weeks should let me know which ones.

I suspect this little problem is also the reason some other places
have missed their issues ... I get back some (to me) very suspicious
bounced mail claiming 'no such host' ...

Round three: I have no bitnet gateway site at present. All subscribers
to the Digest at bitnet sites were being serviced from an expansion
list on nuacc.acns.nwu.edu. I was sending one copy to that site
(literally, just another machine in the complex here) and it was
exploding out to bitnet.  That machine (nuacc) is basically out of
service, and is being shut down permanently in about a month. We have
a new site for use as a bitnet gateway, but I have to go through and
edit the entire list to use that site instead. Bitnet has not received
the Digest for a couple weeks, but having spent several hours on that
today, it should be ready to go again. This issue will test it out.

Point four: The mail continues to come in heavily. There is much which
is repetitive; a lot which requires considerable editing; and some
responses which are totally out of date. You'll be getting a large
number of issues over the weekend, but I'll still be dumping out a
couple hundred messages unused.

Finally, we no longer have an ftp mail server available for use at the
Telecom Archives by NON-BITNET sites. The administrators of 'bitftp'
have chosen to make the service available only to bitnet-originating
traffic. The next message today will discuss this in detail.  Until /
unless a new ftp mail server becomes available to us, non-internet
folks will have no way to use the Telecom Archives. I am sorry to
report this, but it is totally out of my control. Can anyone set up a
mail server we can use?

Thanks.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 19:05:05 EST
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Change in BITFTP Policy


Perhaps the subject line should read enforcement of policy, since I'm
not sure they ever said that they would support users who were not on
BITNET/EARN/NETNORTH.

At any rate, since Patrick has mentioned use of BITFTP for users who
do not have FTP access, but mail-only access, I thought I should pass
the following message along (I received this message back this
afternoon from my latest BITFTP request):

 > Date:     Thu, 16 May 1991 16:46:12 EDT
 > From:     Princeton BITNET FTP Server <[e-mail]>
 > Subject:  BITFTP REPLY

 > 16:46:12 > FTP cs.widener.edu
 > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
 > * * BITFTP is no longer able to provide service to  * *
 > * * nodes that are not directly on EARN or BITNET   * *
 > * * or NetNorth.  Your node appears to be           * *
 > * * accessible from BITNET only via a mail-only     * *
 > * * gateway.  If you believe that your node is      * *
 > * * directly on BITNET or NetNorth or EARN, please  * *
 > * * send mail to MAINT@PUCC specifying your         * *
 > * * BITNET/EARN/NetNorth node name.                 * *
 > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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


[Moderator's Note: So there you have it. If/when a mail server for the
archives becomes available, I will let you know here.   PAT]

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

From: George Pell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft ... It Worked For Me!
Date: 18 May 91 05:47:17 GMT
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.


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

> The reason you aren't supposed to use cellular phones in aircraft is
> different from the reason you aren't supposed to use FM radios and
> Portable computers.  There is an FCC rule against the use of cellular
> phones from aircraft because they activate almost every cell in a 50
> mile radius due to the confusion of trying to figure out the closest
> one.  The FM radio/Computer rules are generally airline policy.  It is
> pretty much accepted these days that these things can't really mess up
> the navigation equipment.  Most airliners now use longer range
> navigation systems like LORAN or various satellite-based systems,
> which can't be upset by FM interference.  I usually ask the pilot if I
> can use an FM scanner or similar device, and (s)he usually lets me.

Although you are correct about cellular phones activating cells in a
large area from the air, your comments about aircraft navigation is
far off track.  Use of electronic equipment in aircraft is regulated
by the FAA, not by airline policy.  Aircraft and Aircraft Navigation
Systems are also regulated and specified by the FAA.

You incorrectly assume that because satellite-based systems and loran
are available that airliners automatically use them for navigation.
This is not the case.  In the real world of flying technological
advances are slow to be adopted by the FAA.

Navigational systems such as the ILS and VOR's, are the primary
navigational systems in use today and were designed in the '40s. They
are still required to be used for navigation today, and are easily
upset by near field radiation effects.

If you decide on your own that your calculator/radio/scanner/computer/
cellular phone will not interfere with the navigational systems
onboard aircraft, you are putting your's and everyone else flying with
you's lives in danger.  Your actions are negligent, and possibly
criminal. I hope to never fly in the same aircraft as you.

In case you doubt that I know what I am talking about, I have been a
pilot since 1985, and have owned my own aircraft since 1986.  Your
assumptions can kill. Think again.


geo   N29531

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

Date: Sat, 18 May 91 11:10:33 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft


[e-mail] (David Lemson) writes:

> Would someone who actually *knows* please check whether or not there
> is an FCC regulation against cellular use in airplanes?

OK.  The FCC frequency allocations table (47 CFR 2.106) allocates the
cellular phone frequencies to Land Mobile use.  Airborne cellular use
(i.e., Aeronautical Mobile) is therefore unauthorized transmission,
and is subject to prosecution under the Communications Act of 1934.

Note that this argument does not apply to cellular use while on the
ground.  However, an FAA regulation (14 CFR 91.21) prohibits the use
of almost all electronic devices on airliners without the airline's
permission, and this applies on the ground as well as in the air.
Many airlines have given blanket permission for the use of tape
players, portable computers, and similar items, but not for any radio
equipment (receiving or transmitting).

It is unclear to me whether the pilot has the authority to give this
permission on the airline's behalf, but if the pilot says it's OK, no
one is likely to bother you about it.  The purpose of the FAA
regulation is to avoid interference with the aircraft electronics.  On
the ground this may not be a problem, but airborne, and especially
while on approach to landing, it is a risk to be avoided.

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

Date: Sat, 18 May 91 09:55:08 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  18-May-1991 1018" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft


>> Warning: Using a Cellular phone on an aircraft is a violation of federal
>> law and probably some FAA regulations too. You risk getting arrested.

> Yes -- but they don't *tell* you that anywhere, so I assume I'll get
> at least one warning (before possible arrest) ...

Ah, but they _do_ tell you.  Every airline's in-flight magazine has a
notice forbidding the use of any electronic devices, especially
radios, on board aircraft.  And besides, ignorance of the law is not a
valid excuse (or so I've always heard).

It was my understanding that the relevant FAA regulation (FAR 91.19)
prohibits use on Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flights only (virtually
all commercial flights will be IFR) and that the prohibition applies
from the point at which the aircraft begins moving under its own power
until cancellation of the IFR flight plan (which happens automatically
upon landing).  When I first got my cellular phone, the commercial
pilots I talked to told me that this was the case, and I always turn
my phone off when I feel the aircraft being pushed back (even if this
is not under the aircraft's own power).

However, the FARs, being regulations, can be changed at any time, and
you are required by law to abide by them.  I'll try to get an actual
copy of FAR 91.19 to see what it currently says.  I know it talks
about electronic devices potentially interfering with BOTH navigation
and cockpit communication.

A critical issue for ALL radios, including the RECEIVER inside a
cellular phone, is what frequencies are used for the injection
frequency and the intermediate frequency (IF) of the superheterodyne
receiver.  In my phone, a Nokia P-30 (equivalent to the Moderator's
Radio Shack CT-301), the injection frequency in the first IF stage
ranges from 785.88-810.81 MHz, resulting in an IF1 of 83.16 MHz.  The
second stage injects 82.705 MHz, resulting in an IF2 of 455 kHz.

Other phones will be designed to use other frequencies, and any of
these frequencies could interfere with equipment aboard the aircraft,
not necessarily because of design problems with the equipment, but
because these frequencies may actually be used for communications.
Any superheterodyne receiver is also a transmitter.  The radiated
power will be very low, but if you're sitting right on top of the
antenna of a device designed to receive at the IF frequencies of your
receiver, you will interfere with the other device.

I have heard at least two recent reports about airlines telling
passengers not to use their phones on aircraft at the gate (the one in
Telecom from Chris Schmandt and one from a friend sitting in an
American Airlines aircraft at the gate in Dallas/Fort Worth last
Thursday), so it is possible that FAR 91.19 has been amended to apply
at all times aboard aircraft.

I called four airlines: American told me that the rules apply at all
times. TWA told me that it was between me and the captain.  Delta told
me that the rules applied at all times.  Continental spent the most
time researching it, and told me that it was Continental's
interpretation of FAR 91.19 that no electronic devices except those
specifically authorized by Continental's corporate headquarters may be
used from the time you step over the threshhold of the aircraft until
the time you leave the aircraft.

The reason stated is that even while on the ground parked at the gate,
the flight crew will be in communication, by radio, with the tower to
make the flight arrangements.  Electronic devices, of which cellular
phones are only one, may interfere with cockpit communications.

Even if FAR 91.19 doesn't specifically state that the prohibition
applies on the ground, there is also a broadly worded FAR which
prohibits any kind of "interfering with a flight crew".  This
regulation essentially requires you to do exactly what you are told,
within reason, by any airline employee.  Failure to obey the
instructions of a flight crew member is a crime punishable by law.


john

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

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones on Planes
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Sat, 18 May 1991 21:57:42 GMT


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

> permitted to override that policy.  Most airlines have a policy
> prohibiting all RF-radiating devices such as walkies, cellphones, etc.

There is a second consideration that prohibites specifically
walkie-talkies, cellphones etc. in carry-on luggage: they are
considered potential helps for terrorists coordinating a hijacking.
Therefore, most airlines prohibit the carry-on of ANY handheld
communications equipment, even toy "walkie-talkies" that are connected
with wires.

You can bring these devices onboard but they have to be in checked luggage.

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

From: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft
Reply-To: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 12:53:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>
bluemoon![e-mail] (Steven S. Brack) writes:

> In all seriousness: can a cellphone trigger explosives?  It
> seems that a radiodetonator would need to be very selective about what
> signals trigger it.

    The problem here isn't radiodetonators, but ordinary blasting
caps.  Because being near the scene of an explosion is a bad thing,
several hundred feet of wire are often run from the detonator to the
cap, enough wire to act as a reasonable antenna.  It's possible that a
local transmitter will get enough current induced in the leads to fire
off the cap; I know that nearby 4W 27MHz CB rigs will do it.  I rather
doubt that anything at significantly higher frequencies and lower
power would do any damage, but I do not want to be the one to find
out.


scott

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

From: Ron Dippold <qualcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Information Wanted
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 17 May 91 23:19:55 GMT


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

> Can someone recommend a good book or document on cellular mobile ?  I
> am not looking for a Mickey Mouse (tm?) overview, but for something
> that describes in some detail the process of setting up a call,
> hand-off, paging, roaming, etc.  I have the reference document from
> the DOC which consists of state descriptions for a finite state
> machine, and doesn't make a good introduction.  Because this document

The best one I've seen is a textbook by Bill Lee, a Pac*Tel VP, I
believe.  It's simply called "Mobile Cellular Telecommunications
Systems."  It's a bit heavy in the RF theory, but if you're not into
that you can just bleep over those parts.


Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks.     |     Ron Dippold

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #367
******************************






ISSUES 367 AND 368 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 368 COMES BEFORE 367
HERE.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10005;
          19 May 91 4:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05027;
          19 May 91 2:58 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae23898;
          19 May 91 1:53 CDT
Date:     Sun, 19 May 91 1:25:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #369
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 May 91 01:25:19 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 369

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: Cellular Information Wanted [Brian Cuthie]
    GTE Mobilenet to Offer Cellular Encryption [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: Cellular 911 Calls [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Trying to Trace Hang-up Calls [Walter Morales]
    Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed [Mike Morris]
    Re: AOS Regulation [Michael H. Riddle]
    Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs [Jeff Carroll]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 May 91 19:43:35 CST
From: Jack Winslade <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft
Reply-To: ivgate![e-mail]


In a message of <16 May 91 20:45:26>, Ted Marshall writes:

>> the navigation equipment.  Most airliners now use longer range
>> navigation systems like LORAN or various satellite-based systems,
>> which can't be upset by FM interference. [...]

> This is just plain wrong! Loran-C and GPS (satellite) navigation are
> being used in air navigation, but, to my knowledge, mostly in smaller
> aircraft.  GPS, in particular, cannot be used 24-hours/day because
> there are not yet enough satellites in place. Over-ocean operations do
> use other forms of navigation, including inertial navigation, but
> almost all domestic US enroute navigation is via VOR (VHF
> Omnidirectional Range). Also, bad weather approaches into all major
> and many minor airports are via ILS (Instrument Landing System).

When I was in the Coast Guard I spent more time working with Loran
equipment than I care to admit. ;-)  Loran-C (the type of Loran that is
used today) uses a portion of the frequency spectrum that is SO far
from that which cellular phones use that unless the loran receiver is
defective, it will be essentially blind to interference from any
cellular transmissions on board.

Loran-C uses pulse trains of 100 kHz RF.  Yes, I said that right.  100
kilohertz -- that's well below the AM broadcast band and almost four
orders of magnitude removed from the cellular frequencies.  (Loran =
10 ** 5 Hz and cellular is ABOUT 10 ** 9 Hz.)

HF transmitters in the kilowatt range are routinely used on ships that
navigate with Loran-C, with the HF and loran antennas being quite
close to each other.  Very seldom will interference (to the loran from
the radio transmission) occur in this case, let alone the case of a
one to three watt UHF transmitter as in a cellular phone.

Now (no grin here) for those of you who happen to live very close to a
Loran-C transmitting station, this case of no interference does not
hold true the other way around.  These transmitters pump out RF pulses
in the megawatt range and they have been known to bleed into telephone
lines (sounds like an old mechanical teletype running in the
background) make one heck of a racket in AM and (sometimes) FM radios,
and even cause black and white horizontal 'strobe light' bars on
television pictures.


Good Day!       JSW    (Charlie-Golf  1967 - 71)


[Moderator's Note: Have you ever traveled through the rural area in
northern Wisconsin where the ELF (extremely low frequency)
transmitters are located? They send/receive radio transmissions to
submarines. The antennas are strung up and down the highway on
telephone poles! The frequencies which can travel through the earth
and under water are sort of special; they make it possible for a
submarine to receive radio signals without having to expose at least a
little of itself above water; an important feature when used in a spy
operation for military intelligence ... but the base station antenna
has to be about a mile in length!  PAT]

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

From: "Steven S. Brack" <nstar!bluemoon![e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft
Date: Thu, 09 May 91 15:48:15 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])


[e-mail] (Phydeaux) writes:

> Hi!  During a recent flight, I had my phone turned on and noticed the
> 'roam' light was on.  I tried to place a call but it didn't go
> through.  We were at about 39,000 feet, and I didn't expect it to. It
> would stay on 'roam' for a few seconds and then go to 'NoSvc'.  But,
> when we were down to about 15,000 feet I noticed the 'roam' light was
> on continuously. I tried to dial again and it worked like a charm.  I
> was using a .6 watt Motorola "Ultra Classic" portable with the small
> (1/8 wave?) antenna, and I wasn't even in a window seat!

When you activate a cellular phone that high above the ground, its
transmission power is so high over such as great surface area, that
you end up blanking cells over large (> 2-3 states) land areas.  This
can result in interruption of service.  It is taken **very** seriously
by the FCC and the FAA, and probably the carrier who lost revenue due
to your "experiment."  Pilots can lose their liscenses for allowing
these devices to be used on their aircraft.

> [Moderator's Note: You should have tried a few more tests of things
> you're 'not supposed to do', such as *711 to ask what carrier it was,
> and 0 for the operator to find out what place was getting your call.  PAT]

The footprint of the cellular signalcould have stretched over several
states.  Presumably, he could get responses from several cellular
systems simultaneously, depending on the complexity of his phone.
(Some automatically lock on to one signal, others are more "open."


Steven S. Brack                                 | I don't speak for OSU.
InterNet: [e-mail]                | (Bill Miller just can't
BitNet: [e-mail]|  understand that.)

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

From: Brian Cuthie <umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Information Wanted
Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 18 May 1991 04:42:21 GMT


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

> Can someone recommend a good book or document on cellular mobile ?  I
> am not looking for a Mickey Mouse (tm?) overview, but for something

"Mobile Cellular Telecommunications Systems", by William C. Y. Lee.
Copyright 1989, McGraw Hill, ISBN 0-07-037030-3


brian

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: GTE Mobilenet to Offer Cellular Encryption
Date: Thu, 16 May 91 14:59:07 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I saw the following on the news wire.

                            ----------

HAYWARD, CA (MAY 16) PR NEWSWIRE - GTE Mobilnet today announced the
first "encryption" or scrambling system packaged for the cellular-
consumer market. It allows customers to scramble their conversations,
preventing the possibility of illegal monitoring by people with
scanners or other devices. GTE Mobilnet will offer the scrambling
service and accompanying device to its California customers in early
June, and will expand it to the Pacific Northwest and the Hawaiian
Islands in the coming months.

   "This service is perfect for the average caller concerned about the
immediate privacy of his or her mobile-telephone conversations," said
Tony Frank, market manager for GTE Mobilnet's Pacific Region.  "Once
you connect the device to your mobile or transportable phone, you
simply push a button to automatically scramble your part of the
conversation. If both parties have the service, the entire conversation
is scrambled and protected from scanners and other non-authorized
listeners, who are breaking the law."

   GTE Mobilnet developed the system because some customers -- mostly
government accounts and defense contractors -- are concerned about the
illegal use of scanners that can monitor radio waves over which mobile-
telephone signals move, allowing them to listen to others' conversations.

   "With this system, the voice quality is excellent and the scrambling
doesn't delay the conversation," Frank said.  "An eavesdropper with a
scanner will hear unintelligible noise."

   Frank said the device, which is about the size of a pocket
calculator, will work for installed car and transportable cellular
phones -- but not handheld mobile telephones.  It can easily be
installed by customers between a mobile telephone's handset and the
transceiver.

   GTE Mobilnet is a wholly-owned subsidiary of GTE Corp. (NYSE: GTE)
GTE also owns 90 percent of the outstanding shares of Contel Cellular
Inc. and, through these entities, provides cellular telecommunications
products and services to more than 50 million "POPs."  (POPs refers to
the population of an area multiplied by the company's percentage
ownership in the cellular system serving the area.)

   GTE is a world leader in its three core businesses --
telecommunications, lighting and precision materials.  Its combined
revenues and sales in 1990 were $21.4 billion with net income of $1.7
billion.  GTE subsidiaries, operating in 48 states and 41 countries,
include the largest U.S.-based, local-telephone company, combined
cellular interests that make it the second-largest, cellular-service
provider in the United States and Sylvania Lighting, the third-largest
producer of lighting products in the world.

   CONTACT:  Janet Henderson, 713-586-1418, or Mobile, 713-882-178, or Dorea
Akers, 203-965-3188, or after 5 p.m. 203-968-2360, both of GTE Mobilnet.

                       ------end article------


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

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular 911 Calls
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 17:09:07 GMT


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

> The whole dispatch station is protected by a halon fire protection
> system..  when the alarm goes off they operators and dispatchers have
> a couple of minutes to evacuate the dispatch area before the
> (apparently deadly) halon is released.  while evacuated dispatch
> continues over walkie talkies from the parking lot but 911 calls go un
> answered.

Halon is not "deadly".  It is a nice clean chlorofluorocarbon.
However, it works by displacing the oxygen in the air, which makes
breathing somewhat more difficult.  A more rational reason for leaving
is to avoid breathing the smoke from the fire that caused the system
to activate.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Date: 17 May 91 16:27:01 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, bluemoon![e-mail]-
state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes...

> If your buddy the plumber doesn't understand such simple
> concepts as dialing the operator for rate information on unrecognized
> numbers, then he really shouldn't use any telecom device more involved
> than a 500 set (not that he couldn't get himself burned there, too .. 8).
> If you decide, of your own free will, to call a telephone number, then
> you are agreeing to pay for the telephone service you have requested,
> be it a $0.25 local call or a $25.00 audiotex number.

Mr. Brack's argument is truly nitwitted, if that's a word!

He seems to think that people who receive calls on beepers shoul CALL
THE OPERATOR and ASK THE RATE for every call to a prefix they don't
recognize.  Now, what's wrong with that picture?

1) Which operator, 0 or 00?

2) Don't we have dial-direct nowadays?  Operators aren't "free".

3) Do operators know the price of every "audiotex" call?  No.

4) If it's an emergency worth beeping, why should the bozo take
several minutes just to verify the cost?  Hell, it's a local number (7
digits) and it's not "900", so why should he even suspect that there's
a bomb in the envelope?

5) To the vast majority of us, the telephone is a communications tool,
not an audiotex access terminal.  The cost of a telephone call is well
understood.  From a home phone to any other phone in NYC proper, it's
under 20c/call.  The fact that a prefix was assigned to audiotext is
an obscure exception that few people care about.

> No, blind trust is not a good idea.  But, in this case, again
> not related to what wew were discussing, the contractor (I'm assuming)
> lied.  The audiotex vendor, on the other hand, simply asked beeper
> users to call his number.  No lies there.

OF COURSE it's a lie: He lied that there was an urgent need for a
callback.  There was nothing for the paged party but a recording.
Call 911 and ask to play telephone chess with the guy who answers.
See how he feels.  Beepers are more akin to 911 (emergencies) than to
the Naughty Peahen Hotline.

50k counts of wirefraud sounds good to me!  Consecutive sentences.


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: Walter Morales <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Trying to Trace Hang-up Calls
Organization: Oregon Health Sciences University
Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 18:29:05 GMT


This is a very expensive process by the phone company, I believe their
reluctance to monitor calls is due to the amount of time devoted into
the porcess.

If you want, you could probably "bug the heck" out of them that they
would eventually do it.


Good luck,

Walter

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

From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed
Organization: College Park Software, Altadena, CA
Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 04:15:35 GMT


[e-mail] (Jiro Nakamura) writes: (edited...)

>   Compare this with my bank's Phone Access Line PIN number*. No one
> knows what my PAL/PIN is except the computer and it won't tell anyone.
> They send you the PIN in a sealed envelope (you know, the type that
> has carbon paper inside and is printed in one go through a dot matrix
> printer and has the tear ends on it).

I have accounts at three banks.  Two are like his, you can't pick your
PIN.  The third allows you to.  I assume it depends on who wrote the
system.


Mike Morris WA6ILQ     PO Box 1130
Arcadia, CA. 91077     818-447-7052

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

From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AOS Regulation
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 07:51:31 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William Clare
Stewart) writes:

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

>> A new law that protects your rights as a telephone customer was
>> recently signed by President Bush.
>> The "Telephone Operator Consumer Services Improvement Act" is the
>> Federal Government's response to customer complaints about the
>> practices of some companies that provide operator services.

> Did the blurb have any references to the bill number?  I'm always
> skeptical of things that say President Bush is trying to protect my
> rights :-)

This was discussed in FCC Docket 90-313, which was initiated before
and therefore modified by the Telephone Operator Consumer Services
Improvement Act of 1990.  The Final Notice of Proposed Rule Making
appeared in the Digest in March and would be in the archives.  If my
memory is right, the actual Public Law and/or text of the Bill
involved is there as well.


            <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
[e-mail]                  |   University of Nebraska
ivgate!inns![e-mail]  |   College of Law
[e-mail]  |   Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID From US PBXs
Date: 13 May 91 22:42:58 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


In article <[e-mail]> "Steven S. Brack"
<isis![e-mail]> writes:

> Funny seeing a windowless building with offices in it.

    It's even funnier working in one. Trust me.


Jeff Carroll   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #369
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12419;
          19 May 91 5:53 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00625;
          19 May 91 4:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05027;
          19 May 91 2:58 CDT
Date:     Sun, 19 May 91 2:21:46 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #370
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 May 91 02:21:25 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 370

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [John Higdon]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Jordan Kossack]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [John R. Levine]
    Re: 900 Number Fraud on My Line [James Deibele]
    Re: Airphone Charges [Mark Kreutzian]
    Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [Brian Cuthie]
    Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed [Mark Kreutzian]
    Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing [Eric Dittman]
    Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 91 13:21 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud


Tony Harminc <[e-mail]> writes:

> Here there is a rule (unwritten but pretty strong) that you can't be
> billed for a seven-digit call.

No such rule here. You have been able, since the 1950s, been able in
the Bay Area to dial some rather expensive 7D toll calls. You used to
be able to call Crescent City from San Jose by dialing 7D back when it
was all the 415 area. This is a very expensive call. Now you can even
cross a LATA boundary by dialing 7D from San Jose.

> It seems a
> little silly that everyone should have to remember a huge list of
> prefixes in order to avoid placing expensive calls, whether 540 or 976
> type, or just normal toll calls within the NPA.

What is so silly about it? It would seem that if you, the caller, know
who you are calling, that should take care of it, no? If people are
going to dial numbers without the slightest clue who they are trying
to reach, then they deserve whatever they get. I NEVER return calls to
numbers that do not have a name, a company name, and some indication
of the purpose of the call attached to them. If I do not already know
the location of the AC/prefix, I look it up.

This is just common sense. I wonder how many people just dial numbers
that are written on the restroom wall, or just appear in the pager
without question or thought. I wonder, after having to pay $50, how
many of them would do it again.

As with everything else in this world, sometimes you have to take care
of yourself.


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

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

Date: Sat, 18 May 91 01:32:49 CDT
From: Jordan Kossack <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud


Howdy Pat,

Am I missing something obvious here?  Won't the local Baby Bell erase
charges for 900 numbers (and 976, etc.) if one complains?  They may
force one to get those numbers blocked, but I guess that's a sure way
to make sure that one doesn't make the same mistake again.  If so, the
point is really moot.

Too, if someone is returning a call to their pager number, wouldn't
they presumably be using a public phone?  If so, wouldn't they get a
little suspicious when they couln't place the call for a quarter?

Or are things differet back east?


[e-mail]    Jordan Kossack  |  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Imagine!  (nasal voice saying) "fifty five dollars
for the first three minutes please ..."  (caller) "wait a minute
operator, I am trying to get more change! ...  apparently instead of
calling from a pay phone, most of these folks were calling back from
the customer site where they were working, or waiting until they got
back in the car with their cell phone, etc.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 18 May 91 00:15:39 EDT (Sat)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

> Here there is a rule (unwritten but pretty strong) that you can't be
> billed for a seven-digit call.

When interchangable area codes arrive in about 1995, dial-1-for-money
simply won't work any more.  The leading 1 will have to mean that an
area code follows.  Unlucky folks in areas with old equipment will
have to dial their own area code for same-area toll calls.

I have lived both in New Jersey where a 1 means that an area code
follows, and in Connecticut and Massachusetts where a 1 means a toll
call.  I like the New Jersey scheme better.  For one thing, I don't
usually care if a call I am about to make will cost me 12 cents or
not, and having the phone exchange say "if you'd dialed that call with
(or without) the leading 1, I would have completed it" can get rather
annoying.

For another, dial 1 for money is usually a lie.  I have two lines at
home here.  On one (voice) I have "metropolitan service" which allows
me to call anywhere in metro Boston at no per-call charge.  On the
other (data, mostly) I have local service which allows free calling to
towns adjacent to mine and "message units" which are really toll
charges to other places in metro Boston.  On neither line do I dial a
leading 1 for a metro Boston call -- if I dial a seven digit call to
my sister in Lexington from the first line it costs nothing, but if I
call her from the other it costs a minumum of 20 cents.  There are
quite a few places where you dial a leading 1 to call some distant
metro prefixes, due to old equipment.  There are other billing plans
in which all metro calls are charged message units, but you get a
monthly allowance of free message units.  Finally, there is "Bay State
East" service which for about $25/month gives you free metro calling
and also two hours per month of free calling anywhere in the LATA.

I have no idea what in this swamp of billing options one would really
call a toll call and what one wouldn't.  What the local telco does is
to require a 1 before any non-metro call and also before any
inter-area code call, even if the call is local.  This means that if
some evening from my second phone I call Marblehead, which is a 10
cent toll call, I have to dial a 1, but if I call Hull, which is a 27
cent message unit call, I can't dial a 1.

I realize that there are still places where the distinction between
local and non-local calls appears cast in concrete, but I expect that
as time goes on message units and discount plans will fuzz the
boundaries to the point where you won't be able to tell what's a toll
call anywhere.


Regards,


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

PS:  So why does one dial a 1 before an 800 number?

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

From: James Deibele <sequent!techbook.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Number Fraud on My Line
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Sat, 18 May 91 18:25:58 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Bob_Frankston%Slate_
[e-mail] (Bob Frankston) writes:

> are even some useful 900 services. Rather than blanket call blocking,
> some capability for password (PIN?) protection would make more sense.

Given the "personal 800" service, where the last four digits actually
signal where the call should go, this seems like something that does
make sense.  As you say, there are 900 numbers that are actually
useful, and should the industry get the reforms it needs, there might
be more useful numbers.

Right now I would think that the costs of running a 900 service would
be high: the phone company has to charge a high fee to cover the
administration costs of handling all the chargebacks from angry
consumers.  Given more reasonable terms, there should be fewer
chargebacks and problems, meaning that there should be lower
transaction fees to the 900 vendor.

Given enough time, the fundamental usefulness of the 900 (it's a lot
cheaper to have the caller punch in the 10 digits plus a four-digit PIN
than it is to have a person answer the call) might overcome the nasty
repuation 900 numbers have gotten.  I tend to regard any 900 number,
and any institution associated with that number, as somewhat suspect.


Voice: [phone]  FAX: [phone]  [e-mail]
Public Access UNIX site: [phone]/2400, N81

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 91 22:08:57 CST
From: Mark Kreutzian <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Airphone Charges
Reply-To: ivgate!command![e-mail]
Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha


> [Moderator's Note: When the bank first gave you that rap about how
> they could do nothing, you should have gotten a supervisor on the
> line and bellowed about how you were not going to pay the charge;
> they could charge it back to GTE if they liked; and if that wasn't
> enough hassle for them, you'd be glad to file a complaint with the
> Federal Trade Commission if necessary detailing the bank's billing
> practices. Believe me, the bank *would* have found GTE for you
> also!

You are assuming that the bank with which you have your credit card is
the only bank that issues them.  The bank will not just on your
request reverse a charge on your credit card statement.  First it must
go through a dispute process where your bank requests proof of the
charge from the merchant's bank (in this case GTE).  Most likely the
charge will be recognized as valid and for any further action you will
have to take it up with the merchant.  If after taking the matter up
with the merchant and it is not rendered satisfactorily then the bank
may help settle the dispute.

The bank's billing practices were right in line with regs.  The way
you proposed handling it was not.


Mark K. Kreutzian                ivgate!command![e-mail]
American Express Info Svcs Co

**** Place standard disclaimer here ******
 The .COMmand Center  (Opus 1:5010/23)


[Moderator's Note: But our correspondent said the bank claimed they
could do NOTHING. As you point out, the bank could do SOMETHING by at
least going back to the merchant bank (and they in turn to GTE) to ask
for verification. GTE and the merchant bank might well have then given
some 'evidence' that the charge was valid ... but our correspondent
said once GTE was contacted they in fact did issue credit. So couldn't
the bank have made the same initial inquiry that our correspondent had
to make?  The bank at least was obliged to tell her *how* to contact
the merchant.  PAT]

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

From: Brian Cuthie <umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System
Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 18 May 1991 04:25:17 GMT


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

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

>> May I suggest looking into the Northern Telecom Norstar system.  It is
>> the low end system in the Meridian line.

(actually, I wrote this)

> Couple of questions, if I may:

> 1. Can this system use standard phones in addition to NT phones?

Yes, with the addition of a $200 digital to analog instrument adapter.
It offers some of the features available on the digital instuments,
but it is kind of klunky.  Not bad for modem use, but I would *not*
recommend it for actual human use.  It does have some bugs, but will
work with V.32 modems (I am using it now for this connection).

One nice feature for me, is that I live between Baltimore and
Washington D.C. Consequently, I have lines that are both local to DC
and B'more.  I have the lines grouped into pools, such that when
the ATA (Analog Terminal Adapter) goes off-hook, it get's local
dial-tone.  Then dialing '8' get's an available DC line, '9' get's a
B'more line.

BTW: This system generates nice call progress tones.  They are all the
standard tones heard from a real PBX or C.O.  Not the cheesy tones
used in the Panasonic switches.

> 2. What are the limits for number of incomming lines and phone sets?

Three systems are made:

6 x 16 System similar in physical design (in that it mounts flat to
the wall) as the Panasonic.

3 x 8 (NEW!) May not be available yet.

8 x 24  This system is expandable to up to 128 ports, in any comination,
more or less, of trunk/line.  The other advantage of this system is that
new software seems to be available on this system first.

> 3. How is modem support handled?  Can I make a "direct connect"
>   between an incomming line and a modem port on my PC based on hours or
>   can the switch detect modem on the line and automaticly transfer the call
>   to a pre-assigned extention?

There is not a specific feature that allows this, however, you may be
able to use some version of NIGHT/DAY service.  Also, you could do
this quite nicely from a PC with the developer's kit.  Of course,
you'd need $25,000 (As much as I like the switch, NT is business
illiterate).

> 4. What is the pricing like?

The instruments are about $200 to $300 a piece new. You can get them
refurbed from a number of sources.  In fact, you can get the KSUs
refurbed from some sources as well. New price on the 6 x 16 KSU is
about $800.  If you beat someone over the head, and don't want service
or installation, you can get the 6 x 16 for as little as $500.


Brian Cuthie   [e-mail]   VOICE: 301 381-1718

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 91 22:10:10 CST
From: Mark Kreutzian <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed
Reply-To: ivgate!command![e-mail]
Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha


> printer and has the tear ends on it).  None of the tellers know
> it, and apparently can't find out. It's just like UNIX. If you
> forget the old one, the computer has to churn you a new one (no, you
> can't even choose your own).

The "Black Box" that was mentioned in an earlier post is called an
Atalla and the process is called DES-PIN.  The process can be set to
allow the customer to select the PIN or have the PIN selected solely
by the Atalla box.


Mark K. Kreutzian              ivgate!command![e-mail]
American Express Info Svcs Co

***** Insert standard disclaimer ******
 The .COMmand Center  (Opus 1:5010/23)

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

From: Eric Dittman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Collect and Third-Party Billing
Date: 17 May 91 15:23:21 CDT
Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility


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

> There might be at least one Connecticut phone number ending in 9xxx
> which is not a pay phone.

I can also verify that -9xxx is not necessarily a pay phone in South-
Western Bell territory, since my second line is xxx-9xxx (deleted to
avoid random calls to verify).


Eric Dittman    Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility
[e-mail]  [e-mail]

Disclaimer:  I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test
             Facility.  I don't even speak for myself.

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

From: The Super User <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System
Date: 17 May 91 16:30:03 GMT
Reply-To: The Super User <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]> umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu!
[e-mail] (Brian Cuthie) writes:

> My only complaint is that the guys at NT are missing the boat by
> making the developer's kit too expensive (by expensive, I mean to the
> tune of $25k!).  They need to realize that if people buy the kit to
> develop applications, they can only be run on NT hardware.

I know someone who was working with NT on a vertical application for
the Norstar.  When management heard that he only expected to be able
to sell a few thousand of his application, they forbid the engineers
from speaking to him any more.  They said they were interested only in
working with "companies like IBM and DEC".  They need to realize that
the innovative applications for their Norstar are not going to come
from IBM or DEC.

NT should be giving away the developer kit to encourage as many
applications as possible.  As Brian pointed out, anyone who wants to
run these app's will have to buy NT hardware.

Northern Telecom has the right idea (opening up the architecture), but
they need to make it affordable to the very kind of companies that
have the potential to develop the killer applications that could make
their Norstar the standard key system around which all custom
applications are built.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #370
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14713;
          19 May 91 6:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01709;
          19 May 91 5:25 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00625;
          19 May 91 4:14 CDT
Date:     Sun, 19 May 91 3:03:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #371
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 May 91 03:03:08 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 371

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Michael H. Riddle]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Ron Heiby]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Robert Dinse]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: 900 Number Fraud on my Line [Doctor Math]
    Re: CLASS is Finally Coming to My Exchange [Todd Inch]
    CLASS Presentation at Texpo `91 [Kevin Collins]
    Pagers and Timeout [John Cowan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 08:03:42 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Fulk)
writes:

> Others have made some good points about overbreadth of the patent, and
> prior art.

> I am bothered by another aspect: triviality.  My three year old son
> has more complicated and better ideas every day.  If the Hayes patent
> holds water, I'm going to patent the phrase "excuse me" in its use to
> interrupt a conversation.

> Seriously, a patent should only be granted if the invention solves a
> problem that many have found difficult, or if the new solution is not
> trivial to find and offers significant advantages over older methods.

[My comments are not particularly directed to Mark; rather, his was
the post to which I replied for convenience.]

I'm just a little surprised at the tone and direction most of the
comments have taken, just as I'm a little surprised by Toby Nixon's
silence.  Perhaps the company has not allowed him to say anything,
although I'd think an approved press release might be available and,
if so, would certainly help clear the air.  (If I missed one you
posted Toby, then I apologize.  I know you try hard.)

Some points need to be made:

a.  The Patent and Trademark Office issued the patent.

b.  While the PTO isn't infallible, their acts get a presumption of
    validity.  They have the job, not you or I.

c.  The PTO obviously felt the Hayes application met the requirements.

d.  A number of modem vendors agreed, or decided licensing was easier
    and cheaper than a patent challenge.  My understanding is that
    quite a number of them went the licensing route, and that even more
    are holding discussions with Hayes.

e.  A relative few companies decided to challenge the PTO decision in
    court, and they lost.  The courts, after complete briefing and
    arguments, agreed with Hayes and the PTO.

Personal reaction: some of the simplest and most useful inventions
seem obvious /after/ invention: paper clips and rubber bands would be
good examples.  Yet, /before/ the invention, they were unique and
nonobvious.  Sometimes what may be involved is the practical method of
manufacture, or some other intermediate step that is not obvious or
easy to implement.

The point is that Hayes has an obviously defensible patent, one which
patent lawyers for a number of companies have been unable (so far) to
overturn and which even more patent lawyers have felt valid enough to
have their clients license the technology.  We need to keep this in
mind.


            <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
[e-mail]                  |   University of Nebraska
ivgate!inns![e-mail]  |   College of Law
[e-mail]  |   Lincoln, Nebraska, USA


[Moderator's Note: Actually, Toby Nixon did send a good response to te
Digest on this. Perhaps you are behind in your reading?    PAT]

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

From: Ron Heiby <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Date: 17 May 91 22:37:38 GMT
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL


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

> If you had read the article carefully, you would have seen that it is
> not the AT command set that is patented, it is the escape sequence

In fact, if memory serves me right, Hayes itself had to license the
patent held by another (all but forgotten, probably) modem manufacturer
who had patented the controlling of a modem by commands sent to its
RS-232 port or to the same port as the data stream.  Perhaps someone
who knows/remembers better the details would chime in with them, or
correct me if I'm wrong?


Ron Heiby, [e-mail]    Moderator: comp.newprod

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Dinse)
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Date: 14 May 91 23:17:49 GMT
Organization: ESKIMO NORTH [phone] SEATTLE WA.


In article <[e-mail]>, kentrox![e-mail]
(Bud Couch) writes:

> In the interest of stemming panic out there, let's be quite clear.
> The enforcement was to a specific patent, not to the "Hayes AT Command
> Set". That patent, although quite important to modem users, does not
> cover the "AT" _command_ set.

> The patent upheld is on the method of notifying the DCE equipment that
> the next data arriving should be treated as a command to the DCE, as
> opposed to data to be transmitted to the far end; that is, switching
> to command mode.

> Most software defaults to a one second pause, transmitting three plus
> (+) signs, followed by a one second pause. Hayes patent is broader,
> covering any time delay, followed by any unique sequence. This patent,
> however, covers only async data ports used for both data and command.

     Since the timed escape is an essential part of the command set,
it is impossible for a modem manufacturer to claim Hayes compatability
without it. Thus, Hayes, if successful at enforcing this patent, has a
monopoly on this kind of modem. Indeed, I can't think of a way you
could escape from data mode to command mode not using a timed delay
and some unique sequence, that wouldn't be possibly contained in
transmitted data.

     I agree with a previous poster that says this reeks of look and
feel, it's more than that, it's functionality. It's not just like
someone said, hey you can't make a spread-sheet that has that user
interface, they've said, hey, you can't make a spreadsheet that works
at all.

     The ability to escape from data mode to command mode is essential
in a smart modems operation. The ability to do that in a way that
guarantees that escape to command mode won't accidentally be invoked
by the data stream would be difficult (I can't think of a way) without
timing and a unique string being an essential feature of the escape
from data mode.

     This type of BS really torques me. I have one Hayes modem and
nine clones here, I will not buy another Hayes product.

     Not only must modem manufacturers figure this as a cost they have
to figure in, but so must consumers. And since Hayes compatables
comprise nearly all consumer type modems, we are essentially all being
held hostage by Hayes, they, if successful in enforcing this patent,
have a complete monopoly on the field.

     My feeling is that the Justice Department, gutted by Reagan and
Bush, really should be filing anti-trust suits against corporations
that participate in monpoly by litigation.

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 07:30:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> "Steven S. Brack"
<bluemoon![e-mail]> writes:

> [e-mail] (Steve Shellans) writes:

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

> [Talks about activating his cellphone in an aircraft]

>>> I realize that you're "not supposed to" do things like this, but if
>>> anything had happened I could always have called 911 ;-)>

>> I don't think this is funny.  The reason you're not supposed to do
>> things like this is that stray signals from transmitters and other
>> kinds of electronic equipment can interfere with the navigation
>> instruments.

>  While using a cellphone in an aircraft is not a good idea (it,
> in fact, has the potential of denying cellular service to users over a
> multi-state area), aircraft navigation equipment is really very hardy.
> The frequency and power put out by a cellphone shouldn't have an
> appreciable effect on airline equipment.  It may, however interfere
> with the equipment used in general aviation aircraft.

I'm not a pilot, I'm a technician who lives in the state with the
highest ratio of airplanes to people.  I fly a LOT.  I talk to pilots
at LOT.  I talk to FAA people too much.

If a pilot allowed you to use a cellphone on an IFR flight that I was
on, I want off the plane, NOW.

If I saw you using one I would immediately make the pilot aware of it.

I don't think it is funny AT ALL.

I also don't see what difference it makes if the plane is a commercial
airliner or a general aviation craft.  The radio's and the navigation
systems are the same.  (Some day I'll tell you how I learned that
Loran C can be 60 degrees off.  No problem, just makes the pilot eyes
get large when he breaks out of the clouds ...)

>> [Moderator's Note: I did not think it was funny either ... maybe next
>> time he decides to flex the rules a little in his experiments he will
>> try the one which says 'keep all radios, including cell phones, turned
>> off in areas where dynamite and other explosive powders are being
>> used.'  If anything goes wrong, someone will always call 911 :(   PAT]

> In all seriousness: can a cellphone trigger explosives?  It
> seems that a radiodetonator would need to be very selective about what
> signals trigger it.

Yes it can.  A radio detonator probably would be very selective.  How
about just regular blasting caps with a few hundred feet wire (an
antenna).  Or even just a couple feet of wire (a half wave at VHF
frequencies).

Someone will call 911, and as Pat implies, it won't be on THAT phone!


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

From: Doctor Math <nstar!syscon!viking![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Number Fraud on My Line
Date: Fri, 17 May 91 11:19:32 EST
Organization: High Magick Order


[e-mail] (Cliff Helsel) writes:

> This may be of interest to persons living in an apartment complex.

> Last month I opened my phone bill and found a new amount due of over
> 300 dollars.  The calls that contributed to this large amount were
> mainly calls to 900 numbers.  I believe there were eight or so calls
> at 35 dollars a crack.

> I guess what happened was that a person was going around to the back
> of the apartment buildings and tapping into the "boxes" that had all
> the wiring for the apartment phones and placing calls to 900 numbers.
> I can just picture some guy in a trench coat holding a telephone with
> alligator clips :-) anyway, I just thought it was interesting.

Depending on the wiring in your building (I've seen a few), it's also
possible that your pair is accessible from the apartment next door, as
well as from the apartments above/below yours and your neighbor's. In
this case, no trench coat is needed. :)

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

From: Todd Inch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CLASS Is Finally Coming to My Exchange
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Wed, 15 May 91 20:35:22 GMT


I just finished reading a submission from John Higdon, who says:

> My CO (the last of the original Alexander Graham Bell prototypes)
> will be upgraded in September of this year, and CLASS will be available
> in October.

Well, I guess we can expect the amount of traffic in this forum to
decline sharply as a result, huh?

Maybe my c.d.t. reading backlog will decrease and I'll actually get
caught up.  (Sorry, John, I couldn't resist. :-)

> I am told that this will be the first offering of CLASS in California.

Are there any special (outspoken?) customers which might have caused
this to happen in your location, or just luck?  Inquiring minds want
to know ... (tm)

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

From: Kevin Collins <aspect![e-mail]>
Subject: CLASS Presentation at Texpo `91
Date: 14 May 91 16:30:56 GMT
Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca


I recently attended Texpo `91, an annual show held in San Francisco
and sponsored largely by our friends at Pac*Bell. One of the seminars
offered was about CLASS; it was given by two of Pac*Bell's Product
Managers. Below is a brief summary of my impressions.

The basic gist of the presentation was an overview of the CLASS
features and a brief explanation of how SS7 enabled Pac*Bell to
provide them. As may be expected, however, the seminar was a bit vague
on a few points:

  1) Deployment: Phase 1 of the rollout (10/1/91) was specified as area
     codes 415, 408, and 510 in NoCal and area codes 213, 818, and 310
     in SoCal. There seemed to be a definite implication that *all*
     offices in those NPA's would be upgraded; when pressed, however,
     the PM's admitted that only "most" offices would be CLASS-capable.

  2) Functionality: Another point not even mentioned by the PM's but
     raised by an attendee was that all of the features would only work
     within the subscriber's LATA until SS7 is fully implemented by the
     IXC's. In fact, the examples given on how the features worked
     involved a call between SF and NY!

The most annoying misrepresentation was about Caller ID and per-call
blocking. Pac*Bell is totally opposed to offering per-line blocking,
even to holders of unlisted numbers or crisis centers. To quote two
paragraphs from a brochure entitled "Caller ID and Your Privacy":

    "For the new COMMSTAR features to be beneficial, it is necessary for
     all numbers, including those not listed in the telephone directory,
     to be treated the same. Otherwise, any caller could hide his
     identity and remain unaccountable for his actions simply by having
     an unlisted number. But if your number is unlisted, you will still
     be able to retain your anonymity through *Per Call Privacy*.
     [dialing *67 before every call - KC]

    "Importantly, *Per Call Privacy* does not hamper the basic function
     of the other services. So, you retain the ability to deal
     effectively with unwanted callers through Call Trace, Call Block
     and Call Return."

To me, the implication here is clear: any privacy option stronger than
per-call blocking would prevent features such as Call Trace from
working. This is, of course, pure hogwash! All per-line blocking means
is that the calling number of a certain line will never be delivered
to the called party, *not* that the calling party number would be
unknown to the CO. The fact that Pac*Bell is attempting to foist this
BS on their customers as validation for not offering per-line blocking
merely illustrates their obviously low opinion of their customers'
perception.

So Pat, what are my chances of getting a FX line from IBT out here to
Sunnyvale?  :-)


Kevin Collins                   |  Aspect Telecommunications
USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc  |  San Jose, CA
Voice:  [phone]         |  My opinions are mine alone.

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

From: John Cowan <cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Pagers and Timeout
Date: Tue, 14 May 91 17:25:05 EDT


The Esteemed Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: How could this be? Did you mean it gets the person
> to return the call quicker or it somehow gets the transmission out to
> the pager a little faster?  Why would anyone necessarily rush to the
> phone faster to call because they saw '00'?   Explain please.  PAT]

Probably means that the pager system accepts up to ten digits, and if
you enter a seven-digit number and then pad with "*00" it doesn't need to
time out.  "#" might work, too.


[e-mail]        ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan


[Moderator's Note: The 'official' answer to this will be given in an
issue of the Digest later today. I have a message in the queue which
explains what the original author meant.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #371
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21116;
          19 May 91 9:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28050;
          19 May 91 6:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01709;
          19 May 91 5:19 CDT
Date:     Sun, 19 May 91 4:14:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #372
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 May 91 04:13:58 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 372

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Help: 800 Numbers Won't Work From New Home [Gerry Lachac]
    MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims??? [Jamie Hanrahan]
    Just How Stupid Can Repair Service Be? [Steve Forrette]
    CWA on Northern Telecom - Part II [Peter Marshall]
    Re: AT&T Card Pin Disclosed [Phillip V. Hull]
    Strange AT&T Bill [Sean Williams]
    Connecting American RJ11 to British CW1311 [Fernando da Silva]
    DAA Help Needed [Paul Sutter]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gerry Lachac <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help: 800 Numbers Won't Work From New Home
Organization: Dialogic Corporation
Date: Wed, 15 May 91 16:32:39 GMT


I've just recently moved from central NJ to northern NJ (Madison).  I
was calling 800 numbers in the phone book, trying to get pricing info
on spring water (hey, it's the 90's :-), and for several calls I was
connected with the standard error recording "We're sorry your call
cannot be completed as dialed. Check the number and dial your call
again <pause> 265".

This struck me as odd, because these were very big companies I was
calling, and for the new phone book to have three out of five wrong
1-800 numbers would be pretty odd.  So I called an 800 I _knew_ worked
and got the same message.  I called another (Tymnet's) and was
connected no problem.  I thought, "ok, one of the keys on my phone is
generating the wrong tone", but trying it from a different phone
produced the same results.

So the next day at work, (only nine miles from my home and NJ Bell
just like my home) I dialed all the numbers that didn't work, and they
worked fine.  No problem at work, but a problem at home.

Before I call NJ Bell and complain, I wanted to see if anyone had a
clue about what's going on?  Can certain 800 numbers be locked out
from my home?  (Some of these are definately national numbers and
should work anywhere in the US.)  Will the local telco think I'm crazy
when I tell them this?


gerry
uunet!dialogic!gerry   Dialogic Corporation
    OR           300 Littleton Rd
[e-mail]    Parsippany, NJ 07054
               [phone]


[Moderator's Note: The thing you may want to do is make a list of the
800 numbers -- particularly the prefixes -- which are locked out from
your home, *then* approach the local telco asking why 800-xxx, 800-yyy
and 800-zzz are locked out from 201-nnn.  If your office is served by
the same telco (even if not the same exchange), point out that
800-xxx, 800-yyy and 800-zzz are not locked out from 201-bbb, and
since the 800 numbers are national in scope, therefore there must be a
programming error in the office serving your residence. Cover all the
bases when you first call them so they cannot give you tale of how not
all 800 numbers are available from all locations ... you already know
that!  You want to know why they are locked out of one exchange
locally and available from another exchange locally. It might bolster
your case if you detirmined if all the 800 prefixes thus affected were
from the same carrier, or in the case of AT&T the same toll center,
etc. Ask for a foreman to call you back if necessary.   PAT]

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

From: cmkrnl![e-mail]
Subject: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims???
Date: 15 May 91 10:09:47 PDT
Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA


I saw an ad on TV last night which should raise the hackles of any
slamming victim.

They were looking for subscribers to one of AT&T's special
long-distance plans.

Quasi-quoted, because I can't remember it exactly:

"Give us the numbers of the friends you call on AT&T's plan.  We'll
give you at least 10% savings [not so bad so far] and we'll offer to
switch them to MCI."

I'll just bet they will.


Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
Chair, VMS Internals Working Group, U.S. DECUS VAX Systems SIG
Internet:  [e-mail], [e-mail], or [e-mail]
Uucp:  ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!cmkrnl!jeh

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

Date: Wed, 15 May 91 01:01:39 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Just How Stupid Can Repair Service Be?


Each time I deal with Pacific Bell repair service, I think I've
reached a new low.  Yet they always manage to outdo themselves next
time.  The following story will surely amuse you:

I ordered collect and third-number billing blocking on my numbers, in
order to prevent getting the bill for fraudulent calls (I always use
my calling card).  Not wanting to take the Business Office's word that
it's working, I decided to place a test call to make sure that it
would be denied.

To test third number billing, I tried to call 408 directory assistance
from 415-841.  So, I picked up the phone, dialed 0 408 555 1212, and
waited for the "ka-bong."  (415 and 408 are in the same LATA, so this
should be a Pacific Bell call).  Much to my surprise, the first thing
I heard was "This is 421.  What city please?"  Thinking I must have
misdialed, I tried it again, getting the same result.  I was using 0+
dialing and the call was going through as if I had used 1+.  Something
was obviously misprogrammed in my CO, so I called Repair Service at
611.

I explained my problem, and was told that they didn't handle this sort
of problem.  "We have nothing to do with calling card calls - call
your operator" I tried to clarify the problem, but the person was
insistant.  "We have nothing to do with the dialing of numbers."  Can
you believe that?  This gets my nomination for the quote of the week.

So, I called the operator, explained the problem, and was referred to
Repair Service.  I told the operator what I had been told by Repair,
and the response was "They always say that."  It was suggested that
perhaps 415 and 408 DA was consolidated, and that this may be causing
the problem.  So, I called 411, and asked for a San Jose number.  "San
Jose is in 408" was the response.  So, no consolidation.

So, back to Repair.  The same lady was very angry with me for daring to
call again:

Me>    (explanation)
Repair>    "I already told you, we don't deal with that!"
Me>    "I called the Operator as you instructed, and was referred back
     to you"
Repair> "We don't deal with that sort of problem.  Operators handle calling
     card calls"
Me>    "But I never get the Operator because of the problem I'm trying to
        report."
Repair>    "Why don't you just dial 411?"
Me>    "Because I'm trying to call long distance Directory Assistance, in
     the 408 area code"
Repair> "Did you dial 0 then a 1?"
Me>    "Why would I do that?"
Repair> "0 for calling card, then 1 because it's long distance."
Me>    "I've never heard of that form of dialing before."
Repair> (rude mode on) "I was just giving a suggestion.  If you don't want
        them, I won't offer any more."
Me>    *sigh* "Is this the right place to report this sort of problem?"
Repair> "We don't handle problems with your telephone, only in your phone
     line."
Me>    "It's neither - it's in the Central Office switch.  Who handles
         those problems?"
Repair> "We do.  I'll take the report, and someone will look into it."
Me>    "Will someone call me back?"
Repair> "Tomorrow, between 8am and 3pm"

We'll see what happens then.  Can you believe this?  The person at
Repair doesn't even know how to dial a calling card call!  I would be
willing to bet money that this problem goes unresolved for a long
time.  But I will be persistant.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 14 May 91 22:05:50 -0700
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: CWA on Northern Telecom - Part II


[Moderator's Note: We had part one on this last week. Mr. Marshall
submitted this in two parts. Here is the concluding section.   PAT]

Further describing CO switch sales to the BOCs by NT, the CWA report
indicates that "Total sales ... to the Bell System shot up from $108
million in 1981 to $1.4 billion by 1985, an annual compounded rate of
90%. In the four years leading up to divestiture, Northern captured
75% of all BOC switch orders and sold switches to all 22 BOCs. Fron
that point on its sales to the Bell System are estimated to have
exceeded $1 billion each year."

Re: NT and US IXCs, this report states Northern Telecom has also
benefitted from the other byproduct of divestiture: competition in ...
long-distance.  As MCI and US Sprint compete ... with AT&T, the other
major producer of central office switches, NT has an edge on the
switch orders from these two companies.  Northern had provided 58 of
MCI's 117 switches.  The greater the penetration of MCI and Sprint in
the long-distance market, the greater will be NT's penetration of
specialized switches.

Re: the PBX market, the CWA report says "Divestiture again provided
the solution to ... penetration and survival in the highly competitive
U.S. market. Beginning in 1986 it entered into contracts or joint
ventures with all the BOCs to sell, install and maintain NT's PBX
equipment in theire region. In most cases the BOCs bought out NT's
installed customer base and the assets of its distribution network.
The last agreement was reached with NYNEX in 1990."

Concluding with a section on "Northern Telecom at a Crossroads," this
source indicates that "Like all other manufacturers NT is preparing
for equipment and software based on ... ISDN," and that "In 1987 NT
began setting up trials of ISDN applications with several BOCs. Today
it is conducting major tests with every BOC as well as with GTE,
Contel and United Telecom." Yet these observations are qualified by
the caveat that ... technological breakthroughs do not come cheaply.

Just as revenues have jumped almost 400% over the last ten years, NT's
research and development costs have grown ... almost ten times over
the same period. During the last four years NT has had to invest an
average 12% of ... total annual revenues in R&D, about 70% more than
it did a decade ago.  NT is counting on demand for ISDN services and
for ... fiber transmission to recover its huge investment in R&D and
keep in growing in the Canadian and U.S. markets.  In 1989, it
announced its next generation of switches and transmission products
called FiberWorld, based on end-to-end fiber optics and ... SONET.
Northern ... is also gambling that the telephone companies will invest
in a major way in the new technology and soon. So far it seems to be
on target.

Finally, the plunge into the new technology is all premised on rosy
projections of the demand for new services by telco customers.

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

From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: AT&T Card PIN Disclosed
Organization: Institute of Cognitive Studies, U.C. Berkeley
Date: Thu, 16 May 1991 07:05:51 GMT


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

> I guess the difference is that banks are trying to protect against the
> loss of significant amounts of money, whilst AT&T is trying to protect
> against a theft of service (for which you haven't paid [yet]).

I wish this were true.  The card in question is a VISA + calling card
and if the PIN got into the wrong hands hundreds of dollars in cash
advances at just about any ATM could be lost in days.  If you didn't
know about this loss of security, you'd be liable for, I believe $50
but the hassle involved would be enormous.  When I got my AT&T
Universal card, I called them to request a form on which to request a
PIN number that I could remember (the usual way is as you describe
with nobody but the PIN-generating computer knowing what your PIN is).
The clerk said she could give me one over the phone.  I was totally
astounded and a bit pissed but ... it was very convenient I must admit
as I could go out and use the thing in ATM's right away instead of
waiting for a new PIN authorization which takes at least 10 days the
other way.


Philip V. Hull

INTERNET: [e-mail]  BITNET: [e-mail]
UUCP: ucbvax!cogsci!hullp  OR: ucbvax!cogsci.berkeley.edu!hullp

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed May 15 19:36:16 EDT 1991
Subject: Strange AT&T Bill


Hi everyone!

I was talking to a friend about her long distance service a few days
ago (being that I sell MCI and all) and she told me that a relative of
hers was using AT&T.

Of course, this didn't shock me one bit.  Thousands of people use
AT&T.  But then she went on to tell me that this relative was being
billed, on her AT&T page, $40.00 every two or three months (she wasn't
sure of the frequency.)

This DID shock me, as I have never heard of such a thing.
Immediately, I began scanning through my mind for information about
Reach Out America, or other AT&T options, but nothing fit the bill
(pardon the pun).

If anyone knows what this charge might be, please e-mail or voicemail
me immediately, as I would like to help her remove the charge
(assuming it is erronous).

I don't have a copy of her AT&T bill here, nor have I seen it, so
don't ask for any specifics until I can contact her about it.

Thanks alot!


Sean E. Williams          | [e-mail]
Spectrum Telecommunications      | "I own Spectrum, so our
333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227  | opinions are very similar"
Duncannon, PA 17020-0227  USA      | voicemail: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: 'thousands of people using AT&T'?  How about tens
of millions of us who are quite satisfied with it? This allegation of
a periodic $40 charge shocks me also. I can think of nothing which
fits that description, so you might want to have this person actually
read the descriptive line to you the next time it appears.  PAT]

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

From: "Fernando da Silva (PW Ph.D." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Connecting American RJ11 to British CW1311 - a Simple Query
Date: 16 May 91 17:26:01 GMT
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, Univ. Manchester, UK


I'm trying to connect an American RJ11 male connector to a British
CW1311 socket, for data communications purposes.


    RJ11 jack      CW1311 jack
    1- not used      1- not used
    2- black(?)      2- red
    3- red(?)      3- blue
    4- green(?)      4- green
    5- yellow(?)  5- white
    6- not used      6- not used

For most British phone connections only 2 and 5 of CW1311 are
sufficient.  Wich are the two important lines on the RJ11? Are all
four lines important for data communications?

Many thanks in anticipation.


Fernando A. da Silva

Dept. of Computer Science,  | JANET:      [e-mail]
The University,             | Internet:   [e-mail]
Manchester,                 |     or  :   [e-mail]
M13 9PL, UK.                | EAN:        [e-mail]
Tel: 061 - 275 6292         | UUCP:       [e-mail]
Fax: 061 - 275 6280         | EARN/BITNET:[e-mail]

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

From: Paul Sutter <[e-mail]>
Subject: DAA Help Needed
Date: 15 May 91 03:55:50 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA


Three DAA questions:

1) FCC Part 68 says the dc on-hook impedance should be 5 megohms.
EIA-470 says at least 25 megohms. Which should I follow? iI is much
easier for me to exceed 5 megohms than 25.

2) Many DAA circuits I have seen include the following surge
protection:

(tip)  ----/\/\/\/\/----+--------
                        |
                      (varistor)
                        |
(ring) ----/\/\/\/\/----+--------

With 5 ohm resistors, how are the wattage ratings determined? I have
seen anything from 1 watt to quarter watt resistors used. likewise I
have seen variation in the varistor used. Since these are for surges,
how do you calculate the necessary ratings?

3) Can anyone suggest a cheapo transformer with 1.5kv isolation that
does not have to be beefy enough to pull the DC offset? The cheapest
we have found was a Midcom for $.80 (in moderate quantity), but since
it was designed to pull the DC offset, I suspect a cheaper/smaller one
may be found. Any suggestions?

Thanks.

Paul Sutter

(not writing on behalf of my employer)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #372
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01928;
          19 May 91 14:19 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03622;
          19 May 91 12:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28269;
          19 May 91 11:45 CDT
Date:     Sun, 19 May 91 11:20:49 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #373
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 May 91 11:20:40 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 373

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Transatlantic Calling History [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Touch-Tone Selections From Overseas [Claus Tondering]
    Krislyn Associates With Phoenix Network [Paul Wilczynski]
    Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan (tm) [Skip Collins]
    FCC Address For Operator Service Complaints [Bruce Oneel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 11:03 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Transatlantic Calling History


        In Digest (vlliss346), Dave Marthouse ([e-mail]) asks:

> I would like information on the first transatlantic call from North
> America to Europe. When was it made? What mode was used? I assume it
> was radio. If so, what form of modulation was used and what frequency
> was it on? Any other technical or historical information would be
> appreciated.

        Telephone technologists were quite a bit later developing
their art to ocean-spanning reach compared to telegraphers.  At least
one historian records the first notion of an electrical telegraph
reaching back to 1558.  The idea of conductive wire to transmit
electrical signals evolved from early use of wet string and rope to a
wire by one recorded experiment across the Thames River in July, 1747.
Numerous forms of electrical signaling followed, including a variety
of "telegraphs" used largely by railways in the century that preceded
S.F.B. Morse's widely heralded "invention."

By 1795, one historian found a Spaniard suggested that an undersea
wire could be used for a conduit for telegrams.  The limitation was
that no one knew what material might be used for a suitable insulator.
A Portugese engineer has been said to have brought specimens of a
natural material called gutta percha to England in 1843, providing the
needed second material.  Other sources state that water crossings for
telegraphic purposes had been made in 1811 in Germany, 1838 in England
and 1840 in India, but the materials used are not mentioned.

        The era of British empire expansion seems to have been the
leading force in developing most of the needed materials and
substructure of technology for global telecommunications, spearheaded
by the telegraph.  Much of this concerned developing communications
with India and is not recorded in American books.  Thus, American
history books tend to begin with Morse's telegraphic work beginning in
1832, patented in 1837 and fully operational between Baltimore and
Washington in 1843.  Similarly, little is told in American history
books of the many developmental efforts of English technologists (in
cooperation with and often driven by the German, Siemens) to develop
submarine telegraphy.

        Suffice it to say in this short note that Cyrus Field, the
American that U.S. history books start their submarine telegraphy
history with, was a businessman, not a technologist, who learned in
1854 that the English Channel had been spanned by a commercially
successful cable in 1851.  By that time, the American Western Union
Telegraph Company had matured to a great heyday of ambitious growth.
WUTCo had plans to reach Europe, but technology that anticipated the
way to do it was to go overland the long way across British Columbia
and Alaska via the Aleutian Island chain, in order to require a
submarine cable only across the Bering Straits, thence via Siberia to
Moscow, where connections via Denmark could be had to the capitals of
Europe.  Field really got his technology (and eventually his capital)
from England.

        The technological history of submarine telegraphy and the
first transatlantic telegraph cable is full of tales of learning by
mistake what the "basics" are.  G.S. Ohm even suffered ridicule for
decades, and all this development was taking place when nobody even
agreed what an Ohm was!  (In the 1870's, Werner von Siemens declined
the honor of having the unit of resistance named after him, deferring
to his friend, Ohm, who had suffered so much ridicule for decades.)

        Knowing so little about the electricity and materials they
used, the British-backed firm called the Atlantic Telegraph Company
finally made a physical connection of 1,640 nautical miles between
Valentia Bay, Ireland and Trinity Bay and transmitted messages on
August 17, 1858.  In that event, a tradition that heads of state
should exchange the first official message began with messages between
Queen Victoria and President Buchanon.

        This then, could be the first "call" across the Atlantic.

        Based on a plan that it ought to support transmission at
<three> words per minute (that's 3/10ths of <one> character per
second, folks!), the new transatlantic cable suffered such high
transmission losses and similarly high earth currents that the
inaugural message took sixteen hours to transmit.  It wasn't going to
make money.

        Quite a battle ensued within the Atlantic Telegraph Company
between its learned advisor, William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and its
amateur Chief Engineer, who "raised the voltage" and blew the cable
into silence in an effort to please the investors.  It lasted only a
few weeks, and resulted in a Parliamentary investigation, but it had
in that short time saved the British Government $50,000 in one message
regarding troop movements ($500,000 or more in today's inflated
currency).

        It took until 1865 before Atlantic Telegraph made another
attempt at laying another cable that broke and was lost when 1,186
miles had been laid.  But, they again braved the rough North Atlantic
ocean in 1866 and not only laid a complete cable, but also salvaged
and used the previous year's cable.  Thus, in July, 1866 two cables
started up between Ireland and Newfoundland.  The technology had so
improved that transmission rates were more than doubled from the
earlier plan, to a raging <seven> words per minute!  On the strength
of this, Western Union, which had abandoned its Siberian Route project
on hearing of the earlier 1857 cable, bought the Atlantic Telegraph
Company and took over the cable.  (Today's MCII/WUI has its roots
reaching to that purchase.)

        Following that success, submarine telegraph cables rapidly
grew, largely driven by the imperial plans of England, Germany and
other Europeans, to span the globe multiple times before 1900.
Submarine telegraph cables were a burgeoning, leading-edge technology
until well into the 20th century.  Even as late as 1950, Cable and
Wireless had 150,000 nautical miles of submarine telegraph cable in
operation, reaching all parts of the former Empire.

        Radio was an infant (with some historical roots to the late
1890's in British Naval history) when Marconi succeeded in passing a
telegraphic message across the Atlantic in 1901. The prehistory of
radio, however, dates to at least 1865 when a Virginia dentist. Dr
Mahlon Loomis, had managed to induce a current from one kite wire to
another several miles distant.  Loomis envisioned telegraphy spanning
the Pacific by radio in his diary.  Early radiotelegraphy enjoyed an
explosive development and expansion, to the point that
radiotelegraphers achieved their goal of "reaching the antipodes," or
halfway around the Earth, meaning they could girdle the globe, in
September, 1918 by reaching from England to Australia.  By this time,
many shorter radiotelegraph crossings of oceans were in regular use.

        Telephony was evolving its own use of both cable and radio
techniques, but not to such leaps of oceans as the telegraphers had
accomplished. In 1921, the first use of radio for telephone calls
seems to have been established permanently between Santa Catalina
Island and Los Angeles, 26 miles away.  Over on the Atlantic seaboard,
experiments with using modified radiotelegraph transmitters (in that
day, actually rotating high-frequency AC generators at power levels up
to 500 kilowatts!) were being made to ships at sea. One demonstration
was made linking Catalina Island via the (then new) transcontinental
telephone lines to Deal Beach, New Jersey (an early Bell Labs
experimental station) then again via radiotelephone to a ship in the
Altantic, an unspecified distance east of New York.  This was as far
as the telephone could reach many years after the telegraph had
spanned the globe.

        It wasn't until nearly another decade had passed that AT&T, in
cooperation with the British Post Office, spanned the Atlantic with
regular telephone service. While the telegraphers had used a <radio>
frequency of <sixteen> kilohertz with a power level of 540 kilowatts
between Hillmorton, near Rugby and the RCA plant at Rocky point on
Long Island, significant problems at modulating such a low carrier
frequency with speech drove the telephone researchers all the way up
to 55 kilohertz, a frequency that was quite difficult to maintain
stable reception at such distances in those early days.

        The result was that the first commercial telephone service
across Atlantic wasn't opened until October 1, 1927.  The 55/60
kilohertz operation was soon supplanted by shortwave operations,
something that a Cable and Wireless forebear had been spreading around
the Empire by the early 1920's; largely because Marconi hadn't pressed
use of these even more unpredictable "shortwave" frequencies. (Hams
would have jumped for joy at the lack of QRM!)

        While submarine telegraphy had developed so highly that much
of the needed technology was at hand for mechanics, getting a
bandwidth of 3,000 Hertz out of those telegraph cables was well nigh
impossible.  For the next several decades, expansion of telephone
service between continents was by means of shortwave radio.  This mode
continued (and continues today to many underdeveloped nations) well
into the cable and satellite era.

        It took development of coaxial cable telephone carrier
technology in the period surrounding World War II to get adequate
bandwidth at satisfactory noise levels for a transoceanic telephone
cable.  Some regular twisted-pair telephone cables had been laid
between Key West and Havana prior to the laying of Bell Labs' type SA
submarine telephone system between the same two cities, distance of 78
miles.  (This may sound strange to telephone engineers, but the
complications of coldness on the ocean bottom makes wire much less
conductive, thus much more lossy than up on land.)

        Using the successful 1950 base of the Key West - Havana
coaxial telephone cable, the Atlantic was spanned in 1955-56 with the
Type SB submarine telephone coaxial cable between Clarenville,
Newfoundland (extended to New York) and Oban, Scotland (extended to
London) and the first transatlantic phone "call" by cabled was made in
September, 1956.

        Today, fiber optics has made bandwidths unimaginable to the
early developers a commonplace, to the point we see the transatlantic
rate structure crumbling this year, soon to be followed in the Pacific
Basin.

        Bandwidth at great distances is rapidly becoming such a cheap
commodity that many of us simply cannot imagine how monumental the
effort of the pioneers to get little more than continuity must have
been.  It's almost all "obsolete" today, but virtually every technique
we now use with such abandon came from their gambling with unknown,
barely controllable technology.  It's doubtful we'll ever again see
such risk-takers providing us with something we now take so much for
granted.


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for an *excellent* presentation!   PAT]

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

From: Claus Tondering <[e-mail]>
Subject: Touch-Tone Selections From Overseas
Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S
Date: Thu, 16 May 1991 07:02:51 GMT


I frequently phone the US from Europe; but I often run into trouble if
the party I am calling asks me to enter some number (e.g. an extension
number or a menu selection) on my touch-tone phone. Although the
touch-tone frequencies are international, these selections often do
not work when used from Europe.  One of three things happens:

1) It works perfectly, and I get connected as requested.
2) It works only if I hold each key down for two or three seconds.
3) Absolutely nothing happens. The American party does not recognize
   my touch-tones.

I have even noticed both behavior 2 and 3 when calling the same
(Massachusetts) number on different occasions.

Why this difference in behavior? What can I do to make it work always?
Where does the fault lie? In Europe? In the US? In the satellite?


Claus Tondering   E-mail: [e-mail]
Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 19:04 GMT
From: Paul Wilczynski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Krislyn Associates With Phoenix Network


Krislyn Computer Services, a telecommunications marketing firm, has
become associated with Phoenix Network, a Telecommunications
Management Company.  Phoenix, founded in 1984 and a publicly-traded
company, is the oldest of the telephone rebillers.

Phoenix utilizes the major carriers, and offers a variety of
management reports to clients to allow for the more effective
management and control of long distance usage.  These reports include
"$x or more", "x minutes or more", "usage during non-business hours",
and others.  Additionally, savings from 10 to 35% of long distance
costs are offered.  Phoenix provides monetary guarantees that clients
will be pleased with network services.

We would be pleased to provide further information if you desire.


Paul Wilczynski

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

From: Skip Collins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan (tm)
Date: 16 May 91 21:34:16 GMT
Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD


Some months ago we were having static problems on some of our home
phones.  It appeared to be a wiring problem, so we called C&P to send
a repair-person.  The problem ended up being a corroded piece of
standard phone wire which ran upstairs on the outside wall of our
house.  The repair lady was very competent and fixed the problem in no
time.  Because we had not signed up for any of the wire maintenance
plans offered by C&P the charge for the repair should have been about
$50.

The nice woman who did the repair however offered to delay submitting
the service report for a few days until we signed up for an internal
wire maintenance plan.  We promptly enrolled in the Guardian plan for
about $2 per month.  I forget the details now, but the plan covers the
cost of any repair to the house phone wiring inside the demarc.  It
does not cover the cost of repairs to customer-owned phones.  In
general, I believe such insurance is a waste of money.  But at that
particular time it made a lot of sense.  I believe that after we
called to subscribe to the plan, our coverage began within 24 hours.
(Perhaps it was immediately.)

This raises interesting possibilities.  Suppose, being a savvy
consumer, I enroll at the first sign of trouble in my wiring, and then
call for a repair.  After the problem is taken care of, I cancel my
coverage.  Would this work?  Is it ripping off the phone company?
Just yesterday I called to cancel our coverage.  Total cost of
repair: $4.


Skip Collins


[Moderator's Note: Some telcos, Illinois Bell included, get around
this by requiring a certain time period to elapse after signing up
before it is effective unless you enroll when first invited to do so
or during periodic 'open-enrollment' promotional periods. I think IBT
requires 120 or 150 days to elapse before you can collect on this form
of insurance, which is really what it is.  You are 'first invited' to
sign up when you install new service.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 91 09:04:19 EDT
From: Bruce Oneel  <[e-mail]>
Subject: FCC Address For Operator Service Complaints


 From a local C&P telephone (A Bell Atlantic Company) payphone.  The
card seemed to be dated 12/90.

Operator Service Complaints to:

FCC
Enforcement Division
CCB
Room 6202
Washington, DC 20554

My *GUESS* is that this address would apply to any area/region but
maybe not.  The phone numbers are:
(Wouldn't want those now, would we. It's only telecom!)

General         202-632-7000
Complaints, Telephone    [phone]
Common Carrier        202-632-6910


bruce

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #373
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04602;
          19 May 91 15:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09332;
          19 May 91 13:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03622;
          19 May 91 12:50 CDT
Date:     Sun, 19 May 91 11:55:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #374
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 May 91 11:55:04 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 374

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Ringing Tones Around the World [Andy Behrens]
    Phone Books Do Not Mention 540 Numbers [Wm Randolph Franklin]
    Re: IDDD Calling [David E. A. Wilson]
    Calling Cards in Britain [Linc Madison]
    Loss of Copyright: Phone Book White Pages ==> Maps? [Dan Jacobson]
    Intellectual Property (was: Hayes Wins Damages) [Ralph W. Hyre]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 May 91 07:16:22 -0400
From: Andy Behrens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ringing Tones Around the World


Pat,

This is the list that Rick Broadhead was asking for.  (I've mailed him
a copy).  I can't find this in the Telecom archives - maybe you want
to put a copy there.


Regards,
Andy

         ========================================
                     ringing.tones
         ========================================

> From: [e-mail] (Clive Feather)
> Subject: Tones and Country Codes
> Date: 29 Oct 90 10:02:08 GMT

I just received British Telecom's latest international phone guide. A
new feature in this is descriptions of the tones used in each country
for ringing and engaged. Having merged this with my country codes
list, I thought that readers might be interested.

A few notes:

  BT list two country codes I haven't seen before:
    905   Turkish Cyprus
    290   St. Helena

Six countries which are not directly diallable from the UK (and so no
country code is given) are not listed in the last table of country
codes I took from the Digest. Does anyone know their country codes ?

    Antarctica Australian Territory
    Chatham Islands
    Midway Island
    Pitcairn Islands
    Tristan da Cunha
    Wake Island

In v10i763, Jim Rees asks for the shortest world-wide unique number.
The guide gives the lengths of numbers for some countries. St. Helena
(290) has three digit numbers! Country codes 247, 674, 678, and 680
have four digit numbers.

Here is the up-to-date list. Lines beginning with # are comments.
Lines beginning with + are continuation lines, and repeat the code and
tone info.

# Tone codes (first is ring, second is engaged):
#  A: double ring, repeated regularly (UK ringing tone)
#  B: equal length on/off tones - about 1Hz (UK & USA engaged tone)
#  C: slow equal length on/off tones
#  D: fast equal length on/off tones - 2Hz to 3Hz
#  E: tones separated by long pauses (USA ringing tone)
#  F: long tones separated by short pauses

1            NANP (USA, Canada, and the Carribean)
+1  AB        Anguilla, Dominica, Grenada & Carriacou, Montserrat,
+1  AB        St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & Grenadines,
+1  AB        Virgin Islands (UK)
+1  CB        Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Puerto Rico,
+1  CB        Virgin Islands (US)
+1  EB        Barbados, Canada, Dominican Republic, Jamaica,
+1  EB        United States of America
+1  EF        Antigua & Barbuda
+1  FD        Turks and Caicos Islands

20  CF       Egypt
210          (reserved for Morocco)
211          (reserved for Morocco)
212 EB       Morocco
213 CB       Algeria
214          (reserved for Algeria)
215          (reserved for Algeria)
216 EB       Tunisia
217          (reserved for Tunisia)
218 CF       Libya
219          (reserved for Libya)
220 AB       The Gambia
221 CD       Senegal
222          Mauritania
223 CB       Mali
224 EC       Guinea
225 CD       Cote d'Ivoire
226 EB       Burkina Faso (Upper Volta)
227 CF       Niger
228 CB       Togolese Republic
229 CB       Benin
230 AB       Mauritius
231 ED       Liberia
232 CB       Sierra Leone
233 ED       Ghana
234 CF       Nigeria
235 CB       Chad
236 EB       Central African Republic
237 EB       Cameroon
238 CD       Cape Verde
239 CB       Sao Tome and Principe
240          Equatorial Guinea
241 EB       Gabonese Republic
242 CD       Congo
243 CD       Zaire
244 CD       Angola
245 EC       Guinea-Bissau
246          Diego-Garcia
247 [EA]B    Ascension Island [4 digit numbers]
248 AB       Seychelles
249          Sudan
250 CB       Rwandese Republic
251 ED       Ethiopia
252 CB       Somalia
253 EB       Djibouti
254 AF       Kenya
255 AD       Tanzania including Zanzibar
256 [AC]E    Uganda
257 CB       Burundi
258 EB       Mozambique
259          (assigned to Zanzibar, but use 255 54)
260 EF       Zambia
261 CB       Madagascar
262 CB       Reunion (France)
263 AB       Zimbabwe
264 AB       Namibia
265 ED       Malawi
266 AD       Lesotho
267 AB       Botswana
268 AB       Swaziland
269          Mayotte Island (part of France) and Comoros
27  AB       South Africa
290 FB       St. Helena [3 figure numbers]
295 ED       San Marino (not used at present - 39 541 used)
296 AB       Trinidad and Tobago (not used at present - 1 809 used)
297 EB       Aruba
298 ED       Faroe Islands
299 ED       Greenland

30  ED       Greece
31  ED       Netherlands
32  CD       Belgium
33  CB       France (Metropolitan), Andorra (33 628), Monaco (33 93)
34  ED       Spain
350 AB       Gibraltar
351 EB       Portugal
352 ED       Luxembourg
353 AB       Eire (Irish Republic)
354 CD       Iceland
355          Albania
356 AB       Malta
357 AF       Cyprus
358 ED       Finland
359 ED       Bulgaria
36  FD       Hungary
37  ED       Federal Republic of Germany (Eastern Portion, former DDR)
38  E[BD]    Yugoslavia
39  ED       Italy, San Marino (39 541, see also 295), Vatican City (39 6 6982)

40  CB       Romania
41  EB       Switzerland, Liechtenstein (41 75)
42  ED       Czechoslovakia
43  ED       Austria
44  AB       United Kingdom
45  BD       Denmark
46  ED       Sweden
47  ED       Norway
48  EB       Poland
49  ED       Federal Republic of Germany (Western Portion)

500 EB       Falkland Islands
501 ED       Belize
502 CD       Guatemala
503 EB       El Salvador
504 CD       Honduras
505 EB       Nicaragua
506 EB       Costa Rica
507 EA       Panama
508 CB       St. Pierre et Miquelon (France)
509 [EF]B    Haiti
51  EB       Peru
52  ED       Mexico
53  CB       Cuba
54  EB       Argentina
55  EB       Brazil
56  AB       Chile
57  ED       Colombia
58  CD       Venezuela
590 CF       Guadeloupe (France), including St. Barthelemy and French side
+590CF        of St. Martin
591 EB       Bolivia
592 AB       Guyana
593 ED       Ecuador
594 ED       French Guiana
595 EB       Paraguay
596 CB       Martinique (part of France)
597 EB       Suriname
598 EB       Uruguay (East Republic)
599 EB       Netherlands Antilles (Sint Maarten, Saba, Statia, Curacao,
+599EB        Bonaire)

60  AB       Malaysia
61  AB       Australia
62  EB       Indonesia
63  EB       Philippines
64  AB       New Zealand
65  AB       Singapore
66  ED       Thailand
670 EB       Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan)
671 EB       Guam
672 AB       Australian External Territories (Norfolk Island, Christmas Island,
+672AB        Cocos I.)
673 AB       Brunei Darrusalm
674 EB       Nauru [4 digit numbers]
675 AB       Papua New Guinea
676 EB       Tonga
677 DB       Solomon Islands
678 ED       Vanuatu (New Hebrides) [4 digit numbers]
679 AF       Fiji Islands
680 EB       Palau [4 digit numbers]
681          Wallis and Futuna
682 AB       Cook Islands
683          Niue Island
684 EB       American Samoa
685 AB       Western Samoa
686 EB       Kiribati Republic (Gilbert Islands)
687 CB       New Caledonia
688          Tuvalu (Ellice Islands), Saipan
689 CB       French Polynesia
690          Tokelan (Tokelau ?)
691 EB       F.S. of Polynesia (Micronesia ?)
692 EB       Marshall Islands

7   EB       Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

81  EB       Japan
82  FB       Korea (Republic of) (South)
84           Viet Nam
850 ED       Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North)
852 AB       Hong Kong
853 EB       Macao
855          Kampuchea (Cambodia)
856          Laos
86  CB       China (866 assigned to Taiwan, but see also 886)
870          Reserved for Inmarsat
871          Inmarsat (Atlantic East)
872          Inmarsat (Pacific)
873          Inmarsat (Indian)
874          Inmarsat (Atlantic West)
875          Reserved for Inmarsat
876          Reserved for Inmarsat
877          Reserved for Inmarsat
878          Reserved for national mobile telephone purposes
879          Reserved for national mobile telephone purposes
880 AB       Bangladesh
886 EB       Taiwan (normally used, but not CCITT allocation - see 866)

90  EB       Turkey, Turkish Cyprus (90 5)
91  AB       India
92  [EA][BD] Pakistan
93           Afghanistan
94  AB       Sri Lanka
95  EB       Burma
960 AF       Maldives
961 CB       Lebanon
962 AB       Jordan
963 EB       Syrian Arab Republic
964 AB       Iraq
965 EB       Kuwait
966 EB       Saudi Arabia
967 EB       Yemen Arab Republic
968 FB       Oman
969 ED       Yemen Democratic Republic (united with Y.A.R. 967)
971 AB       United Arab Emirates
972 EB       Israel
973 AB       Bahrain
974 AB       Qatar
975 AC       Bhutan
976          Mongolia
977 CE       Nepal
98  ED       Iran


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

From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Books Do Not Mention 540 Numbers
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 16 May 91 21:12:03 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> on 14 May 91 18:35:11 GMT
bluemoon![e-mail] (Steven S. Brack) writes:

>        If your buddy the plumber doesn't understand such simple
> concepts as dialing the operator for rate information on unrecognized
> numbers, then he really shouldn't use any telecom device more involved
> than a 500 set (not that he couldn't get himself burned there, too 8).
> If you decide, of your own free will, to call a telephone number, then
> you are agreeing to pay for the telephone service you have requested,
> be it a $0.25 local call or a $25.00 audiotex number.

The Manhattan White pages do not mention the 900 area code or the 540
exchanges anywhere in the 56 page instructions in front.  Neither does
the Albany phone book.  The only even vaguely relevant indications
were these.

i) the book says that NYTEL may bill you on behalf of other companies,
implying other long distance companies, and

ii) a footnote on page 24 says that 976 numbers are mass announcement
numbers and cost 35 cents.

So exactly how is a new user, even one who scans the over one million
words in the phone book intro, to ever learn about the existence of
these nasties?

I also called the Albany customer service number to ask about these
special exchanges.  She told me there were no such exchanges in
Albany, but that there were a dozen such area codes in addition to
900, including 540 and 976.  I double checked this, and according to
her, these are not exchanges but long distance area codes.

So even if one suspects that some numbers may be booby-trapped,
calling Nytel won't get the proper info.

I propose that in the interests of unfettered commerce, we make these
numbers more flexible.  Allow any business to designate any number, at
any designated time of the day, to cause the customer to be billed
$50.  What's the problem?  No one's forcing you to call.  If you think
there's a concealed trap, then call Nytel.  If they falsely tell you
there is no extra charge, well then they're just imitating the IRS,
who penalizes you also if you rely on their erroneous phone advice.

Next we can designate special floor tiles in stores.  Step on one --
they're unmarked -- and you have automatically bought something, which
is nonreturnable, and owe $50.  If you have a question about any
specific floor tile you can go up to the manager's office and ask
about it.  Be sure to watch your children in the store -- you owe if
they step on the wrong tile.  Just because floor tiles have always
been used in the past solely to allow foot traffic to get from one
place to another doesn't mean that they should be restricted to that
in the future.

I believe that one of the 900 number business associations is opposing
a bill that would require them to state the charge at the start of the
call and give the caller a chance to hang up.  That says it all about
this "business".

Maybe we apply old common law about installing booby-traps to stop this
scourge.

No this is not sour grapes; I've never called such numbers in my life.


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: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IDDD Calling
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Fri, 17 May 91 01:30:10 GMT


[e-mail] (KATH MULLHOLAND) writes:

> Is there a list available of the number of digits to be expected when
> dialing overseas?

In many countries numbers are not of fixed length - for example here
in Australia the internal format is two to four digit area codes (all
starting with zero which is omitted when calling from overseas) and
five to seven digit local numbers.

A quick look at the OTC Country Codes page in my phone book shows
worse examples:

            Area Code
Austria    Wien (Vienna)    1
    Salzburg    662
    Innsbruck    5222

Japan    Osaka        6
    Yokohama    45
    Nagasaki    958
    Ishikawa    9896


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

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 23:21:48 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Cards in Britain


Peter Thurston ([e-mail]) in
Vol. 11, Issue 362, Message 5 of 11, mentioned British Telecom's
calling card.

A few ignorant foreigner questions: how do you place a calling card
call?  Do you have to dial the operator and give him/her the number
you want to reach and your card number orally, or is there something
analogous to the system in use in the US where we dial 0 + number +
(wait for tone) + calling card number, instead of a direct-dial (STD)
1 + number?  ["number" here may include area code/city code, etc.]


Linc Madison   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Loss of Copyright: Phone Book White Pages ==> Maps?
Date: Fri, 17 May 91 06:09:00 GMT


After one thumbs past the newly "liberated" white pages of my Illinois
Bell Naperville Ill. phone book, one encounters a fairly bland street
map of Naperville, with copyright notices at the bottom of each page.
Would the U.S. Supreme Court would also see this map as a mere
collection of facts too?

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

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Intellectual Property (was Hayes Wins Damages)
Date: 17 May 91 17:00:15 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


[followups to comp.org.eff.talk, for lack of an intellectual property group.]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 355, Message 1 of 9

> Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> Interesting how Hayes goes after the smaller ...
>> manufacturers.  IBM and AT&T both also make and sell AT modems.

> The chances are excellent that both IBM and AT&T license this
> technology from Hayes ... neither outfit is known for taking risks
> with this sort of stuff; they want their intellectual property
> respected, and behave in kind.

Unless you believe Paul Heckel, in the new edition of "Elements of
Friendly Software Design". (Sybex, ISBN 0-89588-768-1) He's currently
trying to get IBM to license his Zoomracks card and stack metaphor
patent.  (Aside: I don't know how you patent a metaphor; on the
surface it would seem to be even harder than patenting an algorithm.)

Apple licensed the ZoomRacks technology after being sued over their
Hypercard product.  Asymetrix' Toolbook is a clone of Hypercard for
the Windows environment for the PC, and IBM and Zenith bundle it with
some of their configurations.

The conclusion seems to be that IBM will deal with you if they
perceive you as a threat.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #374
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09934;
          19 May 91 17:43 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06609;
          19 May 91 16:13 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05215;
          19 May 91 15:01 CDT
Date:     Sun, 19 May 91 14:10:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #375
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 May 91 14:10:14 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 375

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Natural Micro Systems ME/2 Question [Stephen F. Bush]
    DiamondTel 99X Weakness [Bill Temps via Tony Harminc]
    The GTE-Contel Merger [Peter Marshall]
    LEC Competition: CWA Perspective [Peter Marshall]
    Cheap Cellular Phone Deals [Doctor Math]
    World History and Telecommunications [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    It Still Don't Network... or? [H. Peter Anvin]
    Information Needed About Sprintmail => Internet Gateway [Arun Baheti]
    The MFJ, "Shared Facilities" and "Condominium Arrangements" [Alan Toscano]
    One City With Two Area Codes [Ken Levitt]
    Obtaining Unlisted Numbers [Dennis G. Rears]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Stephen F. Bush" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Natural Micro Systems ME/2 Question
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)
Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 17:41:56 GMT


Has anyone had experience using the computer voice mail system called
Natural Micro Systems ME/2 ?

We will be using it for a research project, and I am wondering how
easy it is to use and if there have been any problems with it.


Thanks,

Steve Bush

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 91 16:33:20 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: DiamondTel 99X Weakness


A friend from a conference not on the Internet posted the following.
I volunteered to repost it here - comments are welcome.

Append on 05/15/91 at 14:50 by Bill Temps, First Chicago Corporation:

   I have identified what I feel is a design weakness in the
DiamondTel 99X portable cellular telephone.  The battery slips on the
back of the device, and is held in place by a leetle tiny plastic
thingy, which engages with an equally leetle tiny plastic catch on the
body of the telephone.  This plastic thingy is vulnerable to
mechanical stress and physical trauma ... i.e., de sucka breaks.

   Couple o' weeks ago, the plastic thingy on the battery broke.
Solution: new battery, at a cost of about 10x or 15x a set of four
double-A's.  Today, the catch on the phone itself broke.  Kludge: hold
the battery on with a rubber band.  I don't know why the two plastic
thingies are 3mm wide instead of, say, 10mm and made of plastic
instead of titanium, but that's the ... ah ... breaks.

   The device has not been dropped or otherwise (in my opinion)
mistreated.  Evidently it can't stand the stress of being carried in a
bicycle bag -- at least not with Chicago potholes.


Tony Harminc

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

Subject: The GTE-Contel Merger
From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 91 23:40:16 PDT


In its recent treatment of the merger, the CWA "Information Industry
Report" notes a "complex GTE/Contel structure," explaining that the
companies had combined 1990 revenues of $21.8 billion, making them the
largest local telephone holding company in the country. They have more
than 15 million access lines, ranking them fourth in the United States
and another 2.3. million in Canada, Barbados and the Dominican
Republic. They will control the fourth largest cellular network but
will be the second largest franchise in terms of total population
served.

The report notes that GTE also "owns 51% of a joint venture with AT&T
to manufacture telecommunications equipment, including ... switches,"
and that the merged telcos will maintain telephone operations in 40
states, with both now operating in 20, and GTE operating alone in 9,
with Contel now operating alone in 11.

The CWA report indicates that Contel's four data centers will be
consolidated into GTE's data facilities; that field work centers will
be integrated; that GTE SW will become Central Area and reconfigured;
GTE North, a reconfigured North Area; GTE West, the West Area, adding
Utah and Alaska; with GTE South, now the South Area, unchanged in
territory.


  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA
                           PEP, V.32, V.42

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

Subject: LEC Competition: CWA Perspective
From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 91 23:19:57 PDT


The March CWA "Information Industry Report" chimes in on the theme
"Local Exchange Carriers to Face Growing Competition."

The CWA view is that "Within the next five to ten years, the major
local exchange carriers, including all the RBOCs, will face growing
competition for local phone service from a variety of companies," and
that "These developments have major implications ... for residential
customers."  According to the CWA report, among these implications are
that "Residential customers, particularly low and middle income users,
will face rising rates ..."

This report claims also that "The most serious challenge to the
existing wired systems comes from the cable television companies and
personal communication networks," noting that cable companies "are
taking a dual approach to preparing for local phone service:

1) they plan to upgrade ... to handle phone calls...;

2) they will enter into partnerships with (or develop on their own)
cellular systems or [PCNs] to combine the advantages of mobile radio
 ... and cable transmission between transmitters and switches."

The "Information Industry Report" notes Time Warner, the second
largest cable system operator, announced in early March beginning of
construction on the first two-way interactive cable system; and that,
also in March, four cable systems were granted FCC licenses to test
PCNs.


  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA
                           PEP, V.32, V.42

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

From: Doctor Math <nstar!syscon!viking![e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 17 May 91 11:31:04 EST
Subject: Cheap Cellular Phones


Perhaps this has been discussed in another thread (I don't recall):

Let's say the local stereo store has a "deal" where you get a cellular
phone for $49.95 if you agree to a one-year service commitment with
some specified carrier. Obviously, to re-program the phone yourself
would be breaking the contract. Do they have recourse in this case?

Since the phone has been bought and paid for, it is not being rented
or leased, so it seems unlikely that they could come and take it from
you ... but they could theoretically "blacklist" your ESN. Another
example: you buy the phone, they activate it with their carrier, you
sign the contract stating that you will keep that carrier for one
year.  What if they give you an "A" carrier and you independently sign
up for a "B" carrier (or vice-versa), and simply don't use the carrier
that they gave you? The phone is still activated according to the
contract, right? You're still using the carrier of their choice,
right?

The last time Radio Shack ran this sort of "deal", the fine print in
their ad stated that this deal was not available in California and one
or two other states where such deals requiring activation have been
made illegal. Cute.

Also, is a repository of programming instructions being accumulated
somewhere in the Archives? If I can get away with one of the above
scenarios, I might just get myself a cell phone!

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

Date: Sat, 18 May 91 12:07 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Suject: World History and Telecommunications


 ...It seems William Shakespeare knew more about computers than historians
have yet discovered:

"Life is a tale,
 Told by an idiot..."

(a medieval term for a computer)

"Full of sound..."

(monotone beeps)

"And fury."

(the frustration you feel when a computer does what you tell it to, not
what you WANT it to do!)

 ...this gives pause when you think that Julius Ceasar had the raw
materials for a cellular phone, but lacked only the manufacturing
processes for sand (silicon).  What would the Roman Empire have been
like if Caesar had a cellular phone on his chariot?

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

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: It Still Don't Network ... or?
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Sat, 18 May 1991 22:12:11 GMT


A few questions about ISDN:

1. Is is feasible/not feasible to use ISDN as a link in an IP or Ethernet
   network?

2. Is ISDN a worldwide standard, or another one of them "we decide what we
   want" USA standards?

3. Does the 64 kbit/s B-channel rate over ISDN include error correction?

4. Does the D-channel protocol include service identification (say IP,
   video, voice, modem)...?

5. Is is possible to call a POTS line with a modem from an ISDN connection?

6. What are typical rates for ISDN?  Is it billed per minute or per block?


Peter A.  is Curious (blue&yellow... yes I am Swedish)

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

Date: Sat, 18 May 1991 17:28 CDT
From: Arun Baheti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed about Sprintmail => Internet Gateway


I'm sorry to bother you with this, but I've had no luck locating this
information in the archives.  In the past, there was information
posted here re: Sprint-Net Mail to Internet gateways. I'm interested
in finding this information again.  Can anyone post a quick summary?


ab

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed May 15 16:32:06 CDT 1991
Subject: The MFJ, "Shared Facilities" and "Condominium Arrangements"


The MFJ stipulates that the Bell Operating Companies and AT&T may
share facilities for up to eight years after divestiture.  Those eight
years will expire in a few months.  What facilities, if any, are still
"shared" today?  Does "Shared Facilities" include the "Condominium
Arrangements" created to split up wire center buildings containing
both local (end office) and toll switches?  Examples which come to
mind: Austin-Greenwood, Chicago-Canal, San Antonio-Capitol.  Will AT&T
have to move out of such buildings by the end of the year?


A Alan Toscano             Voice:  [phone]     AT&T Mail:  atoscano
<[e-mail]>     Telex (UT):   156232556     CIS:       73300,217


[Moderator's Note: The way I have heard it is they will remain as they
are but will no longer be legally 'sharing'. In the past, all floor
space and facilities was owned in common. Now, both the LEC and AT&T
are tenants in a 'condominium-style' building where each separately
owns their own floor space and equipment, and they do not share their
own floor space and equipment with anyone. Both are members of an
association which owns the building and the common areas. Nothing in
the MFJ said the two could not be tenants in the same condominium
building. They will all still use the same restroom, elevator, and
cafeteria facilities, which are owned by the association, rather than
AT&T or the LEC individually.  I suspect both entities are smart
enough to keep their use of the common facilities at arms-length to
appease the judge, bless his soul ... or does His Honor presume that
two executives, one from the LEC and one from AT&T,  will spend
quality time together each day seated in ajoining stalls in the men's
room plotting to put Sprint out of business, using the walls to write
secret inter-company memos to each other?  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 19:06:42 EDT
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: One City With Two Area Codes


We have a new software product that provides office and practice
management for veterinarians.  Because the users of the system are
often low level clerical staff with no prior exposure to computers,
our system makes every possible attempt to verify all data entry
fields.

When the system is first installed, the system administrator builds a
database of cities in the area.  One field in the database contains
the area code.  When a phone number is entered, the system requires
that the area code matches the area code for that city.

All this worked fine until today when a new client informed me that
Westlake Village, CA has two area codes (805/818).  This was something
that I had never considered possible.

My choices are either to hard code a check for that one city in the
program, or change the database structure and modify the program to
account for this happening again in another city.

Are there other cities in the country with two area codes?  If I sell
another 500 copies of my program, how likely am I to run across
another one of them?


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I'd think that with the numerous area code splits
going on in metro areas, your scenario could become quite common. How
does your program now deal with (post office) New York, NY?  At the
outer edges of suburbia here, some communities sit right on the
815/708 line, including Fox Lake and Lockport/Romeoville, IL.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 17 May 91 00:02:52 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Obtaining Unlisted Numbers


[Moderator's Note: OK gang, here we go with another immoderate message
which explains how someone (gasp!) violated the privacy of another! So
come one, come all with hate messages, etc. When alt groups get a
sufficient volume of flames they usually move to Usenet where they
can mingle with the big boys.  PAT (the one who doesn't give any.)]

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

   I promised this list a long time ago an account on how to get
unlisted numbers legally.  The methods I used are not very technical
but useful.  First some background, I was married on 30 Sep 1989, and
after many moons of a blissful marriage :-) we were separated in
April, 1990.  After I moved out of the apartment in July, 1990 she
moved back in and decided to get her new number unlisted and not give
it to me (in violation of the separation agreement).  She also
canceled my existing phone service three days prior to when it should
have been but that is another issue.

  As I had legitimate need to contact her and the corespondent (look
that up in your legal dictionary) I needed to get the number.  Without
specifing the exact method that worked the following were possible
methods I used:

   o Went to a mutual friend's house and under the pretense of calling
home, called my answering machine and when the message was done hit
the memory recall for Sharon's number and deposited the DTMF tones on
my answering machine.

  o I knew what prefix her number was (201-208). I also had a local
directory that I scanned into my PC.  It turned out that only numbers
of the form 208-[0289]XXX has been assigned.  I got from a contact
from TPC a list of unassigned numbers for that prefix.  I then had a
list of 23 unlisted numbers.  I hit it on the 7th call.

  o Her mother works on the floor beneath me. I got her to dial her at
home at a pay phone.  For an ex-computer hacker who is used to picking
up passwords from a user typing at a keyboard the phone pad is not a
contest.  Anyone want a calling card number :-).  Not only that, her
mother called her from work while I was there.  Anyone want to bet
that I used my DTMF calculator to record the number when I hit redial
after she left.

  o It was easy to get the corespondent's number, he was a volunter
fireman.  We have lots of computer-illiterate volunteer fireman at
work.  I gave them computer training they gave me confidential info.

  o It unbelievable the info you can get from people once you get them
suffiencently drunk ...

  o Of course there is Caller-ID, you call up her lawyer, say
something that he will communicate to her and in her pissed-off mode
she will call you.  But I have Caller-ID and thus I have her number.

  o There is one last way ->   Bluffing that I have it and she gives it to
me.  Guess how I got it? ...

  BTW, don't think the TPC will give it to you.  They won't and can't.
I remember five years ago when I was Staff Duty Officer (Army 1LT) and
had to get in contact with a civilian employee because the office of
Chief of Staff Army (ranking officer of the US Army) needed some
production figures.  TPC would not give it to me, even when I cited
official business.  The best they would do is take my number, call the
party and leave a message.

   The moral of the story _> thanks to old tech and new tech, no real
privacy exists if one wants to go to any lengths.  For those of you
who are wondering ... I was awarded a divorce on my terms thanks to my
excellent and cheap lawyer (pro se).  It's funny though the only time
I called her and the corespondent was just to verify the phone number.


Dennis

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #375
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12453;
          19 May 91 18:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04752;
          19 May 91 17:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad06609;
          19 May 91 16:14 CDT
Date:     Sun, 19 May 91 15:38:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #376
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 May 91 15:38:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 376

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    High Speed Transfer of X-Rays Over Phone Lines [Alan G. Farman]
    The Bell-Shaped Head is Not Yet Dead [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    It Doesn't Need to be a COCOT to Burn You [Steven S. Brack]
    A Very Simple ISDN Question [Kim Fosbe]
    MCI "Follow Me" 800 Service [Sean Williams]
    Hayes Patents [Benson I. Margulies]
    A Silly Question (Perhaps) [Brian Crawford]
    Knowing if You Are Dialing a Toll Call [Ken Dykes]
    Adding 00 to Pager Alerts [Jeff Scheer]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Roy M. Silvernail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 15:52:33 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: High Speed Transfer of X-Rays Over Phone Lines


    Here is a file that I have been sent from another list. I thought
that you may like to include it in the Digest.

Yours,

Bryan

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

 Date:         Wed, 15 May 91 06:24:28 EDT
 Reply-To:     MEDNETS Medical Telecommunications Networks
               <[e-mail]>
 Sender:       Hospital Computer Network Discussion Group and Data Base
               <[e-mail]>
 Comments:     Resent-From: [e-mail]
 Comments:     Originally-From: "Allan G. Farman ([e-mail])"
               <[e-mail]>
 From:         [e-mail]
 Subject:      High speed transfer of x-rays over phone lines


At the Telecommunications Research Center of the University of
Louisville/Commonwealth of Kentucky, we have been experimenting with
the high speed transmission of images using direct digital intraoral
radiographs. The potential is great for control of dental insurance
costs by expediting prior approvals and reducing the need for local
experts. Transmission at high speeds is largely dependent upon the
type of telephone service available - the slowest connection being the
deciding factor.

This is a real problem in the USA as there is no central system. While
in France the telecommunications system for Integrated Services
Digital Network is virtually universally available providing a data
transmission potential of 64 kilobits/sec, ISDN is not universal in
the USA at this time. The current ISDN standard in the USA is 56
kilobits/sec. Such rates are faster than achievable with standard
modems; however digital switches capable of sending data files at
these rates are commercially available. Using specially connected high
speed lines it was possible to send dental radiographs to Paris,
France from Louisville, Kentucky last month in less than five seconds
from acquisition at both ends of the connection. This used the high
speed AcuPulse system to the ISDN Acunet system of AT&T, through to
the French ISDN system: Numeris. Special convertion cards were
manufactured to connect the 56kbs system to the 64kbs system.

Initial studies show no loss of image details due to the transmission.
Studies concerning medical teleradiology are taking place at the
Medical Schools of Bowman Gray (NC) and Washington (Seattle). There
are also close to 30 providers of teleradiology "turnkey" systems;
however, these tend to be quite expensive and to require special
terminals for both transmission and reception. The system that I am
using uses an IBM AT/XT, 286 through 486, VGA through XGA, a standard
frame grabber for acquisition, but only a standard graphics program
for reception. For dental radiographs, it has proven perfectly
possible to use the PROFS program linked to an IBM mainframe to
provide a widespread local area network. More long distance E-mail has
proven to be more problematic due to file size limitations and data
"massaging" in the various mainframes along the E-mail route.

I do hope that this rambling message is of use.

Best wishes,

Allan G. Farman ([e-mail]),
Professor of Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology, University of Louisville School
 of Dentistry, Louisville, KY 40292. (TEL: [phone] ext.1241)

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 03:32 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Bell-Shaped Head is Not Yet Dead


        In article <digestv11,iss366>, John Higdon <[e-mail]>
reports:

> Since the blocking scheme cannot be used except in stored-program-type
> offices, and the PUC requires blocking be provided to all who request it
> (if at all available), a cheap and dirty way to get out of a crossbar
> switch is to order blocking. A friend had a crossbar number in an office
> that was also served by an ESS. Pac*Bell informed him that the ESS was
> "closed" (not accepting new lines) even if he wanted custom calling
> features. I told him to request 900/976 blocking. He now has an ESS-served
> number, changed at no charge by Pac*Bell.

        How doggedly the "Bell-Shaped Head" lives on!  One could not
imagine it's been more than seven years since we lynched Ma Bell.

        John's story relates how we must still use the same sort of
embarrassment techniques on that mentality, catching them at their
"tricks" from an oblique angle, rather than talking sense to them.

        And, the monopoly-era attitudes aren't limited to PacBell or
to the LEC's either.  I lost a good bit of the past two weeks and had
a WAN rearrangement blown by AT&T, when after first arguing, then
agreeing their position was ignorant, then balking at the last minute,
finally agree after a presentation that they had done exactly what
they kept saying was "illegal" a dozen times over in the same way in
the same city.  They even tried calling my boss to see if they
couldn't get me off their case.

Well, now we'll get what we wanted, which they had to admit wasn't
"illegal" at all ... a couple of weeks late.

        All the AT&T breast-beating about being the "leaders" and
those others copy wears very thin when one keeps getting these
throwbacks to the Stone Age of Telecommunications.

        The sad truth is that AT&T still is filled with people who
remember too much of the "good old days," their competitors are filled
with their cast-offs, and so the "old ways" continue. It's getting so
that every month I find they are constantly amazed with what they can
accomplish instead of being their own worst enemy.  Despite all the
glitz and claims, we really have not gotten very far at all.  The Era
of Telecommunications is yet to dawn.

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

Subject: It Doesn't Need to be a COCOT to Burn You
From: dsac!bluemoon!sbrack (Steven S. Brack)
Date: Thu, 16 May 91 16:07:19 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])


I recently had an experience with an ATT-defaulted Ohio Bell payphone.
I was at work and received an urgent message to call home.  I live in
Columbus (614), but my "home" is in Toledo (419).  So, I pulled out my
trusty ATT nonsubscriber calling card (thanks for the tip, Pat),
dialed 0-419-XXX-YYYY, got the "AT&T" announcement, dialed my card
number, and got connected.  I talked only long enough to find out that
nothing terrible had happened, then hung up.

        Well, I got my ATT bill yesterday, and it showed a one minute
call (the call I just described) as costing $1.17!!  My "normal"
alling-card rate is $0.21 / minute.  I called ATT, and the rep I spoke
with told me that since it was an Intra-LATA call, Ohio Bell handled
it, and could charge up to $1.20 per minute.

        If the phone "says" AT&T to you when you place the call, isn't
it reasonable to assume that AT&T rates would be applied?  The system
already knew where I was calling from & what number I was dialing, so
it should have been able to tell me Ohio Bell was handling my call.

        I can't help but think that saying AT&T was handling the call,
then having Ohio Bell actually handle it is a little unfair to the
consumer, to say the least.

        Is what happened to me legal?


Steven S. Brack                                 | I don't speak for OSU.
InterNet: [e-mail]                | (Bill Miller just can't
  BitNet: [e-mail]|  understand that.)

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

Date: Sat, 18 May 91 21:52:00 CST
From: Kim Fosbe <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: A Very Simple ISDN Question
Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs![e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


I already know about what ISDN is and about all those wonderful things
that it will do which we will wonder how we got along without.

What I don't know is just how it will effect those of us who use regular
plug-in modems. Nobody seems to know this.

Will ISDN make our modems obsolete? Is it true that all we will have
to do is plug in an RS232 cable from the PC port to the phone and dial
up any system like we do now? Is there a way to use your plug-in
modems when you have ISDN at home? Has anybody ever thought of that?
Also, is there a way to use your answering machine when you get ISDN?

Another question while I am on the subject. Are these black AT&T
digital phones that are replacing the hold-button phones in offices
actually ISDN phones? One guy tells me they are and another guy tells
me no. Both of them are electronic people. Full of questions, aren't I?

Thanks in advance for any and all information.


 Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
 [200:5010/666@metronet] DRBBS -- Keep The Royals in Omaha  (200:5010/666.0)

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri May 17 13:48:24 EDT 1991
Subject: MCI "Follow Me" 800 Service


After reading about MCI's "Follow Me" 800 service several times in the
Digest the past few weeks, I decided to call MCI to see what it was
all about.

I was disappointed to find out it's really nothing at all too special.
Basically, the representative said all you have to do is call your
Personal 800 number.  Instead of entering your "security code", just
wait for the operator to come on.  Tell the operator what number you
would like to forward your 800 number to, and the operator will
immediately make the changes.  Every time you do this, you will be
charged $1.00 (but of course, you qualify for MCI's 2% volume discount
when your bill reaches or exceeds $100.00 during one billing cycle.)


Sean E. Williams              | [e-mail]
Spectrum Telecommunications          | "I own Spectrum, so our
333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227      | opinions are very similar"
Duncannon, PA 17020-0227  USA          | voicemail: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Is there any sort of security check built in which
prevents me from calling your 800 number, letting it time out to an
operator and telling her to forward your 800 number to my line?  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 09:26:48 EDT
From: "Benson I. Margulies" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hayes Patents


It amazes me how contributors to this list feel compelled to bewail
the disasterous and "monopolistic" implications of the Hayes patent
from a position of apparent total ignorance of patent law and
practice.

People seem to think that having to pay a license fee is the end of
the world. Guess what? Companies pay each other licence fees on
patents all the time, on all kinds of "trivial" and "obvious" items.
It dosen't seem to stifle competition.

If the holder of the patent charges a moderate fee, then most would-be
users will find it cheaper and safer to pay up then to litigate. If
they change an extortionate fee, they provide an incentive to hire
bigger and better lawyers, and risk losing their patent altogether.
So the system is self-corrective -- patents that represent really big
novelties command high royalties, and patents that are more minor
command low ones. Inventors are rewarded for their efforts, and things
all come out in the wash.

An important difference from apple/lotus is that those are based on
copyright, not patent. A real expert can undoubtedly tell the list why
copyrights do not lend themselves as well to this self-adjustment
process.

I can also provide two alternatives to the Hayes method:

1) a break signal.

2) send a sequence and THEN pause, rather than the other way around.

No one asked all these other companies to choose the AT set as the
"standard." There's no ANSI spec that I know of. The whole idea of
patents is to guarantee that inventors of useful novelties get some
compensation from other users. If Hayes went and invented a command
set that is so widely admired as to be universally copied, I think
they deserve a reasonable royalty on every modem, be it on the escape
sequence, AT, or whatever.

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

Date: Thu, 16 May 91 12:50:23 -0700
From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Silly Question (Perhaps)


Is "950" carrier access available FROM Canada (B.C. specifically) ?

Comments appreciated.

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

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 14:05:42 EDT
From: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Knowing if You Are Dialing a Toll Call


[e-mail] (John R. Levine) wrote:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 370, Message 3 of 9

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

>> Here there is a rule (unwritten but pretty strong) that you can't be
>> billed for a seven-digit call.

> When interchangable area codes arrive in about 1995, dial-1-for-money
> simply won't work any more.  The leading 1 will have to mean that an
> area code follows.  Unlucky folks in areas with old equipment will...

So, why doesn't the foney company come up with "Yet Another Dialing
Prefix" which means "do not complete this call if it is a toll call."

The paranoids and pager users can use it; the rest of us lazy-slobs-happy-
with-the-status-quo can forget about it.

Heck, maybe some brain damaged pbx/key systems could be programmed to
prepend all outgoing calls with the prefix when coming from
unauthorized extensions.


   Ken Dykes, Thinkage Ltd., Kitchener, Ontario, Canada    [43.47N 80.52W]
     [e-mail]  [129.97.128.1]        watmath!kgdykes

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

Date: Sat, 18 May 91 18:39:13 CST
From: Jeff Scheer <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Adding 00 to Pager Alerts
Reply-To: ivgate!command![e-mail]
Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha


Pat, what I meant was that by adding the 00 and other numbers, people
that see this coming up on their display pagers usually call in
quicker as the numbers peak their curiousity.

If for example a client (let's say a mortician ) is unavailable for
voice contact, we as the service ring that pager and display the
message check in number followed by 00.  If this is an emergency, we
keep paging him/her and add 01/02/03 etc ...

After so many times of the pager going off, the client will call in
just to quit getting "bothered".

Score one for that pushy answering service.

We can usually get a message out of a caller before they even know
what happened.


Jeff

 The .COMmand Center  (Opus 1:5010/23)

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

Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 19 May 91 12:51:04 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Tony Harminc) writes:

> Are you USAers happy with the possibility of paying for seven-digit
> calls?  Why is there no 1+ requirement to let you know ?  It seems a
> little silly that everyone should have to remember a huge list of
> prefixes in order to avoid placing expensive calls, whether 540 or 976
> type, or just normal toll calls within the NPA.

I used to have to do just that in Alaska. Toll calls from Anchorage
did not require a leading 1 when I lived there, and you could as
easily be calling across the state as across town.

While it didn't have _quite_ the potential for surprise as the 540
scam, it could still be expensive. Alaska used to have abominable
in-state rates. It was cheaper to call Los Angeles than to call Nome.
I don't know what the rates are, these days.


Roy M. Silvernail    [e-mail]
cybrspc![e-mail]   [e-mail] (maybe!)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #376
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15580;
          19 May 91 20:00 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25512;
          19 May 91 18:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04752;
          19 May 91 17:19 CDT
Date:     Sun, 19 May 91 16:36:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #377
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 May 91 16:35:53 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 377

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan [Christopher M. Lott]
    Re: Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan [Peter M. Weiss]
    Re: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims??? [John Higdon]
    Re: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims??? [Sean Williams]
    Re: Strange AT&T Bill [[e-mail]]
    Re: Strange AT&T Bill [Earl Hall]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [John Higdon]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Michael H. Riddle]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Jordan Kossack]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 14:01:10 -0400
From: Christopher M Lott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan
Organization: University of Maryland Dept of Computer Science


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

> wire maintenance plan.  We promptly enrolled in the Guardian plan for
> about $2 per month.  I forget the details now, but the plan covers the
> cost of any repair to the house phone wiring inside the demarc.  It
> does not cover the cost of repairs to customer-owned phones.

I believe Mr. Collins is mistaken; the Guardian plan as I understand
it explicitly DOES cover all customer telephone equipment, and
includes a loaner phone while the offending instrument is in the shop.
A cheaper plan ($.85/mo in C&P territory) covers only the wiring, no
phones.  I don't know about elapsed time before you can place a claim.
But Pat, 120 days sounds pretty harsh.  You sure about this?

On a related note, I'll be moving into student housing run by the
University in July.  I had to sign a statement acknowledging receipt
of a copy of the C&P Line Maint. policy (will check for time before
claims when I get home) and a copy of the housing office's strong
recommendation that I purchase not just the basic plan ($.85/mo) but
the Guardian plan ($2/mo).  Reason given was that the wiring in those
apts is apparently original (some 40 yrs old).  Wonder if they get a
cut or if they're honestly trying to help.

BUT WHAT HAPPENS if some yahoo snarls the wires on the outside of the
building?  The C&P plan explicitly covers only the wiring within your
four or so walls (gee, a whole lot of wiring in a one-bedroom
apartment) and explictly does not cover any wiring outside your
apartment.  It also does not cover problems due to vandalism or other
tomfoolery that I think it should.

Is there anyone living in an apartment who has used this insurance?
Where was the problem (according to them)?  What was the resolution?
Does anyone know who is responsible for maintaining the punchdown
blocks etc. that pertain to telephone service for apartment complexes?
Is it telco?

I sorta figure I should get the $.85 insurance because if anything at
all goes wrong, the morons in the housing office will be quick to
charge me, I'm certain.  ``Hey, you were warned.  You signed the
receipt.''


Christopher Lott \/ Dept of Comp Sci, Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
  [e-mail] /\ 4122 AV Williams Bldg  301 405-2721 <standard disclaimers>

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sunday, 19 May 1991 14:03:01 EDT
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Skip Collins) says:

> This raises interesting possibilities.  Suppose, being a savvy
> consumer, I enroll at the first sign of trouble in my wiring, and then
> call for a repair.

The Telephone Company should have you call from the telephone
requesting the plan using the phone number(s) at the residence; then
check it with Caller-ID ;-)


Pete

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 11:27 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims???


cmkrnl![e-mail] writes:

> "Give us the numbers of the friends you call on AT&T's plan.  We'll
> give you at least 10% savings [not so bad so far] and we'll offer to
> switch them to MCI."

Did you get that number right? Does MCI honestly believe that any
person in his right mind would, for the measley chump change amount of
10%, take on all of the problems of MCI? From my many experiences with
MCI, that company would have to offer calls at "90% off" before I
would even entertain ANY thoughts of signing up.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun May 19 10:58:09 EDT 1991
Subject: Re: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims???


cmkrnl![e-mail] writes:

> ...I saw an ad on TV last night which should raise the hackles of any
> slamming victim.  They were looking for subscribers to one of AT&T's
> special long-distance plans ... We'll give you at least 10% savings,
> and we'll offer to switch them to MCI."...

The service MCI is describing is called Friends and Family.  Here's
how it all works:

First of all, you must be an MCI customer yourself.  Look at your
phone bill.  Write down the twelve numbers you call most often.  If
these numbers are either friends or family, call MCI and tell them.
MCI will check to see if they are also MCI customers.  If they are,
they will become part of your "Circle of Callers".  What does this
mean?  It means that if you call them, you will get a 20% discount on
the call, on top of any other discounts you are entitled to (a
PrimeTime plan, for example.)

Of course, if they are not MCI customers, MCI will tell them that YOU
requested them to join MCI.  If they eventually do join, they will
then become part of your circle of callers.  Their benefit?  They get
to call YOU for 20% off.

You are automatically part of your own circle, so when you call home
with your MCI Card you get a 20% discount also.

MCI compares this plan to AT&T's SuperSaver, which gives discountes to
specific area codes.  I would assume that SuperSaver gives a 10%
discount, and this is why MCI says "save an additional 10%" in the ad
you mentioned. (Hence a 20% discount, total).

I would assume the Friends and Family plan is catching on fairly
quickly in the realm of BBS callers.


Sean E. Williams          | [e-mail]
Spectrum Telecommunications      | "I own Spectrum, so our
333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227  | opinions are very similar"
Duncannon, PA 17020-0227  USA      | voicemail: [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 11:27:21 EST
From: Andrew <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange AT&T Bill


[e-mail] writes:

> I was talking to a friend about her long distance service a few days
> ago (being that I sell MCI and all) and she told me that a relative of
> hers was using AT&T.

Oh terrific.  Another proseletyzing LDC salesperson.  :-)

> Of course, this didn't shock me one bit.  Thousands of people use
> AT&T.  But then she went on to tell me that this relative was being
> billed, on her AT&T page, $40.00 every two or three months (she wasn't
> sure of the frequency.)

> I don't have a copy of her AT&T bill here, nor have I seen it, so
> don't ask for any specifics until I can contact her about it.

   Well, this may come as a surprise to you (it does to me), but some
people still LEASE their equipment from AT&T.  Billing for equipment
leasing is done either monthly or quarterly, depending upon the
amount.  I do not remember the cutoffs (it's been a few years since I
worked there,) but this sort of confusion is relatively common.

   Things to note: AT&T does its OWN billing for leased equipment.  It
will arrive under seperate cover from her LEC telephone bill.

   Many people don't realize that they're still leasing.  Many people
have thrown away the telephones involved.  Sometimes, their billing is
even wrong at the fault of the Company.

   I pose this merely as one of several possible explanations to her
problem, if it's a problem at all.

   I suggest you find out more.  It sounds to me like you're passing
secondhand vague information here, and there's very little we can do
with it.  :-)


Andrew  [e-mail]>

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 10:36:02 PDT
From: cdp![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Strange AT&T Bill


Sean E. Williams  <[e-mail]> writes:

> I was talking to a friend about her long distance service a few days
> ago (being that I sell MCI and all) and she told me that a relative of
> hers was using AT&T.

> Of course, this didn't shock me one bit.  Thousands of people use
> AT&T.  But then she went on to tell me that this relative was being
> billed, on her AT&T page, $40.00 every two or three months (she wasn't
> sure of the frequency.)

No doubt the person could be better described as "an older relative"
and is still renting her phones (and phone-related equipment).  It
seems that the equipment rental from the local Bell companies was
moved to AT&T during the breakup.

After my mother's death last year I found a similar, but less
expensive (apx. $15), charge included every three months in her
Michigan Bell bills.  I called AT&T (number included on the statement)
and found out that the charge was for her old, black, rotary-dial
phone and for an external ringer.  I remember that external bell being
in the basement of the house I grew up in.

AT&T was very nice about closing out the rental.  I explained I
couldn't return the phone to her local AT&T Phone Store during
weekdays.  So they sent a large envelope to my Chicago address and I
returned the phone via US Mail.  They didn't force me to return the
basement ringer after I explained that my parents had sold that house
ten years ago!


Earl Hall     | via PeaceNet:                   | GEnie: ERHALL
Chicago IL    | cdp![e-mail]  | [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 03:14 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud


"Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]> writes:

> He seems to think that people who receive calls on beepers shoul CALL
> THE OPERATOR and ASK THE RATE for every call to a prefix they don't
> recognize.  Now, what's wrong with that picture?

As a pager carrier for over twenty years, I cannot imagine that
someone in any profession would put his pager number in the hands of
the public at large. Whether he be a plumber, doctor, lawyer, radio
engineer, or a salesman, his pager number should be only in the hands
of his answering service, voicemail system, office, or other screening
entity.

If an unfamiliar number shows up, a call to the central point that
paged would reveal the information about the call. If that info is not
available (in other words, the call did not come through the answering
service, etc.), then the call could be ignored as a wrong number.
Wrong numbers are very common on direct dial pagers.

A pager is not a substitute for an answering machine or service.
Anyone who uses it as such and blindly calls every number that appears
in the display is likely to ultimately get burned.


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

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

From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Sun, 19 May 1991 16:20:51 GMT


In <[e-mail]> ivgate![e-mail]
(Jack Winslade) writes:

[Most of Jack's comments about HF and Loran-C deleted.  Anyone whose
idea of a vacation spot is Cape May....]

> Now (no grin here) for those of you who happen to live very close to a
> Loran-C transmitting station, this case of no interference does not
> hold true the other way around.  These transmitters pump out RF pulses
> in the megawatt range and they have been known to bleed into telephone
> lines (sounds like an old mechanical teletype running in the
> background) make one heck of a racket in AM and (sometimes) FM radios,
> and even cause black and white horizontal 'strobe light' bars on
> television pictures.

> [Moderator's Note: Have you ever traveled through the rural area in
> northern Wisconsin where the ELF (extremely low frequency)
> transmitters are located? They send/receive radio transmissions to
> submarines. The antennas are strung up and down the highway on
> telephone poles! The frequencies which can travel through the earth
> and under water are sort of special; they make it possible for a
> submarine to receive radio signals without having to expose at least a
> little of itself above water; an important feature when used in a spy
> operation for military intelligence ... PAT

Well, this is getting off the telecom topic a bit, but when I was
still in the Air Force I had the job of VLF Systems Integration
Manager, and additionally flew as a Communications Control Officer on
the SAC Airborne Command Post ("Looking Glass").  We had VLF transmit
capability, but our antenna wasn't a mile long.  We always had at
least 27,000 feet (five miles, more or less) of wire on the reel at
takeoff.  If we had to extend to transmit, the actual length was
frequency dependent but was measured in miles, not feet, for lay
purposes.  We were using 30-60 kHz.  The ELF is down in the 3 - 30 kHZ
range, so I suspect the Wisconsin site antennas are bigger than merely
one mile and/or are loaded substantially.  With sufficient loading,
and long ground-plane radials, the actual "in the air" portion of some
VLF ground transmitters doesn't have to be more than 2000 feet or so.
It all depends on how you design it to meet whatever goals you are
addressing.

(Historic interlude.  If I remember correctly, Marconi's original
station on Cape Cod was a VLF installation.)

Incidentally, we never extended our VLF antenna over land during
peacetime, which is to say we always practiced over water.  The SAC
airborne used the transverse electric component, so we basically
dragged the antenna "straight" behind us.  (Obviously, there was a
droop.)  Some other airborne VLF transmitters would fly in
predetermined circles to get a "straight" drop and maximize the
transverse magnetic component.

Pat's comments about "spy" operation aren't quite on point.  Equally
important is the invisibility (and hence invulnerability) of the SSBN
force (sub-launched ballistic missiles).

Finally, in regards to the part of the thread about environmental
impact and Jack's comments about receving Loran in TV's, radios and
maybe teeth fillings, there was a great deal of opposition to the
Wisconsin site because of anticipated interence and unknown long-term
effects to low level low frequency radiation.  Recent EPA reports,
while not yet admitting cause and effect, reinforce the need for
concern and study even with power lines.  As I remember, the Wisconsin
site was scaled back after the protests.  I haven't heard what, if
any, day-to-day interference they have actually observed.


            <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
[e-mail]                  |  Nebraska Inns of Court
ivgate!inns![e-mail]  |  [phone]
Sysop of 1:285/27@Fidonet            |  3/12/24/9600/8N1/V.32/V.42bis

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 12:28:22 CDT
From: Jordan Kossack <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (H.
Peter Anvin) writes:

> There is a second consideration that prohibites specifically
> walkie-talkies, cellphones etc. in carry-on luggage: they are
> considered potential helps for terrorists coordinating a hijacking.

> You can bring these devices onboard but they have to be in checked
> luggage.

     Well, not to drag this topic out any longer than necessary, but
this has not been my experience.  On several occasions, I've flown
with my handi-talkie in my carry-on bag and I have NEVER been hassled
about it nor even asked to show that is actually a radio and not some
strange detonator.  Mind you, two of these flights were this past
Winter when the airports were all worried about security, so I don't
think this is something that folk need to worry about these days.

     Besides, would you trust the baggage handlers with a $400 HT? ;-)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #377
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18265;
          19 May 91 21:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12313;
          19 May 91 19:45 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25512;
          19 May 91 18:34 CDT
Date:     Sun, 19 May 91 17:33:43 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #378
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 May 91 17:33:39 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 378

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    9000 Series Numbers: The Step Switch Mentality Persists [Donald Kimberlin]
    Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key System [Jeff Sicherman]
    SW Bell Readback Number [Bob Izenberg]
    Re: Touch-Tone Selections From Overseas [Phillip V. Hull]
    900 Political Fundraising [Peter Marshall]
    Manuals needed [Macy Hallock]
    Cellphone Billing Security [Macy Hallock]
    911 Operator Fired Over Call Handling [Curtis E. Reid]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 03:36 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 9000 Series Numbers: The Step Switch Mentality Persists


        There's been quite a thread going on here about assignment of
phone numbers in the 9000 range.  Recently, Bill Huttig <[e-mail].
edu> posts in Digest v11,iss366:

> My aunt's phone number is 813-xxx-9xxx and her number is fairly new.
> It is serviced by GTE of Florida.

        All through the era of the step switch, the "higher" one's
number, the more (statistically and sometimes empirically) likely it
was to get an error in connecting to that number.  The simple reason:
It's more difficult to get the rotary step switch to accurately jump
up to its highest levels, 9000, and even 0000.

        When the technology was that simple and easily controlled, the
Bell leaders of our monopoly era, in the interest of quality (which
was also then known to be self-interest in corporate reputation), set
as their own norm that numbers in the 9000 and even 0000 range would
not be used for the public.  They did assign numbers in the 9000 range
for their own use, understanding it would economize of number use for
their prime customers (the public) and simultaneously make for a
simple way for any employee to know the call was to an "official"
number ... including the monopoly-era coin phone.

        While the scheme was known in a general way, as usual, there
was considerable variation within the local companies about how it was
used.  Thus, in many areas, 9960 (later nxx-9960) was the Business
Office, while in others, it would be a test tone.  In yet others, some
other 9000 series number would be used for either function.  AT&T's
practice of using numbers like 9927 for the "toll testboard" pretty
consistently still sticks in a lot of places, where LEC's still
proliferate that number for their "test desk."  Again, there was no
solid national norm; it's just a tendency, and the range of variation
is wide.  Non-Bell LEC's are less likely to follow even that simple
"rule."

        0000 was even more "unwanted," and many step offices weren't
even "equipped" (so far as the business office was concerned) to use
those numbers.  Somehow, they couldn't ever see that while they
wouldn't assign you one on request, they were stuck in the middle of
non-sequential hunt groups!  (In all fairness, they were aliases in
many hunt schemes.)

        In 1966, crossbar was already in fair deployment, and I
learned of a cute "trick" a Southern Bell foreman used in his own
office: He assigned 0000 to his home phone.  It was unique; a lot of
people (like telemarketers) wouldn't think it was real and wouldn't
call him.  Two years later, I was up in NYC, living in New Jersey.  I
requested of NJ Bell that my new phone (in a crossbar office) be
assigned 0000.  I was made to write a letter requesting it; I was
grilled by phone a half-dozen times about why I wanted it, and told
that using such a number would be a disservice to myself.  I got the
"old stories" about the step switches and how many of them "weren't
equipped."  Finally, I got told (NOBODY would write a letter answering
my letter) that 0000 was "reserved for plant test purposes."  Today,
two decades later, I dial it occasionally to see if it ever got used.
It's still unassigned.  I wonder what neat "test" they have in mind
for 0000?

        Returning to 9000 numbers and coin phones, the operators were
all told when given a 9000 number, to "check for coin."  This meant to
call an operator in the distant city, and ask a local operator to look
it up in the local directory.  Because they could not tell from the
calling end if the called party put coins in the phone (and they never
did set up a means to get assistance colelcting coins from the called
city), the "policy" was to not permit collect calls to coin phones.
(New Yorkers may recall that Imus in the Morning had a favorite trick
of embarrassing NY Telephone by making collect calls to a coin phone
in Cleveland.  He'd run up the entire hierarchy of NY Telephone
between records of a morning, trying to get a call to his freezing
buddy said to be waiting in a phone booth along Lake Erie.)

        Even though operator turnover is gigantic, I'd venture that
Bill Huttig's aunt will have incidents in which collect calls to her
9xxx number are refused.  Old ways die hard, especially when today's
minions of the network don't even understand WHY it once had to be
that way!


Moderator's Note: To place a collect call to a payphone, the operator
called 'inward' in the distant city and asked for assistance in
collecting the coins. The distant 'inward' would call the pay phone,
and if the call was accepted would collect the money, then notify the
originating operator to extend the call.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 01:16:32 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


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

> NT should be giving away the developer kit to encourage as many
> applications as possible.  As Brian pointed out, anyone who wants to
> run these app's will have to buy NT hardware.

> Northern Telecom has the right idea (opening up the architecture), but
> they need to make it affordable to the very kind of companies that
> have the potential to develop the killer applications that could make
> their Norstar the standard key system around which all custom
> applications are built.

  I suspect there's more to this policy than than mere technical
innovation considerations. A company as large as NT is going to want
to have there product associated with VAD's who have the financial,
development, and marketing resources to adequately support what they
sell. This often does not apply to the garage type operation. If there
are problems, who do you think the customer is going to go to (or
after) if the system doesnt work and the developer doesnt have the
resources to deal with it or goes out of business? There is also a
prestige issue of who their product is associated with and what effect
this may have on sales.

  In this context, the high cost of the kit is intended as a barrier
to those who either lack the resources or are not very serious about
their ideas (and can convince others of the value). It's more of a
test than a reflection of the kit's value or cost (to NT).


Jeff Sicherman

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

Subject: SW Bell Readback Number
From: Bob Izenberg <dogface![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 19 May 91 14:30:23 CDT


    I just ran scross (by accident) a Southwestern Bell number in
the Austin area that read me back my own phone number.  When I've had
to find out which number that a series of unlabeled modem lines
actually was, I called an operator and requested the number that I was
calling from.  The machine that I reached has a lot less overhead, and
would save both myself and an operator some time.  The bad news is
that this was a misconnection, so I don't know what number actually
was dialed.


       Bob Izenberg [ ] Ralph Kirkley Associates
   work: 512 838 6311 [ ] bei@rt_trace.austin.ibm.com
         home: 512 346 7019 [ ] [e-mail]

Opinions expressed in this message are those of its author, except
where messages by others are included with attribution.  No
endorsement of these opinions by Ralph Kirkley Associates or IBM
should be inferred.

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

From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Selections From Overseas
Organization: Institute of Cognitive Studies, U.C. Berkeley
Date: Sun, 19 May 1991 20:35:37 GMT


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

> I frequently phone the US from Europe; but I often run into trouble if
> the party I am calling asks me to enter some number (e.g. an extension
> number or a menu selection) on my touch-tone phone. Although the
> touch-tone frequencies are international, these selections often do
> not work when used from Europe.  One of three things happens:

> 1) It works perfectly, and I get connected as requested.
> 2) It works only if I hold each key down for two or three seconds.
> 3) Absolutely nothing happens. The American party does not recognize
>    my touch-tones.

> I have even noticed both behavior 2 and 3 when calling the same
> (Massachusetts) number on different occasions.

I have had similar problems in getting my US tone-controlled answering
machine to play back messages from overseas phones.  I've had such
problems both with foreign phones *and* using a Radio Shack pocket
tone generator (where there's no touch-tone phone available) from
Spain, the UK, and from Guatemala.

I *think* the problem is simply poor lines on which tones don't have a
high enough volume (or maybe the frequencies get messed up?).  The
only solution I've found is the same as your #2: To hold the button
down for several seconds.  For this reason, I don't like phones (such
as many Panasonic models) on which the length of time each tone is
generated is automatically controlled i.e., if you hold the button
down the tone is *not* generated continuously until you take your
finger off.


Philip V. Hull   INTERNET: [e-mail]
BITNET: [e-mail]
UUCP: ucbvax!cogsci!hullp  OR: ucbvax!cogsci.berkeley.edu!hullp

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

Date: Sat, 18 May 91 09:55:13 -0700
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900 Political Fundraising


An article in the May issue of {INFOTEXT} notes:

With the 1992 presidential and congressional campaign season
approaching, the financial potential of 900 fund raising should strike
a responsive chord for candidates and the pay-per-call industry. 900
technology permits the solicitation of contributions from thousands of
people, particularly small contributors, more cheaply than traditional
forms of fund raising.

But, says the {INFOTEXT} article:

Despite this potential, several factors have hindered the development
of this segment of the industry. 900 service itself is still a novelty
and, until recently, many political candidates were unaware of its
fund-raising potential. Moreover, most ... LECs have refused to bill
and collect for such programs.

However, the article is entitled "Feds More Pragmatic About 900
Political Fund Raising," and explains that although "The pay-per-call
industry traditionally has been reluctant to enter this field because
of the regulatory uncertainties and burdens involved, recent Federal
Election Commission actions are helping to alleviate these concerns."

For example, according to the article, Call Interactive sought an
exemption from FEC separate account requirements several months ago,
whereas the FEC had previously ruled that to comply with campaign
record-keeping and reporting requirements, such programs couldn't be
offered "unless telephone companies could provide political campaigns
with the name and address associated with each 900 contribution."
Purportedly responding to the claim that LECs are "often unable" to do
so, the FEC indicated more recently the if 900 service bureaus
obtained this information, 900 political fundraising would be allowed:

   The commission endorsed a suggestion that service bureaus be
   permitted to use reverse directories and voice capture with
   written transcripts of the recorded information. (Presumably,
   these and other requirements would also apply to information
   providers acting between political campaigns and IXCS.)

The article concludes by noting "it still may be too soon to
successfully use 900 technology for political fund raisers. Although
recent FEC 900 fundraising rulings offer promising developments,
related programs -- such as political polling -- may ultimately prove
more feasible for 1992 campaigns."


[Moderator's Note: I'll tell you who else is finding the use of 900
numbers quite lucrative:  Our own Public Television station, WTTW
Channel 11 has had an annual fund raising campaign for many years.
They take a few days away from regular programming, usually in April
or May, and hawk for donations, giving away premiums to donors, etc.
A few months ago they started using a 900 number year 'round: dial it
and after a recorded message thanking you for your support of public
television, $10 is automatically billed to you by Illinois Bell. It
has been a smashing success, and they may eliminate the traditional
fund raising marathon in lieu of the 900 number full time.  Both the
Chicago Symphony Orchestra and Lyric Opera are watching the results at
Channel 11 very closely, and will apparently start somehing similar
for themselves.   PAT]

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

From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Manuals Needed
Date: Sun, 19 May 91 0:11:04 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I am looking for a copy of the programming manuals for the following
OCC dialers:

Telelogic LD2 and LD4
Teletronics Network Manager Series

I have manuals for the Mitel Smart One and UTC units, if anyone is in
need.

Looking for parts or complete units: Mitel Smart One's and Western
Electric Touch-A-Matic series phones (single or multiline), willing to
pay modest but reasonable price for these.

(Well, at least playing with these keeps me off the streets at nite ...)


Macy M. Hallock, Jr. N8OBG  216-725-4764 Home
[e-mail]  [e-mail]   uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
Please use only these three reply addresses.
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm
telling you.]

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

From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellphone Billing Security
Date: Sun, 19 May 91 0:21:41 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Bought a used cellphone Saturday from an individual who had originally
purchased the unit at Fretter's (a regional electronics discount
chain).  This was at a swap meet.  The deal was cash, no names
exchanged.  The guy looked very honest (this was an IEEE sponsored
event, not sleazy at all ...) ... maybe he was too honest.

He told me that he had dropped service a few months ago due to lack of
use and general cheapness on his part.  I asked and was assured the
phone worked just fine.  So I bought it and on the way home I fire it
up and ... he was not kidding:

I found the phone is currently still activated and working on power
up.  Local calls complete just fine.  GTE Mobilnet never pulled the
plug on the account?  Real smart, GTE.

Since my company is a Mobilnet agent, I will call them on Monday and
find out the real story on this.

Nice service: buy a used phone a make all the phone calls you want for
free ... [grin].  Maybe I should go roaming this weekend ...


Macy M. Hallock, Jr. N8OBG  216-725-4764 Home
[e-mail]   [e-mail]    uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
Please use only these three reply addresses.
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm
telling you.]

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 1991 16:41 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 911 Operator Fired Over Call Handling


I haven't seen this news in a recent issue of TELECOM Digest so I'll
post this.

Rochester, New York's {Sunday Democrat and Chronicle}, 5/19/91, page 7A:

                    911 operator fired over call handling
                             The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - A 911 operator has been fired for giving a low
priority to a frantic call from a man who later was found beaten to
death.

    Scott Quackenbush, 20, was killed last Sept. 28 shortly after
calling 911 operator Diane Fisher from a telephone booth at a closed
gas station.

    The body of Quackenbush, a student at California State
University at Fresno, was found three days later behind the service
station.

    The operator claimed she couldn't hear sounds of a struggle
because of noise in the police communications room.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #378
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06688;
          20 May 91 4:31 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17447;
          20 May 91 3:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31853;
          20 May 91 1:57 CDT
Date:     Mon, 20 May 91 1:05:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #379
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 20 May 91 01:05:15 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 379

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [John R. Levine]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Eric A. Rasmussen]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Carl Wright]
    Re: Loss of Copyright: Phone Book White Pages ==> Maps? [Robert Woodhead]
    Re: Bellcore and the NNX Area Codes [Carl Wright]
    Re: Just How Stupid Can Repair Service Be? [John Higdon]
    Re: Change in BITFTP Policy [Rod Troch]
    Re: MCI "Follow Me" 800 Service [Sean Williams]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Rick Broadhead]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 19 May 91 14:54:34 EDT (Sun)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

> The ability to do that in a way that guarantees that escape to
> command mode won't accidentally be invoked by the data stream would
> be difficult (I can't think of a way) without timing and a unique
> string being an essential feature of the escape from data mode.

The other approach is to reserve some character sequence to mean
switch to command state, and to have some way of protecting that
sequence if it appears in data, most typically by doubling the first
character of the sequence.  This works perfectly well, and is what one
does with synchronous modems, but means that the communications
software on each end has to do some of the filtering, while the timed
technique has the advantage of the escape sequence being so unlikely
in the normal data stream that no protection is necessary.

>     My feeling is that the Justice Department, gutted by Reagan and
> Bush, really should be filing anti-trust suits against corporations
> that participate in monpoly by litigation.

The whole point of a patent is to allow monopoly by litigation (or
more typically by the threat thereof) for a limited period.  On the
other hand, someone pointed out that the way you escaped to command
mode on an arpanet PAD was delay-@<cr>-delay, which is basically the
same as Hayes approach and was almost certainly invented and more
important published earlier.  I haven't heard whether that example was
presented to the court.

Regards,


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

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

From: Eric A Rasmussen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Sun, 19 May 1991 20:51:31 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]>, kentrox![e-mail]
> (Bud Couch) writes:

>> Most software defaults to a one second pause, transmitting three plus
>> (+) signs, followed by a one second pause. Hayes patent is broader,
>> covering any time delay, followed by any unique sequence. This patent,
>> however, covers only async data ports used for both data and command.

>     Since the timed escape is an essential part of the command set,
> it is impossible for a modem manufacturer to claim Hayes compatability
> without it. Thus, Hayes, if successful at enforcing this patent, has a
> monopoly on this kind of modem. Indeed, I can't think of a way you
> could escape from data mode to command mode not using a timed delay
> and some unique sequence, that wouldn't be possibly contained in
> transmitted data.

Perhaps I am missing something obvious, but for computer equipment
such as PC's (as opposed to dumb terminals) which have control of
basically all the serial port lines, what would be so hard about using
the terminal ready line to toggle between command mode and data mode?
I always disable the 'feature' in my modem where it disconnects when
the terminal ready line is not high.  After all, what's the point if I
can use the <pause> +++ <pause> ATH method to disconnect when I want.
If I ever have to reboot while on-line I don't want to lose my
connection.  (Yes, this does happen.  Say you download a program, run
it, and it crashes.)  Thus, I really have a free line which could
readily be used for this purpose if I didn't have a Hayes compatible
modem.


Eric A. Rasmussen   [e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Mon, 20 May 1991 03:24:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy
M. Silvernail) writes:

> [e-mail] (Tony Harminc) writes:

>> Are you USAers happy with the possibility of paying for seven-digit
>> calls?  Why is there no 1+ requirement to let you know ?  It seems a
>> little silly that everyone should have to remember a huge list of
>> prefixes in order to avoid placing expensive calls, whether 540 or 976
>> type, or just normal toll calls within the NPA.

> I used to have to do just that in Alaska. Toll calls from Anchorage
> did not require a leading 1 when I lived there, and you could as
> easily be calling across the state as across town.

> While it didn't have _quite_ the potential for surprise as the 540
> scam, it could still be expensive. Alaska used to have abominable
> in-state rates. It was cheaper to call Los Angeles than to call Nome.
> I don't know what the rates are, these days.

The rates are lower, but the ratio is still the same.  LA would be
cheaper than Nome.  I don't know for sure, but isn't intrastate
service more expensive than interstate just about everywhere?

Part of breaking up AT&T was separating the costs and making each part
pay for itself.  It used to be that your call to LA was charged at a
higher rate than it actually cost, just so that your rate calling Nome
could be charged less than what it really cost.

Now the interstate rate structure is based on the cost of providing
interstate service, and the same with intrastate service.

As a result, your call from Anchorage to Nome is no longer being
subsidised by calls to LA.  Instead the call to Nome is charged a
higher rate to help subsidise calls to places like Sleetmute (a small
village that will never generate enough revenue to pay 20% of the cost
to provide service).

That just happens to be one of the "down" sides to breaking up the old
system.  There are other sides that are very much "up".


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Date: 20 May 91 03:36:26 GMT
Organization: UMCC


I'm not enough of a lawyer to say this with authority, but doesn't it
seem clear that the calls to the pagers were made with the intent to
defraud those who were paged.

Everything else, like in Judge Wopner's court, is irrelevant.

It reminds me of an old computer scam where an operation in Texas had
invoice forms printed up and rented mailing lists. They mailed out
small bills to all the people on the mailing list. Many people paid
the bills rather than complain or assumed that their spouse was
responsible for the charge.

The FBI closed it down eventually.


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

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Loss of Copyright: Phone Book White Pages ==> Maps?
Date: 20 May 91 02:51:17 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] writes:

> After one thumbs past the newly "liberated" white pages of my Illinois
> Bell Naperville Ill. phone book, one encounters a fairly bland street
> map of Naperville, with copyright notices at the bottom of each page.
> Would the U.S. Supreme Court would also see this map as a mere
> collection of facts too?

You are confusing facts with expression.  Copyright law covers the
expression of ideas (or facts, or whatever), not the underlying ideas
themselves.  Thus, that *particular* map (expression) can be
copyrighted, but the idea behind it (the configuration of streets)
cannot.

Personally, I think the SC ruling is a flawed one.  I certainly
believe that it is inequitable.  TPC spent time and money to generate
the phone number listings in the book, and rival white pages companies
should pony up if they want to use them -- or generate them a
different way.  TANSTAAFL!


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

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bellcore and the NNX Area Codes
Date: 20 May 91 03:59:28 GMT
Organization: UMCC


I have quietly read references to pseudo-NNX codes for Mexico as 52n,
but I can't take it any longer.

The only way I can make sense of this reference is if we assume that
the pseudo area code for this pseudo NNX is "011".

Sorry, but aren't these international country codes, just like Belgium
and Australia use?


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

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 11:18 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Just How Stupid Can Repair Service Be?


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> To test third number billing, I tried to call 408 directory assistance
> from 415-841.  So, I picked up the phone, dialed 0 408 555 1212, and
> waited for the "ka-bong."

> We'll see what happens then.  Can you believe this?  The person at
> Repair doesn't even know how to dial a calling card call!  I would be
> willing to bet money that this problem goes unresolved for a long
> time.  But I will be persistant.

The amazing thing about all of this is that no one has been able to
tell you up to this point that there is NO problem and that is the way
it is supposed to work. A little known quirk of CA regulation is that
while IECs may charge for DA, and LECs may charge for local DA, LECs
may not charge for DA within the LATA in another area code.

So in essence, you are trying to dial a mandated free call with a
calling card! The biggest problem here is not that the call just went
through, but that you did not get some sort of recording advising you
that you had misdialed.

I would suggest that you use a REAL number to make that test call
with.  You are probably going to give repair service a stroke while
they try to fix something that really is not broken.


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

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

From: Rod Troch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Change in BITFTP Policy
Date: 20 May 91 04:03:55 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


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

>  > Subject:  BITFTP REPLY
   [text deleted]
>  > * * BITFTP is no longer able to provide service to  * *
>  > * * nodes that are not directly on EARN or BITNET   * *
>  > * * or NetNorth.  Your node appears to be           * *
   [text deleted]

There exists a FTP Server called ftpmail via dec.com the address is:

[e-mail]

Send 'help' as the message body.

No header is needed.

It works, but is slow compared to bitftp via pucc.princeton

Peace,

Rod

If you yell try : Rod Troch
internet        : [e-mail]     :     [e-mail]
                : [e-mail] <--> NeXT Mail (Lip Service)

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun May 19 18:55:47 EDT 1991
Subject: Re: MCI "Follow Me" 800 Service


[e-mail] (That's me!) writes:

> Tell the operator what number you would like to forward your 800 number
> to, and the operator will immediately make the changes.  Every time you do
> this, you will be charged $1.00. . . .

> [Moderator's Note: Is there any sort of security check built in which
> prevents me from calling your 800 number, letting it time out to an
> operator and telling her to forward your 800 number to my line?  PAT]

Okay ... Here's the deal.  I had the same question while I was writing
my last post, but didn't want to say anything.  I called my Personal
800 number, and let it time out to an operator.  I presented the
operator with the same question.  The operator was confused and
transferred me to customer service.

The customer service person was much more knowledgeable. (At least she
*knew* about the service!)  She asked for my home phone number
(There's the first security check.)  She then put me on hold, and
checked on the information.  She came back, and gave me the following
info: Call customer service at [phone], do not call the
Personal 800 operators.

You must tell your customer service representative your home phone
number, at which time they can look up your Personal 800 information.
Then you tell them the number to which you would like your Personal
800 number forwarded.  (At this point, she slipped and said the word
"POTS".  I think she really *did* know what she was doing!  She
figured I wouldn't understand, so she called it a "terminating number"
:) ) She also pointed out that customer service will need two weeks'
notice (security step two, I would assume) and that the charge is
$1.00.

Hope that straightens it out for everyone!


Sean E. Williams          | [e-mail]
Spectrum Telecommunications      | "I own Spectrum, so our
333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227  | opinions are very similar"
Duncannon, PA 17020-0227  USA      | voicemail: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: So in other words, I can still fraudulently change
your 800 number over to ring where I want it; I just have to know your
actual number as well, and wait two weeks for it to take effect. I
really have to wonder how good this 'follow me' service is for folks
on the go a lot; as compared for example to Cable & Wireless' similar
service which you change yourself in a minute or so, with an actual
800 number of your own as well.    PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 21:07:56 EDT
From: Rick Broadhead <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World


For those of you who are interested, another source for telephone
ringing and busy signals is Telecom Canada/Teleglobe Canada's
"International Calling Guide.  "  It contains essentially the same
information as British Telecom's international phone guide.

I've also noticed that busy signals and ringing signals can vary
WITHIN a country.  For instance, in Canada and the United States,
these tones vary depending on the exchange dialed.  At least that's
what I've found here in Toronto, and when calling various directory
assistance numbers throughout the United States.  The difference lies
not in the length of these tones, but in their sound.

What determines what exchanges will have what tones?  Why should
different numbers in the same city, Toronto for example, behave
differently?  Can anyone provide an explanation?

I've tried to get an answer from the folks at Bell Canada, but the
typical resp onse to my assertion that ringing signals differ from
exchange to exchange is: "They do? -- I've never noticed that."

I was told by a very helpful person at Teleglobe Canada that a
non-technical discussion of telephone tones can be found in a
publication called "Notes on the Networks."  AT&T has informed me that
this book has been discontinued.  It apparently discussed issues such
as "line-signalling" and "register signalling, " among other things.
The libraries around here have never heard of this book.

Could anyone suggest an equivalent publication today, or one that
deals with topics such as line and register signalling? (anyone ever
heard of *Notes on the Networks* before?)


Rick Broadhead


[Moderator's Note: 'Notes on the Network' is a well-known publication
which has been mentioned here in the Digest many times. As to the
difference in ringing/busy signals here in the USA, the difference is
due purely based on the manufacturer of the equipment used in the
office in particular. One sounds one way, another some other way.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #379
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21819;
          20 May 91 23:09 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21020;
          20 May 91 21:21 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24632;
          20 May 91 20:14 CDT
Date:     Mon, 20 May 91 19:50:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #380
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 20 May 91 19:49:43 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 380

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [Mike Ardai]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use In Aircraft [John Stanley]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft [H. Peter Anvin]
    Re: It Still Don't Network ... or? [R. Kevin Oberman]
    Re: It Still Don't Network ... or? [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy [Carl Wright]
    Re: CLASS Presentation at Texpo `91 [John Higdon]
    Re: Bellcore and the NNX Area Codes [Carl Moore]
    Re: Connecting American RJ11 to British CW1311 [Charlie Lear]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Weaver Hickerson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mike Ardai <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft
Date: 20 May 91 01:31:38 GMT
Organization: Teradyne EDA, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> Mike Spann <mikes@gammalink.
com> writes:

> Digging way back into my memory, I do remember a story (maybe even
> true) where police officers were told not to dump their spare bullets
> into the same bag as their hand held radios.  The story I was told was
> that should the push-to-talk button be pressed, the electro-magnetic
> waves could cause a round to go off.

[This is getting rather far from Telecom...]

Actually, it is much simpler than that.  Most handheld radios have
metal contacts on the bottom for recharging.  Putting one of them into
the same pocket as bullets will cause the bullets to short out the
charging studs.  This will heat them up and cause them to fire.  I
seem to rememeber that a cop shot himself that way back in the 70's in
NYC.  (I had a similar experience with some keys and my ICOM - they
sure got hot :-)


Michael L. Ardai N1IST   Teradyne EDA East
sun!teda!ardai (preferred)  or [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use In Aircraft
From: John Stanley <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 91 00:32:28 EDT
Organization: Mad Scientist


[e-mail] (Floyd Davidson) writes:

> (Some day I'll tell you how I learned that
> Loran C can be 60 degrees off.  No problem, just makes the pilot eyes
> get large when he breaks out of the clouds ...)

   It is not hard. I live withing flying distance of the master
station for the 9960 (Northeast) chain of Loran. One of the standard
airways between Syracuse and Buffalo passes right over it.

   During my last flight to Buffalo on that airway (using VOR's and
not LORAN for navigation) the LORAN told me that I was alternately
going north, south, east or west at anywhere from 200 to 400 knots,
for the entire last half of the flight. The display updates about
every six seconds, and turning from north at 400 knots to south at 400
knots withing six seconds would certainly exceed the G limits of the
airplane, if not the limits of the human body. This was in a Cessna
172. The 'never exceed' speed is about 130 knots, and this aircraft
cannot reach that speed in level flight.

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

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use in Aircraft
Organization: Northwestern University
Date: Mon, 20 May 1991 15:54:05 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (H.
> Peter Anvin) writes:

>> There is a second consideration that prohibites specifically
>> walkie-talkies, cellphones etc. in carry-on luggage: they are
>> considered potential helps for terrorists coordinating a hijacking.

>> You can bring these devices onboard but they have to be in checked
>> luggage.

> Well, not to drag this topic out any longer than necessary, but
> this has not been my experience....

> Besides, would you trust the baggage handlers with a $400 HT? ;-)

I have been asked to qualify where my experience from this comes.  I
have experienced this on two flights; one in Europe (Milano-Copenhagen
I believe); that was the case where they would not even let onboard a
wire-bound walkie-talkie lookalike.  On a recent (March 91) flight on
American Airlines I asked the check-in representatives about my 144
MHz ham handietalkie; they said I could take it onboard only if I put
it in the check-in luggage.


[Moderator's Note: This thread has gotten quite far from telecom, so
unless there is something really new and different not yet posited by
the readers, let's close it out.   Thanks.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: It Still Don't Network ... or?
Date: 20 May 91 16:01:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (H.
Peter Anvin) writes:

> A few questions about ISDN:

> 1. Is is feasible/not feasible to use ISDN as a link in an IP or Ethernet
>    network?

An ISDN B channel is simply a bit pipe. IP or anything else is
perfectly feasible. It should be noted that Ethernet is a 10 Mhz
system and ISDN is only 64Kb (B channel), so some sort of remote
bridge would be required and protocols with tight timing requirements
(IP is NOT one of these) might have problems.

> 2. Is ISDN a worldwide standard, or another one of them "we decide
>    what we want" USA standards?

Yes, ISDN is a worldwide standard. Yes, it is another one of them "we
decide what we want US standards."  It's "Two ... two ... two standards
in one."

Actually the problem is that the basic telephone link speed is
different in the US and, as a result, the ISDN must be different to
work. The US uses 1.5 Mhz T1 lines while much of the world uses 2 Mhz
links. So there are two ISDNs, one carrying more B channels (30) than
the other (23). But, since the B channels are the same, the phone
company can handle conversion of the 2 Mhz version to the US 1.5. It
does mean that the terminal equipment is totally incompatible.

> 3. Does the 64 kbit/s B-channel rate over ISDN include error correction?

It is just an HDLC bit pipe and has very little difference form LAPB,
the link layer standard used for OSI networking. The error
detection/correction is very limited because LAPD (the HDLC protocol
used for ISDN) is very light weight.

> 4. Does the D-channel protocol include service identification (say IP,
>    video, voice, modem)...?

D-channel is a very different bird. It does include a "service
identification, but the only defined protocols I am aware of are X.25
and native ISDN. I wouldn't be surprised to see others added. There
are plenty of bits available.  But you need to understand that
D-channel is NOT a bit pipe and is a packet protocol. It run IP over a
D channel (IMHO a silly idea) would have to be like running it over
X.25. It would not be a protocol at this level. In fact, it probably
would be over X.25 as would modem (by connection to an ISDN PAD).
Voice and video on a shared 16 Kb channel? You're kidding, right?

> 5. Is is possible to call a POTS line with a modem from an ISDN connection?

Not directly. As mentioned above, you would not use a modem but an
ISDN PAD.  Our site has a pool of modems for outgoing calls from ISDN
lines. You call a magic number to be assigned a modem and then enter
the command sequence to dial the analog modem. You can't hook up any
POTS equipment to an ISDN line. This includes modems, answering
machines and any other analog component.

> 6. What are typical rates for ISDN?  Is it billed per minute or per block?

ISDN is currently tariffed in California for Centrex service only.
ISDN runs about $30 / mo. with all other services charged the same as
POTS. I believe there is a new tariff on the docket, but I wouldn't
swear to it. At this time there is no residential ISDN tariff in this
state. But other states may vary.

In the "For what it's worth department", Pac*Bell is hoping to have
ISDN in my central office by late this year and SS7 for connection to
other ISDN islands like Berkeley and Sunnyvale. Who knows. Some year I
might even be able to get a connection to another state.


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: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: It Still Don't Network ... or?
Date: 20 May 91 17:31:47 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (H.
Peter Anvin) writes...

> A few questions about ISDN:

> 1. Is is feasible/not feasible to use ISDN as a link in an IP or Ethernet
>    network?

Sure.  There's even an Internet mailing list on the topic of IP over
ISDN.  Ethernet, on the other hand, is a LAN subnet, and ISDN is a WAN
subnet, so you're comparing apples to pie there. You could however run
Ethernet remote bridges over ISDN.  Or anything else, since it's a bit
pipe.

> 2. Is ISDN a worldwide standard, or another one of them "we decide what we
>    want" USA standards?

Worldwide.  CCITT I-series, to be specific, albeit with national
standards for some of the finer details.

> 3. Does the 64 kbit/s B-channel rate over ISDN include error correction?

In circuit mode, no, it's raw bits.  You run the error correction.  In
packet mode, it's like X.25, with a checksum on each packet.

> 4. Does the D-channel protocol include service identification (say IP,
>    video, voice, modem)...?

Generally, yes.  It has specific codepoints for CCITT and ISO standard
protocols at various layers.  IP, on the other hand, is not
CCITT-standard, so it'll probably be a) unidentified or b) identified
using the "user specified" codespace.

> 5. Is is possible to call a POTS line with a modem from an ISDN connection?

Yes, if you run a modem over ISDN.  ISDN is essentially an access
arrangement, and it interworks fine with the analog phone world.

> 6. What are typical rates for ISDN?  Is it billed per minute or per block?

Up to your local telco.  Figure that circuit mode ISDN is billed like
a phone call, maybe a surcharge for clear-channel data calls (but
regular price for voice calls).  Packet mode will probably have the
usual per-packet (X.25-style) rates.  Plus monthly line charges,
usually between one and two times the usual phone rate, for the Basic
Rate (2B+D) ISDN line.


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: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Numbers, Voice Mail, and Privacy
Date: 20 May 91 03:05:09 GMT
Organization: UMCC


David Gast referred to how you can use the account number of a person
to determine the approximate balance by making repeated request on
whether the balance exceeds a certain dollar amount.

The only innovation involved here is that you don't deal with a human
operator. The ability to call a bank and ask if a specific account has
enough money to cover an imaginary check is a standard bank service in
all the U.S.

I've done it myself on my less trustworthy customers.


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

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 13:32 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: CLASS Presentation at Texpo `91


Kevin Collins <aspect![e-mail]> writes:

> So Pat, what are my chances of getting a FX line from IBT out here to
> Sunnyvale?  :-)

Kevin, just take it like a man! I have lived with Pacific
{Telephone/Bell} all of my life. There is no escape. California has
been offically designated as a Bad Telephone Service Area.

Besides, YOU are not "served" out of a crossbar switch. [Ka-Klunk]


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


[Moderator's Note: How does a man take 'it', John?   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 91 9:35:19 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bellcore and the NNX Area Codes


I'm not in Bellcore, and have to rely on what is reaching me via the
Digest.  The pseudo-area-codes of form 52x for Mexico are not in use
yet, and cannot be used until the system can handle area codes of form
NXX, not just of form N0X/N1X.  Area codes 706 and 905, which had been
used (at least from the U.S.) for parts of Mexico, were discontinued
(and have since been announced for use elsewhere), and instead of
these codes it is now necessary to use 011-52- ... to call Mexico.

There is some confusion, at least on my part, about those 52x codes.
If they will indeed be dialed like area codes, it would go against the
idea of using NN0 codes as the first slew of NNX area codes: being
able to keep 1+7D for intra-NPA long distance in some areas after the
NNX area codes begin (areas keeping such 1+7D usage would have to
disallow prefixes of NN0 form).

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

Subject: Re: Connecting American RJ11 to British CW1311
Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ
Date: 20 May 91 23:01:29 NZT (Mon)
From: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> Fernando da Silva writes:

> I'm trying to connect an American RJ11 male connector to a British
> CW1311 socket, for data communications purposes.

Connect 3 and 4 on the RJ11 (red and green) to 2 and 5 on the BT.  The
easiest way to do this is get a standard four-wire cable and twist the
outer two pairs at one end. A straight-through cable simply will not
work.

We've had to make adapter cables like these for years, ever since
foreign modems were allowed to be sold here.

Some modems are sensitive to line polarity. The RJ11 3&4 is referred
to as "tip" and "ring", the BT 2&5 is called a "line pair". If you get
don't get dialtone from the above, try swapping 2 and 5 over in the
wall socket (its easier than fiddling with tightly crimped connectors).

Administrative note: every RJ11 I have ever seen has been made from
clear (but brittle) plastic. You can tell at a glance what wires go
where.  Every BT plug I've ever seen is moulded in white. You have to
hold them up to a 100W bulb and peer very closely to tell how it is
wired ... 8-)


Charlie "The Bear" Lear | [e-mail] | Kawasaki Z750GT  DoD#0221
The Cave MegaBBS  [phone] V22b | PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand

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

Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Organization: Holos Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA
Date: 20 May 91 10:54:49 EDT (Mon)
From: Weaver Hickerson <holos0![e-mail]>


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

> A pager is not a substitute for an answering machine or service.
> Anyone who uses it as such and blindly calls every number that appears
> in the display is likely to ultimately get burned.

John, you are right about this.  People are likely to get burned.  The
fault, however, lies in the perpetrator and not with the victim.

Look at these parallels to your statement above:

Anyone (little old lady) who blindly contracts with someone to [ patch
her roof, help the "FBI" catch a bank embezzler, you name it ] is
likely to ultimately get burned.

Anyone (yuppie scum) who ever goes into any automobile mechanic
anywhere in the world is likely to ultimately get burned.

Need I say more.  The original poster, in an explosive display of
ignorance, seemed to think that it is okay to take advantage of
people's trust just because they are trusting, and it it their fault
for not being less trusting.  I myself blame the [900 number,
mechanic, roofing contractor] who take the money and run.

I cast my vote that people who would do things like this be used at
the Yerkes primate center for drug, ballistic, and cosmetic research
 -- not necessarily in that order.


Weaver Hickerson   Voice [phone]   :  ..!edu!gatech!holos0!wdh

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #380
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23554;
          20 May 91 23:55 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14565;
          20 May 91 22:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21020;
          20 May 91 21:21 CDT
Date:     Mon, 20 May 91 20:32:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #381
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 20 May 91 20:32:17 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 381

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Alan Bland]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Elliott S. Frank]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: A Very Simple ISDN Question [R. Kevin Oberman]
    Re: A Very Simple ISDN Question [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Just How Stupid Can Repair Service Be? [Linc Madison]
    Re: Touch-Tone Selections From Overseas [John Higdon]
    Re: Transatlantic Calling History [Wm Randolph Franklin]
    Re: One City With Two Area Codes [John Cowan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Alan Bland <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Date: 20 May 91 16:20:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Robert Dinse) writes:

> monopoly on this kind of modem. Indeed, I can't think of a way you
> could escape from data mode to command mode not using a timed delay
> and some unique sequence, that wouldn't be possibly contained in
> transmitted data.

One technique I've seen is to use a timed BREAK to switch to command
mode.  A short BREAK is passed on the communications line, but a
longer one (e.g.  two seconds) goes to command mode.  So there is
indeed another way to do it without infringing on the Hayes patent,
though you'd probably be violating someone else's patent :-)


Alan Bland    att!druwy!mab == [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Denver CO   [phone]

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

From: "Elliott S. Frank" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Date: 20 May 91 17:27:26 GMT
Reply-To: "Elliott S. Frank" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Time Waits for No Man, Processors Wait for the Disk


My, how short the memory of almost everyone commenting on the validity
of the Hayes patent.

Not too long ago, the way that you got a modem to "dial" was that you
used an ACU (Automatic Calling Unit) in conjunction with the modem.
You gave the ACU the number to call, and it dialed the line on behalf
of the modem. When your modem call was completed, you could drop DTR,
signalling the modem to drop the line. You then redrove the ACU for
your next outbound call. [There are probably hundreds of WeCO 801
ACU's still in service ...]

The first modems that allowed dialling over the data line used various
schemes to get the attention of the dialler. The Hayes scheme was only
one of several available in the late Seventies/early Eighties. The
ubiquity of the Hayes scheme is due to brilliant marketing, not to
being the only viable mechanism for escaping the dialler.


Elliott Frank   ...!{uunet,sun}!amdahl!esf00     [phone]
                    or ....![e-mail]

[the above opinions are strictly mine, if anyone's.]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Mon, 20 May 1991 16:04:58 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John R. Levine) writes:

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

>> The ability to do that in a way that guarantees that escape to
>> command mode won't accidentally be invoked by the data stream
>> would be difficult (I can't think of a way) without timing and
>> a unique string being an essential feature of the escape from data
>> mode.

> The other approach is to reserve some character sequence to mean
> switch to command state, and to have some way of protecting that
> sequence if it appears in data, most typically by doubling the first
> character of the sequence.  This works perfectly well, and is what one
> does with synchronous modems, but means that the communications
> software on each end has to do some of the filtering, while the timed
> technique has the advantage of the escape sequence being so unlikely
> in the normal data stream that no protection is necessary.

Funny you should say that.  In fact, the usefulness of "+++" is fast
coming to a close, because many modems are at the far end of a network
with buffering, and there is no good way to insert "time" into a
buffer.  My understanding is that the next generation of modems will
use the old BiSync technique of DLE (Data Link Escape) + character to
send commands to the modem.  DLE + DLE will be sent as a single DLE to
the other end.  There is no more problem with this (from the point of
view of computers) than there is with XON/XOFF.

(Yes, I know that BiSync used DLE as a framing escape rather than a
modem escape, but the principle is the same)


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Date: 20 May 91 19:10:52


[e-mail] (Robert Dinse) writes:

> [S]ince Hayes compatables
> comprise nearly all consumer type modems, we are essentially all being
> held hostage by Hayes, they, if successful in enforcing this patent,
> have a complete monopoly on the field.

>      My feeling is that the Justice Department, gutted by Reagan and
> Bush, really should be filing anti-trust suits against corporations
> that participate in monopoly by litigation.

     The purpose of patent law is to grant a limited monopoly to the
inventor of a new product or process.  Every patent, therefore,
creates a monopoly which would be illegal under the antitrust laws,
except that patents are specifically excluded from antitrust
prohibitions.

     Now if Hayes were attempting to enforce an invalid patent, or
attempting to expand the scope of the patent beyond that granted by
the government, it might be a different story.  In this case, the
patent is valid and, as a consequence, so is any monopoly created
thereby.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: A Very Simple ISDN Question
Date: 20 May 91 16:20:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, ivgate![e-mail].
net (Kim Fosbe) writes:

> I already know about what ISDN is and about all those wonderful things
> that it will do which we will wonder how we got along without.

> What I don't know is just how it will effect those of us who use regular
> plug-in modems. Nobody seems to know this.

> Will ISDN make our modems obsolete? Is it true that all we will have
> to do is plug in an RS232 cable from the PC port to the phone and dial
> up any system like we do now? Is there a way to use your plug-in
> modems when you have ISDN at home? Has anybody ever thought of that?
> Also, is there a way to use your answering machine when you get ISDN?

> Another question while I am on the subject. Are these black AT&T
> digital phones that are replacing the hold-button phones in offices
> actually ISDN phones? One guy tells me they are and another guy tells
> me no. Both of them are electronic people. Full of questions, aren't I?

Plug in modems are analog devices and simply won't work with ISDN.
ISDN does provide RS-232 connectivity at the TE (ISDN for Termial
Eqipment) in the form of separate boxes, modules for telephones (my
office phone has a DB25 in the back), BRI boards for computers and, no
doubt many others yet to be invented.

See my previous post for possible ways to get from ISDN to analog
modems. Once everyone has ISDN modems will be obsolete. But for the
next couple of centuries they will still be around. I suspect that
either LECs or private companies will provide ISDN to modem service to
get from analog to ISDN and back. Our site has its own modem pool on
the analog side of our switch, but most folk can't afford their own
ISDN switch. (We have a 5ESS.)

Bottom line -- ISDN is a pure digital medium. Analog equipment will
NOT work with it. Period. Answering systems included. I expect two
products to appear to take care of this. ISDN answering machines and a
limited ISDN to analog converter. The latter would work well with
things like answering machines. I don't know about modems. In theory
they would work, but I suspect that there might be interoperability
problems.

If the black AT&T phone says ISDN on the corner, it's ISDN. Otherwise
it is not. Merlins look almost identical to ISDN phones. They are
digital and share components with ISDN sets, so the confusion is
reasonable. But they are very different from "real" ISDN phones. My
desk set looks "just like" mu old Merlin phone except for a few more
buttons and a two line LCD alpha-numeric display.


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. Especially
anything gnu.

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Very Simple ISDN Question
Date: 20 May 91 17:44:17 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, ivgate![e-mail].
net (Kim Fosbe) writes...

> Will ISDN make our modems obsolete? Is it true that all we will have
> to do is plug in an RS232 cable from the PC port to the phone and dial
> up any system like we do now? Is there a way to use your plug-in
> modems when you have ISDN at home? Has anybody ever thought of that?
> Also, is there a way to use your answering machine when you get ISDN?

If both ends of the call are on ISDN, then modems are obsolete: ISDN
gives you 64 kbps dial up.  You'll still need an ISDN Terminal Adapter
(TA) to convert RS232 to ISDN, though; it's like a modem but a tad bit
faster.  Of course if you have ISDN at only one end, it had better
have a modem if it wants to communicate with an analog line!  That's
possible too ... Some ISDN networks may also provide a modem pool
service.

The answering machine question, though, brings up another nit about
ISDN: For the average residence, ISDN makes no sense for _voice_.
You'd need a new ISDN answering machine, and I've not seen one yet,
and it wouldn't be cheap.  Better to have a TA to adapt analog lines
and devices (phones, answering machines) to ISDN, using a different TA
to handle the high-speed data.  Note that only one phone can be on a
call at a time using ISDN digital phones, so an analog phone will work
better!  (It needs a TA, which generically means any devices that
adapts non-ISDN devices to run over ISDN, phone or data.)

> Another question while I am on the subject. Are these black AT&T
> digital phones that are replacing the hold-button phones in offices
> actually ISDN phones? One guy tells me they are and another guy tells
> me no. Both of them are electronic people. Full of questions, aren't I?

AT&T 7500-series sets are ISDN.  The 7400-series sets aren't.  ISDN
sets are generally found behind Centrex, while the non-ISDN sets
(cheaper) are typically found behind PBXs.  They look similar.


Fred R. Goldstein              Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA
[e-mail]   voice: [phone]
 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let
 alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 91 17:04:23 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Just How Stupid Can Repair Service Be?
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

[Ordered collect/3rd number blocking.  Tested it by dialing
0-408-555-1212 from 415-841 to see if the operator would put
through the call as a 3rd-number-billed call.  Call went through
with no operator.]

Well, Steve, the problem is not entirely in Pac*Bell.  Here in
California, calls to directory assistance in the same LATA but in a
different area code, are free.  The switch figured you must've been
crazy for asking operator assistance (of any kind) on a free call to
the operator, so it just put you through.  You'd probably get about
the same response if you tried to dial 0+415+760-1111 (ANI test number
for East Bay).

BTW, as to just how "free" these DA calls are, inter-NPA intra-LATA DA
calls from Pac*Bell payphones are definitely free.  From residence
phones, they're either free or 0.25 each after the first 5/month.
From COCOTs, they're generally about 0.40 to 0.75.  Also, why they
decided on such a bizarre annular system, I don't know; I guess they
figure that anything they do that encourages you to call from Eureka
to Santa Cruz is worth their while.

So anyway, try a regular POTS number for your 3rd-number test.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 23:14 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Selections From Overseas


Claus Tondering <[e-mail]> writes:

> One of three things happens:

> 1) It works perfectly, and I get connected as requested.
> 2) It works only if I hold each key down for two or three seconds.
> 3) Absolutely nothing happens. The American party does not recognize
>    my touch-tones.

> Why this difference in behavior? What can I do to make it work always?
> Where does the fault lie? In Europe? In the US? In the satellite?

This could very well be the result of "twist", the reception of the
component tones of a DTMF at unequal levels. While the DTMF
frequencies fall squarely in the "voice" band of a telephone channel,
sometimes the circuit will have a non-flat frequency response
characteristic. This means that on a single digit, the high tone may
be detected at a significantly different level than the low tone. Such
a condition usually results in the non-registering of the digit.

Holding the button down and extending the length of the tone will
sometimes work because the receiver can occasionally adapt to the
condition while the tone is sounding. Otherwise, you would probably
have to hang up and get another circuit.


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

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

From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Transatlantic Calling History
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 20 May 91 16:28:35 GMT


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

>        Radio was an infant (with some historical roots to the late
> 1890's in British Naval history) when Marconi succeeded in passing a
> telegraphic message across the Atlantic in 1901.

 ... and the next day the company with the government-authorized
monopoly on transatlantic communications between the UK and Newfieland
tried to have him legally stopped for violating their monopoly.

No joke.


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: John Cowan <cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One City With Two Area Codes
Date: Mon, 20 May 91 11:30:29 EDT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
org (Ken Levitt) writes:

> Are there other cities in the country with two area codes?  If I sell
> another 500 copies of my program, how likely am I to run across
> another one of them?

And Our Esteemed Moderator Notes:

> I'd think that with the numerous area code splits
> going on in metro areas, your scenario could become quite common. How
> does your program now deal with (post office) New York, NY?

As an inhabitant of (post office) New York, NY, I make haste to inform
you that that locality has only one area code: 212, also shared by
Bronx, NY.

The 718 area code is divided into the USPS localities of Brooklyn, NY;
Flushing, NY; Jamaica, NY; Rockaway, NY; and Staten Island, NY.  There
may be one other which slips my mind at the moment.

However, as a general principle of database design, I think it would
be better to redesign the program to admit of more than one area code
within a postal locality.  When coding systems are assigned by two
distinct authorities (USPS and Bellcore), it would be foolish to
assume a perfect 1-1 correspondence at all points.


[e-mail]        ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan
        e'osai ko sarji la lojban

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #381
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26028;
          21 May 91 1:07 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae26982;
          20 May 91 23:41 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14565;
          20 May 91 22:27 CDT
Date:     Mon, 20 May 91 21:47:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #382
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 20 May 91 21:47:08 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 382

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Myths About Halon [Jerry Leichter]
    Halon Does Not "Suck Up The Oxygen"! [Stephen Hoffman]
    Use of Halon in a Data Center [James J. Menth]
    Viewer-Controlled Cable TV [TV Guide Magazine, via Bob Falcon]
    Milwaukee Phone Book Entry Needed [Andrew Freeman]
    Probably New FTP-Server [Michael Beer]
    800-800 Prefix [Carl Moore]
    Request for ATM Standards Document Numbers [Paul M. Franceus]
    Privacy and Telemarketing [Kevin Bluml]
    International Call Charges [Sameer Siddiqui]
    900 Political Fundraising [Kath Mullholand]
    Answering Machine Modification Needed [Ken Thompson]
    Two Phone Numbers, FYI [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 May 91 09:58:21 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Myths About Halon


Several recent TELECOM Digest messages have described Halon as "a
deadly poison" or as "displacing the oxygen in a room".  All this is
nonsense.  Halons are not poisonous, and in the amounts used in fire
supression systems do not have a significant effect on the amount of
oxygen in a room.  (I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think a
typical Halon system tries to get a 5-10% concentration of Halon in
the room.  That's no worse an effect on the availability of oxygen
than dropping the air pressure by 10% -- which is almost within the
range of normal barometric pressure variations!)

Halon fire supression is a very interesting effect.  For a fire to
burn, you need three basic components: Fuel, oxygen, and heat.
Traditional techniques aim at one or more of these components.  Water
mainly removes heat.  Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers mainly remove
oxygen: Since CO2 is heavier than air, it will settle over the fire
and smother it.  Sand will do the same.

Halons don't attack ANY of these three components: Their mechanism of
action is more subtle.  If you look at a fire more closely, you find
that there's an intermediate stage between fuel and oxygen: The heat
first causes the fuel and the oxygen to break up into active free
radicals; it is these free radicals that then combine, producting more
heat.  The flame region itself is full of these radicals.  Halons act
on the radicals: They grab onto them strongly and carry them away from
the flame.  I believe this is a catalytic process: Once the
Halon/radical combination gets away from the heated area, it breaks
up, re-constituting the Halon to grab more radicals.  (The released
free radicals are spread out and away from the hot zone, and so are
not a problem.)  Because this mechanism strikes right at the heart of
the reactions that keep the fire going, it can act very quickly and
very effectively, with relatively little Halon.

Halons are being phased out because they persist in the atmosphere and
destroy ozone.  I'd guess it's pretty much the same reactions that
allows them to put out fires that also makes them so effective at
destroying ozone.

Chloroflorocarbons like Halon are essentially non-reactive with
biological materials -- it takes a fair amount of energy to split them
up.  (That's also why they persist in the atmosphere until they make
it up to high enough for ultraviolet light to provide the necessary
energy.)  That's one of the things that has made them so useful: They
have been widely used as non-toxic refrigerants, foam blowing
materials, and so on.

I watched a test of a Halon fire supression system installed at Yale a
number of years ago.  The testers remained inside the room as the
system was set off; they seemed quite unconcerned.  A decent-sized
Halon system is pretty impressive to watch when fired: It has to get a
sufficient concentration of Halon throughout a room FAST.  This
requires that the Halon be forced into the room at high pressure,
creating quite a wind -- all sorts of things go flying.  Also, as the
Halon expands rapidly, it undergoes adiabadic cooling, rapidly
dropping the temperature in the room -- so the room instantly fills
with fog.  In all, a startling experience if you aren't prepared for
it -- but not in and of itself dangerous.


Jerry

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 91 08:21:52 PDT
From: up to his ultrix 20-May-1991 1055 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Halon Does Not "Suck Up The Oxygen"!


[e-mail] (Blake Farenthold) writes:
[e-mail] (David Lemson) writes:
[e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman) writes:

>    "Halon Sucks Up The Oxygen"...

Nothing of the sort ... combustion requires four things: a source of
fuel, some amount of heat, an oxidizer, and a chain of free radical
reactions.  Remove any one of the four, and the fire will be
extinguished.  Halon (and other CFCs) functions by blocking the free
radical chemical reactions, not by oxygen displacement.

One can breath in a room that has been Halon flooded. This is one
reason why halon is a good fire suppression system.  (OSHA would have
*kittens* otherwise.  It's the Ozone layer and the EPA that don't like
Halon and the other CFC compounds.)

In terms of the duration of exposure, the combustion products of a
fire (smoke) are a much larger risk.  Various plastics, when burned,
can produce some really nasty gases.  (Like cyanid.)  THIS is why
evacuation is a "good thing".


Stephen Hoffman   Engineer/Firefighter/EMT    Digital Equipment Corp.

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

From: "james.j.menth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using Halon in a Data Center
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Mon, 20 May 1991 19:12:30 GMT


The original posting was regarding 911 centers that used HALON-tm
systems and I hope this info helps.

Our data center, and other areas where fires could harm expensive
electronic equipment and water or chemical based systems would cause
equal damage, are protected by HALON extinguishers. We have both
portable and fixed, automatic systems.  HALON does not 'use up' or
otherwise react with oxygen to effect its suppression of fires.
HALON, at a temperature of about 600 deg-F, breaks down chemically,
absorbing heat and releasing inert compounds at the point of the
reaction. This prevents further oxidation by insulating the flam-
mable ingredients from oxygen.

The process continues until temperature drops below 600, below which
most chemicals will not re-ignite. Enough from the brochure except
that there are different types of HALON and that is where the
confusion over hazard to humans has developed.

Our portable extinguishers contain HALON 1211 and it will displace,
not use up, oxygen when sprayed in a closed area.  It is inert at
temperatures below 600 (such as 98.6) and will not hurt you if inhaled
as long as there is enough oxygen left.  You can safely spray HALON
1211 in a closed room but you should leave the room as soon as
possible after application. HALON 1301, more expensive than 1211, is
used in the automatic system and works at such low concentrations that
it is not necessary to provide breathing apparatus, such as is
required in closed areas protected by carbon dioxide.

I have seen live (sic) demonstrations of HALON 1301 and it does not
have an effect on most people breathing it in concentrations
sufficient for extinguishing.  Our Army M1 tank has a HALON 1301
system to avoid fires in the flammable environment inside the crew
compartment.  HALON's only problem is that it is a floro-carbon,
(small amounts of halides - bromine, florine, chlorine may be released
during reactions with violent fires) and can damage the ozone layer.
There is not yet any ozone friendly substitute with these amazing and
life saving properties.  HALON can actually stop a vapor explosion in
progress and is approved for use in the engine rooms of ocean vessels.


Jim Menth   AT&T   att:lru3b!jjm

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

From: Bob Falcon <balkan!wrangler!rescon![e-mail]>
Subject: Viewer-Controlled Cable TV
Date: 19 May 91 12:28:55 GMT
Organization: Resurrection Connection BBS, PO Box 531, Bristol, Pa. 19007


Hi Pat, all,

I just came across this in the Philadelphia {TV Guide} 5/18-24 edition:

                Dial - A - Flick  gets test run

If VCTV catches on, your local video store just might replace the
phonograph record as America's latest technological relic.  By the end
of the year, 450 Denver Colorado cable subscribers will be able to
order more than 1000 feature films, any time they choose when TCI, the
nation's largest cable operator, AT&T and US West begin testing
"Viewer-Controlled Cable Television."

Unlike pay-per-view , which delivers movies at pre-designated times,
VCTV's offerings can be ordered 24 hours a day by telephone or a
special remote-control. [ a converter box ?  --BF ]

Various prices will be tested during the 18-month trial, but are
expected to be comparable to those found in video stores. [ around
here that's $1.99- $2.99 for the video store and $3.99-$4.99 for our
pay-per-view <per view> --BF ]

This year consumers are expected to spend more than $13.2 billion in
video rentals and sales.   ---Herma M. Rosenthal [T.V. Guide]

                      -----------

I predict the trial 'test' prices will be to see how much people would
be willing to pay [ as usual ] instead of comparable to video store
rentals, but that's pessimistic me <grin>.

I like the idea of VCTV, but I don't even rent pay-per-view movies
now, becuase of the prices.<grin>

Have a good one!

Catchya later,


Bob Falcon [ Co-Sysop : Turbo 386 Remote Access ]
[ 1:273/906 @Fidonet ][ [phone] HST/DS ]
UUCP: [e-mail]
    : { cdin-1 || dsinc.dsi.com } !alba2l!rescon!bfalcon

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

From: Andrew Freeman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Milwaukee Phone Book Entry Needed
Organization: Houston Public Access UNIX
Date: Mon, 20 May 91 00:54:41 GMT


Could someone please leave me mail if they have access to a Milwaukee,
WI phone book.  I need to get entries for this one last name.  There
are only four names listed.

Thanks,


Andrew Freeman    [e-mail]
[e-mail]  Houston, Texas


[Moderator's Note: Two calls to 414-555-1212 should get you what you
need, since they answer two inquiries per call. Also, most libraries
have out of town phone books. Have you tried the Houston Library?  PAT]

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

From: Michael Beer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Probably New FTP-Server
Date: Mon, 20 May 91 6:03:27 MESZ


Hello Patrick!

I've received the following mail from [e-mail]. Perhaps
it can be used as a replacement for bitftp:

 > Date: Sun, 19 May 91 04:04:27 -0700
 > From: unido!decwrl!daemon (ftpmail)
 > To: mcshh!mb
 > Subject: your ftpmail request has been received

 > >>> this help file was last edited on 15-February-1991
 > >>>
 > >>> commands are:
 >     reply <MAILADDR> set reply addr, since headers are usually wrong
 >     connect [HOST [USER [PASS]]]  defaults to gatekeeper.dec.com, anonymous
 >     ascii         files grabbed are printable ascii
 >     binary         files grabbed are compressed or tar or both
 >     compress     compress binaries using Lempel-Ziv encoding
 >     compact         compress binaries using Huffman encoding
 >     uuencode     binary files will be mailed in uuencode format
 >     btoa         binary files will be mailed in btoa format
 >     ls (or dir) PLACE short (long) directory listing
 >     get FILE     get a file and have it mailed to you
 >     quit         terminate script, ignore rest of mail message
 >                 (use if you have a .signature or
 >                  are a VMSMAIL user)
 > >>> notes:
 >     -> you must give a "connect" command, default host is
 >        gatekeeper.dec.com, default user is anonymous, default
 >        password is your mail address.
 >     -> binary files will not be compressed unless 'compress' or 'compact'
 >        command is given; use this if at all possible, it helps a lot.
 >     -> binary files will always be formatted into printable ASCII
 >        with "btoa" or "uuencode" (default is "btoa").
 >     -> all retrieved files will be split into 60KB chunks and mailed.
 >     -> VMS/DOS/Mac versions of uudecode, atob, compress and compact
 >        are available, ask your LOCAL wizard about them.


[Moderator's Note: If some of you wish to try this method of accessing
the Telecom Archives, please report back on the reliability of the
service.  Also let us know HOW to address the request, the format for
the commands, etc.  The Telecom Archives is at lcs.mit.edu. Be sure to
get into our directory area: 'cd telecom-archives'.    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 91 10:46:00 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800-800 Prefix


I just found a motel chain's toll free reservation number listed as
800-800-xxxx.  This is the first N0X/N1X prefix I have seen listed for
800 "area".  (But in 900, there was a 900-410-NASA many years ago.)


[Moderator's Note: There is also 900-410-TIME (same as 202-653-1800)
which gets the Naval Observatory Talking Master Clock.   PAT]

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

From: "Paul M. Franceus" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request For ATM Standards Document Numbers
Date: 20 May 91 12:27:37 GMT
Reply-To: "Paul M. Franceus" <[e-mail]>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742


Hello,

Does anyone out there know what the current versions of the ATM
standards documents are.  I need to reference them in something I am
writing.

Please E-Mail me if you have this information or know where I can
obtain it.

Thanks very much,


Paul Franceus   ([e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 91 09:08:04 CDT
From: Kevin Bluml <[e-mail]>
Subject: Privacy and Telemarketing


The PBS series NOVA is having a show called (I think) 'We know where
you live' this week. About what companies already know and other
privacy issues. It's labeled a repeat although I don't remember seeing
it before. It might be worth a look. Times vary for PBS, it will be
Tuesday night at 19:00 CDT in the Minneapolis/St.Paul area.


Kevin V. Bluml  - Cray Research Inc. 612-683-3036
USmail -   655E - Lone Oak Drive, Eagan, MN 55121
Internet - [e-mail]  UUCP - uunet!cray!kevin

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 91 11:40:21 EDT
From: Sameer Siddiqui <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Call Charges
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Hi All,

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but here goes.

I want to know if there is a comprehensive book that would tell me the
rates charged by PTTs all over the world for calls coming in to the
United States. AT&T has a book of rates for the outbound service for
all (most) of the countries, but I have not come across anything for
inbound traffic charges. I would hate to call every embassy and get
the rates. Also, how are charges determined by both sides? Why is it
cheaper to call some countries than their neighbours?


Thanks,

Sameer

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 1991 9:43:12 EDT
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900 Political Fundraising


I can see it now ... innocent consumer dials 900-vote4me, slips a digit
because the letters are printed so much smaller than the numbers and
gets Patsy panting and gasping various fantasies.

Do you suppose the candidate would get increased donations as a result? <:o


Kath Mullholand      UNH  Durham, NH

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

From: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Machine Modification Needed
Date: 20 May 91 14:38:24 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS


A friend has a Panasonic answering machine (KX-A11A) that includes a
feature that lets one record both sides of an on going conversation
with the touch of a button.  There is a wish to disable the beep every
15 seconds.  Any help out there?


Ken Thompson     N0ITL     NCR Corp.  3718 N. Rock Road
Wichita,Ks. 67226  [phone]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 91 21:34:51 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two Phone Numbers, FYI


I just knew you would want to update your Roladex file with these two
entries:


For the pollen count in your area  -- 1-800-962-1234
(plus an advertisement for an allergy medication)

For information on how to start your own 900 line -- 1-900-976-6688
(no reference given to the cost of the call to find out; usually
this is a no-no ... the ad is supposed to give the cost.)


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #382
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01656;
          21 May 91 8:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25230;
          21 May 91 2:00 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16144;
          21 May 91 0:50 CDT
Date:     Tue, 21 May 91 0:05:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #383
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 21 May 91 00:04:36 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 383

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Why I Chose to Print Randy's Message [TELECOM Moderator]
    The Party Code Identifier Letters W, J, R and M [Larry Lippman]
    Public Television 900 Numbers [John Cowan]
    SMDR Records [Bill Huttig]
    RF Detonation (was Cellular on Planes) [Julian Macassey]
    Re: A Very Simple ISDN Question [Jeff Scheer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 May 91 23:12:37 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why I Chose to Print Randy's Message


I've received various comments -- and read the comments of others --
regarding the posting of the message sent by Randy Borow which later
caused Mr. Borow to be disciplined by his employer, AT&T. With the
rush of stuff coming to the Digest, I'm just now taking a few minutes
to type in a response to what is obviously a valid question.

First, as of Monday, May 20, Randy has * NOT * been fired. He remains
in a state of limbo while the union continues to grieve. Two stages in
this process will be dealt with on Tuesday, May 21. Then, a third
appeal process can get underway should the events of Tuesday go
against Randy.

As a practical matter, review of messages submitted to TELECOM Digest
and a decision to use them or not can only receive about fifteen
seconds of my time per message.  I scan the message, detirmine if it
is at least somewhat telecom-related; if editing will be a problem; if
the topic is useful and has not been 'talked to death' in recent
issues; and that it does not contain obviously 'illegal' information
 -- that is, information which could be specifically used to defraud,
harass or otherwise violate the rights of a telephone company or
computer site, etc. I don't always make the same choices others would
make, but I try to present a reasonable cross-mix of ideas, attitudes
and news items.  If I get a heavy load of submissions on one topic as
replies, then you get a heavy load of the same, to keep what appears
in the Digest reasonably consistent with what I actually receive.

With about a hundred submissions daily (of which 30-40 make it into
the group), spending even fifteen seconds each is an extravagance at
times, but there has to be *some* monitoring of what is used and what
isn't, to keep the group useful for readers and from getting unweildy
in size ... its almost that way now!

In Randy's case, I spent 45 minutes thinking about it!  I passed him
over in the queue a couple times that evening, and tossed around my
own feelings on the matter, then reached these conclusions:

    I am a Moderator/Facilitator/Editor/List Maintainer and jack of
    all trades when the software is broken/net gets sluggish person.
    I am not your personal savior, or anyone else's.

    If Randy or anyone else wants to commit an act of virtual suicide
    on my doorstep, there is little I can do to stop it, i.e.

       A message I reject could just as easily go in any number of
       unmoderated groups where telemarketing and privacy have been
       discussed in recent days/weeks such as telecom-priv, or
       misc.consumers, or alt.I.hate.the.telecom.moderator, or
       many others. If I did not run his message, it would go in some
       other group -- or maybe not. How can we second-guess this?

       If I refuse a message, I run the risk of having many netters
       call me a Facist Censor or worse ... and some of the same
       people who now say I *should* have censored Randy are the
       same people who on other occassions have said I should *not*
       have censored someone else. I guess it depends on whose oxe is
       being gored.

Basically, the message was good, and interesting. I knew from my first
reading -- the first fifteen second allotment given to it -- that the
message fitted in quite well with an existing thread. If it is going
to appear somewhere -- if Randy lacked the good judgment required to
keep such a message to himself -- then it might as well appear here. I
like good messages and controversial topics of discussion as much as
anyone else.

As I thought it over further, I tried to decide a few things:

   Is this message *really* revealing anything that a dedicated
   researcher could not find on his own?  A few things, perhaps,
   but nothing of any real consequence. After all, Randy did not
   include complete phone numbers of people called; he did not
   include the actual names of the people at the company who pay
   the bills; he did not reveal the cost of their service. He did say
   things that a person with a Caller-ID box could find on their own
   regarding which trunks the company used for various types of calls,
   and he did reveal some things that he learned from a conversation
   with the people at the company itself.

   Will this message in some way give impetus to readers who might
   defraud AT&T or a local telco?  Nothing like that was in the
   message. No credit card PINS, etc appeared in the message.

   Will this harass the company involved?  No. How could one harass
   or harm the company by knowing (for example) which line they use
   for outgoing calls from 'customer service'?

   Am I bound by any contractual agreements with AT&T or other telcos
   in the way their employees are bound?  No.

Don't assume for a minute I will run a message which could cause the
Digest itself to become embroiled in a legal dispute or a criminal
action. I've got enough problems this century without having to argue
with an AT&T lawyer about something. I refuse to jeopardize myself,
first of all, my hosts at Northwestern University second, or the
various other sites which carry TELECOM Digest/comp.dcom.telecom by
posting a message which could be the basis for one or more of us
getting sued, raided, arrested, etc.  Randy's message did not fall
into this category in any way.

Then there was another consideration. A few months ago we had a
discussion on this very topic in the Digest: telco employees who
reveal confidential company information, and what happens to them.
Admittedly, that discussion involved 'for profit' transactions, and
this recent matter involves nothing other than an over-zealous
correspondent of the Digest. I pointed out back then that time after
time, telco has guarded the privacy of their subscribers closely.
Telco usually takes great umbrage at the release of information which
is considered confidential.

I think in that series of messages, a Moderator's Note said that
people of higher rank (in retrospect) than Randy soon found themselves
out of a job ... out on their ass! ... when they broke certain
cardinal rules, one of which pertains to violations of trust where
confidential records are concerned.

So Randy Borow provided an excellent object lesson for readers; an
example for telco employees.

Who got Randy disciplined?

     I didn't get him disciplined. All I did was mirror or relate what
     he said ... supposedly what a Moderator is to do. That is
     what you pay me to do, no?  His message was not repetitive, not
     illegal (in the context of my use), not grossly inaccurate, not
     a flame ... should I have saved him from himself? I am not in
     the habit of doing it for others -- why Randy Borow?

     AT&T didn't get him disciplined. The American Telephone and
     Telegraph Company (as a corporate entity) hardly knows TELECOM
     Digest exists; there are numerous employees reading the Digest,
     but who did the first complaints come from: why, from a couple
     readers right here, of course ... readers who make a habit of
     flaming loud and noisily when he dislikes something printed here.
     With that as the mesage which primed the new thread, of course AT&T
     had to respond.

     Maybe some of you who so 'graciously' saw to it that AT&T got
     flooded with print copies of the message from Randy, to
     'make sure they did not miss seeing it' helped get Randy in trouble.


Randy got himself in trouble. Randy is a big boy, and knows all the
rules.  He broke the rules, albiet without meaning to, and without any
profit or personal motive whatsoever. For that reason, I think
dismissal is probably too harsh. He needs to have his hands slapped
officially, with a note in his file about this incident. Perhaps a
demotion, or a penalty of some sort -- other than discharge from
employment -- is warranted.  His employer will make the decision after
negotiations with the union and Randy.

Would I run the message now, knowing what I do about the results? Yes,
I probably would. My allegiance is not to AT&T or the telcos. It is to
the TELECOM Digest: to try and present the best electronic journal I
can, with the resources and skills available to me.

I am not Randy Borow's personal savior, or yours. What you tell me I
will print if I find it interesting and/or think others will find it
interesting. Whatever is not to be printed should clearly indicate
that request in the message itself.

Please direct follow-ups on this to [e-mail].


Patrick Townson

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

Subject: The Party Code Identifier Letters W, J, R and M
Date: 21 May 91 00:10:15 EDT (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

>     Yesterday I found a fragment of a letterhead or invoice blank
> from a business my grandfather owned once.  The telephone number is
> listed as "9305-R" (I'm not sure of the digits, but the -R is right).

>     I assume the -R means it's the ring side of a party line, but
> it seems odd to me that a business would list that as part of their
> phone number (this was a small business, just my grandfather with a
> truck he owned, maybe one other partner, and it's likely it was his
> home phone number).  Didn't each party on a party line get assigned a
> different last digit?  If not, how does one dial a phone number like
> "9305-R"; do you have to ask the operator to connect you?  I suppose
> it's likely that at this time, all calls were completed manually, so
> that may not have been anything out of the ordinary.

    Actually, the four-party code identifier letters W, J, R and M
have no known mnemonic significance.  Their definition as applied to
the Bell System superimposed selective ringing system are as follows:

    "W" = ring lead to ground, negative superimposed battery
    "J" = tip lead to ground, negative superimposed battery
    "R" = ring lead to ground, positive superimposed battery
    "M" = tip lead to ground, positive superimposed battery

    The party code identifier originated in manual telephone
central office days when the call was completed solely by human
operators.  The above letters continued into automatic switching
telephony as a convenient means of identifying the four possible
fully-selective parties from an electrical standpoint; however, by the
1950's the "party code numbers" 1, 2, 3 and 4 pretty much replaced
(respectively) the letters W, J, R and M.

    During the 1950's Bell Laboratories experimented with various
electronic and quasi-electronic switching systems - including improved
dialing methods - prior adoption of DTMF and the stored program
control system later known as 1 ESS.  During the course of such
development, an unusual telephone set was developed with a dial that
resembled the levers on a checkwriter.  Each lever had ten positions
(0 to 9) except for the right-most lever which had four positions
labeled W, J, R and M for the party code identifier.  The telephone
worked by sending tone pulses using an electromechanical pulsing
mechanism controlled by the levers.  This particular telephone and
associated switching apparatus was described and illustrated in the
Bell System Technical Journal, circa 1954.  For anyone who is
interested, it is worth looking up the article because the picture of
this telephone is priceless!


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: John Cowan <cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Public Television 900 Numbers
Date: Mon, 20 May 91 11:48:55 EDT


Our Esteemed Moderator writes:

> I'll tell you who else is finding the use of 900
> numbers quite lucrative:  Our own Public Television station, WTTW
> Channel 11 has had an annual fund raising campaign for many years.

> A few months ago they started using a 900 number year 'round: dial it
> and after a recorded message thanking you for your support of public
> television, $10 is automatically billed to you by Illinois Bell.

WNET/13, the public TV station in New York, has been doing this for
about two years now.  However, the traditional pledge drive still
seems to be the best money-getting device they have.  WNET uses it not
just positively but negatively: a few weeks before the start of the
pledge drive, they begin running brief ads to the effect that "If
enough of you send money now, we'll cancel the first day of the pledge
drive!"  And so on.  Up to about 2.5 days have been cancelled in this
way.

In addition, WNET has several different 900 numbers available, for
paying different amounts, in addition to an 800 number for making
credit-card donations.


[e-mail]        ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan
        e'osai ko sarji la lojban

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: SMDR Records
Date: 21 May 91 02:53:37 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


Is there a standard for detail call records ? If so where can I get a
copy of it?

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: RF Detonation (was Cellular on planes)
Date: 21 May 91 03:26:07 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> Mike Spann <mikes@gammalink.
com> writes:

> Digging way back into my memory, I do remember a story (maybe even
> true) where police officers were told not to dump their spare bullets
> into the same bag as their hand held radios.  The story I was told was
> that should the push-to-talk button be pressed, the electro-magnetic
> waves could cause a round to go off.  When pressed to explain, their
> technical expert said that the oxides between the primer and the case
> could act as a rectifier at 150 MHz, and convert some of the five watts
> of radio energy into a DC voltage.

> Supposedly, this DC voltage could set off the primer and therefore the
> bullet.

    There was a case in Florida (Miami I beleive) where a cop put
his walkie-talkie spare battery pack and bullets in the same pocket.
The internal resistance of NiCad batteries is very low which means
they can pump lots of current through a bullet. The heating is enough
to detonate the bullet. In fact I have met a couple of people who were
badly burned when loose change shorted out a spare battery pack in a
pocket.

    Also I doubt 150 Mhz RF would flow in a bullet which is hardly
resonant at 150 Mhz (2 Meters).


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

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

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 21:38:59 CST
From: Jeff Scheer <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Very Simple ISDN Question
Reply-To: ivgate!command![e-mail]
Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha


Kim, I think that the black AT&T phones in offices are the Merlin or
Merlin Plus systems.  That would put them (I believe) in the Digital
train or ISDN.  As for the modeming question run that one by the other
persons here as I am a lowly end-user and am trying to keep up with
all that is going on in the telecom world, although some of the
acronyms are enough to drive me up a punch down block.


 The .COMmand Center  (Opus 1:5010/23)


[Mooderator's Note: I believe a message earlier today indicated that
the Merlin phones are not necessarily ISDN equipped. The phone has to
actually say so.  When you come down off the punch down block, you can
look up all the telecom acronyms you ever wanted to know and then some
by pulling the three glossary files from the Telecom Archives.
Submitted by different sources, they have hundreds of terms to help
you in understanding what you read here.  (ftp lcs.mit.edu)    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #383
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01737;
          21 May 91 8:24 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28767;
          21 May 91 3:06 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac25230;
          21 May 91 2:01 CDT
Date:     Tue, 21 May 91 1:20:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #384
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 21 May 91 01:20:03 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 384

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phone Books Do Not Mention 540 Numbers [John Higdon]
    Re: 800-800 Prefix [Ken Weaverling]
    Re: One City With Two Area Codes [Dave Levenson]
    Calling Card Calls in the UK [Peter Thurston]
    Re: Two Phone Numbers, FYI [Mark Becker]
    Intrastate Rates and Competition [Roy M. Silvernail]
    9's in Telephone Numbers [David Gast]
    Requesting Nuisance Call Tracing from the Telephone Company [Larry Lippman]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [[e-mail]]
    Motorola PC-500 Problems (was DiamondTel 99X Weakness) [Scott Stratmoen]
    Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security [Michael Scott Baldwin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 May 91 23:48 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Phone Books Do Not Mention 540 Numbers


Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]> writes:

> [A generally amusing piece of whimsy about business traps supposedly
> analogous to 900/976/540 IP services.]

> So exactly how is a new user, even one who scans the over one million
> words in the phone book intro, to ever learn about the existence of
> these nasties?

Well, how did YOU learn? Please spare us the sophistry that only
readers of TELECOM Digest know anything about the telephone, its
charges, or its operational quirks. Anyone who has the requisite
senses to actually use a telephone instrument cannot help learning
about "those 900 numbers", etc. Hell, I know about 540 numbers and it
has been years since I have been to New York.

> I propose that in the interests of unfettered commerce, we make these
> numbers more flexible.  Allow any business to designate any number, at
> any designated time of the day, to cause the customer to be billed
> $50.  What's the problem?  No one's forcing you to call.

None whatsoever. But I suspect that in a relatively short period of
time, word would get around and the business would find itself with a
silent telephone. No legislation needed; it would be automatic.

> Next we can designate special floor tiles in stores.  Step on one --
> they're unmarked -- and you have automatically bought something, which
> is nonreturnable, and owe $50.

And how long would it be before there was an empty store? Again, the
situation is self-correcting.

> I believe that one of the 900 number business associations is opposing
> a bill that would require them to state the charge at the start of the
> call and give the caller a chance to hang up.  That says it all about
> this "business".

Before you judge this "business", please learn a little more about
which you speak. The bill being opposed has a lot more in it than the
"chicken exit" language. It also contains material concerning
presubscription which most 900 IPs consider to be certain death. Most
IPs voluntarily give the statement of charges right up front. Most IPs
run a very respectable ship and have perfectly satisfied customers. If
the 900 business is as bad as you imply, then you will find that it
will collapse of its own weight. If people are not satisfied, they
will not call and the providers will go out of business. Accidental
dialings will not support the industry.

You might be interested to know that there are people who still call
the "telephone company" to complain that they "didn't know the call
would cost money", even on those services that have very clear
up-front announcements concerning the charges and that an immediate
hang up will prevent those charges. No matter what safeguards you
propose; no matter how you try to install rubber walls on society
there will be some who cannot avoid messing in their pants.

> Maybe we apply old common law about installing booby-traps to stop
> this scourge.

Scourge? A few idiots dial some numbers that cause charges to appear
on a phone bill (that are later removed) is a scourge? I can think of
a LOT of things in this world that could be classifed as scourges, but
the presense of 900 numbers? Really! I would put GTE ahead of 900
numbers any day of the week.

> No this is not sour grapes; I've never called such numbers in my life.

Then you have had no problem. Why all the stink?


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

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

From: Ken Weaverling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800-800 Prefix
Date: 21 May 91 03:13:22 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware


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

> I just found a motel chain's toll free reservation number listed as
> 800-800-xxxx.  This is the first N0X/N1X prefix I have seen listed for
> 800 "area".  (But in 900, there was a 900-410-NASA many years ago.)

Prime Computer has had 800-800-PRIME for at least six months now. It
is their customer service number.


Ken Weaverling    [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One City With Two Area Codes
Date: 21 May 91 03:35:38 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> ...When a phone number is entered, the system requires
> that the area code matches the area code for that city.

> All this worked fine until today when a new client informed me that
> Westlake Village, CA has two area codes (805/818).  This was something
> that I had never considered possible.

Our dog visits a veterinarian in Summit, NJ.  The doctor's office is
on Route 24, the line between Summit, and Short Hills.  This is now
also the line between area codes 908 and 201.  The adjacent town of
Springfield is split between these area codes, in case you're planning
to hard-code some exceptions!


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: Peter Thurston <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 91 10:43:30 BST
Subject: Calling Card Calls in the UK


Linc Madison askes how calling card calls are made abroad.

In the UK you may use the operator or dial direct. The direct dial
facility has been available for about five years. To make a call, dial
144. When connected, the payphone identifies itself with a series of
tones (for billing) and then askes (in a male voice) to enter your
account number and PIN. After verifying the number, you are asked to
enter the phone number. If you are familier with the system, you may
skip the instructions and type the whole lot in one go.

Cards all have a 'home number' assigned to them. This way, if you dial
##4 when it askes you to dial the number, it will call your
designated 'home' number. If fact, you can opt to have a card/s that
will only dial the designated number (in which case there is no need
to dial ##4 - the call goes straight through after the PIN). These are
useful to give to friends etc. You can have as many different cards as
you like, each with different designated numbers and/or upper daily
usage limits.

The voice prompts can be made in one of five languages (including
Welsh).  BT payphones don't normally tone dial (they did - then it was
discovered people were making calls for free using tone pads! All of a
sudden all BT Payphones went pulse!). After having been connected to
144 - the keypad enables DTMF.

The cost is 10p/unit - as per normal payphone rate. There is no longer
any surcharge. In certain places, eg, railways stations, etc there are
swipe phones which the cards may be used at. You are still asked for
your PIN however. You cannot use BT charge cards at Mercury payphones
(surprise surprise!) - As far as I know, Mercury (alternative LD
carrier) have not issued a post-payment card of this type.


Peter

PS: I don't work for BT

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

From: Mark Becker <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 91 00:36:42 EDT
Subject: Re: Two Phone Numbers, FYI


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

> I just knew you would want to update your Roladex file with these two
> entries:

> For the pollen count in your area  -- 1-800-962-1234
> (plus an advertisement for an allergy medication)

For grins, I dialled this number and pressed 2 (pollen count in my
area).

I live in the Boston area (617).  The pollen count returned was for
the New York/New Jersey area.

When the playback completed, I was presented with dialtone.  But it
was not local dialtone (audio characteristics are different).  And I
could break the dialtone by pressing a button.

Interesting.


Regards,

Mark Becker   Internet: [e-mail]

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

Subject: Intrastate Rates and Competition
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 91 19:45:10 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


In message <[e-mail]>,[e-mail] (Floyd
Davidson) writes about intrastate phone rates in Alaska:

> The rates are lower, but the ratio is still the same.  LA would be
> cheaper than Nome.  I don't know for sure, but isn't intrastate
> service more expensive than interstate just about everywhere?

Yes, in my experience they are.

> Now the interstate rate structure is based on the cost of providing
> interstate service, and the same with intrastate service.

Before I left Alaska, I recall GCI campaigning heavily for the right
to compete against Alascom for intrastate service.  Did anything ever
come of that?  GCI claimed it would be able to slash intrastate rates
with a comparable level of service.


Roy M. Silvernail   [e-mail]
cybrspc![e-mail]  [e-mail](maybe!)

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

Date: Mon, 20 May 91 21:49:59 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: 9's in Telephone Numbers


The practice of not using 9xxx as telephone numbers was not
nation-wide.  My parents' phone number assigned in 1959 was 99x-9xxx.
A friend of mine had the number 99x-99xx.  (And one of the x's in each
number was a zero).  Although I did not call collect frequently, I
never had any trouble when I did call collect.  Other people also had
9xxx numbers.  Incidentally, 99x were very popular exchanges; for all
practical purposes they have been completely assigned for years.

Incidentally, one of the exchanges was 991.  At that time, I believe,
exchanges ending in 1 were uncommon.

The old Bell system was not so uniform in its policies and procedures
as we are frequently like to reminisce about.


David

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

Subject: Requesting Nuisance Call Tracing from the Telephone Company
Date: 21 May 91 00:11:42 EDT (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> "[e-mail].
edu"@husc3.harvard.edu writes:

> Has anyone encountered resistance from the telephone company when
> requesting a standby trace to identify repeated nuisance calls?  Any
> magic words recommended to help enlist institutional cooperation will
> be appreciated!

    The "magic words" are: "I have already reported the matter to
my local police department, I am prepared to press charges of
aggravated harassment (or equivalent crime in your state) if the
perpetrator is identified, and here is the name of the police officer
to whom I made the report."

    You are virtually assured of obtaining *no* cooperation from
the telephone company (BOC, at least) without going on record by
*first* reporting the matter to your local law enforcement agency.
Also, if a call trace effort is successful, the telephone company will
generally identify the calling party only to the law enforcement
agency -- and *not* to you as the complaining subscriber.

    In my opinion, the above "requirements" by the telephone
company are not unreasonable.


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: The unknown Florentine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Date: Mon, 20 May 91 20:55:46 PDT
Organization: Sunshine in a box


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:


> the public at large. Whether he be a plumber, doctor, lawyer, radio
> engineer, or a salesman, his pager number should be only in the hands
> of his answering service, voicemail system, office, or other screening
> entity.

> If an unfamiliar number shows up, a call to the central point that
> paged would reveal the information about the call. If that info is not
> available (in other words, the call did not come through the answering
> service, etc.), then the call could be ignored as a wrong number.
> Wrong numbers are very common on direct dial pagers.

> A pager is not a substitute for an answering machine or service.
> Anyone who uses it as such and blindly calls every number that appears
> in the display is likely to ultimately get burned.

Some truth to the above, but not every one works it the same way you
do.  My office takes the number and they page me with the number our
client is at.  If one of our other engineers needs to talk to me he
pages me dirrect.  He could be any where, I could be any where. All of
the numbers are likely to be unfamiliar.

I don't agree that wrong numbers are common on direct dial pagers.  I
have one, and I very rarely get wrong number pages, perhaps one out of
a hundred.

People paging for rather trivial items, are another thing entirely.


[Moderator's Note: Years ago I had a pager with the number 444-0100.
Talk about wrong numbers! Some days there were a dozen.   PAT]

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

From: Scott Stratmoen <mcdchg!ast!freedm![e-mail]>
Subject: Motorola PC-500 Problems (was DiamondTel 99X Weakness)
Date: 21 May 91 00:12:24 GMT
Organization: Scott Stratmoen, Arlington Heights, IL


I purchased a Motorola PC-500 "flip phone" under the assumption that
Motorola phones were more or less the best.  At least this is what my
friends were telling me....

Where this is leading is that in the end I now own an OKI 900 phone
due to a multitude of problems the PC-500.  The first PC-500
programmed once at the dealer and could not be reprogrammed again,
even after the dealer reset the phone.  Basically I didn't like the
security code that was programmed.  The second phone randomly turned
itself off AND on.  The third went to no service even when standing
200ft from a cell tower!  Only a power off cycle would wake up the
phone.  In addition, one pocket of the charger didn't work.

So much for Motorola's quality program ...

P.S. The OKI has given me no problems and has a significantly better
     feature set.


Scott Stratmoen | ..!ast!freedm!scott
                | [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 91 01:36:56 EDT
From: Michael Scott Baldwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


{I don't mean to horse a dead beat, but I do have a telecom-related
story about bringing cellular phones on planes...}

I've noticed that my Motorola PT-500 always sets off the airport
sensors, so I give it to the nice guard before I walk through.
They seem very curious, and *always* open it up.  Usually they
push and poke at it, and punch some buttons.  One time the guard
turned it off and handed it back!  (I assume they didn't know
they did it.)

The strangest time, however, was when I gave it to the guard when it
was turned off.  She *asked me* to turn it on for her!  I asked why,
and she just said "turn it on please".  Once it bleeped and blinked
for her, she was satisfied. I guess she was convinced that it wasn't
one of those "fake" phones that you can stash 50 tons of cocaine in or
something.  I'm waiting for the day they yank the battery off...

This was in Newark, Dallas, and Miami, by the way.  I always carry it
on the plane; I never check it in with luggage.  I turn the phone off
before I board the plane.


[e-mail] (Bell Laboratories)


[Moderator's Note: The added airport security as a result of Kuwait/Iraq
is supposed to be ending after this month according to some recent
news in the {Chicago Tribune}.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #384
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22775;
          22 May 91 3:03 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07996;
          22 May 91 1:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04433;
          22 May 91 0:28 CDT
Date:     Wed, 22 May 91 0:22:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #385
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 22 May 91 00:22:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 385

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Connecting American RJ11 to British CW1311 [Julian Macassey]
    Re: 800-800 Prefix [Ethan Miller]
    Re: Intrastate Rates and Competition [Floyd Davidson]
    Using Halon Around Switching Equipment [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Connecting American RJ11 to British CW1311
Date: 21 May 91 03:56:29 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fernando
da Silva (PW Ph.D.)) writes:

> I'm trying to connect an American RJ11 male connector to a British
> CW1311 socket, for data communications purposes.

>    RJ11 jack              CW1311 jack
>    1- not used      1- not used
>    2- black(?)      2- red
>    3- red(?)              3- blue
>    4- green(?)      4- green
>    5- yellow(?)         5- white
>    6- not used      6- not used

> For most British phone connections only 2 and 5 of CW1311 are
> sufficient.  Wich are the two important lines on the RJ11? Are all
> four lines important for data communications?

    On the RJ-11 jack, the two center pins (3 - red & 4 - green
above) carry the phone line. The ringing signal is also supplied on
the "red and green". In the UK, there is a ringing signal on pins 2
and 5 though most UK phones derive ring signal from pin 5 and s signal
from pin two connected to pin 3 via a 2uF capacitor. UK extension
phones use the capacitor in the jack. US phones have the capacitor in
the phone.


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] (ethan miller)
Subject: Re: 800-800 Prefix
Date: Tue, 21 May 1991 07:40:40 GMT


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

> I just found a motel chain's toll free reservation number listed as
> 800-800-xxxx.  This is the first N0X/N1X prefix I have seen listed for
> 800 "area".  (But in 900, there was a 900-410-NASA many years ago.)

I called a car rental company today at 800-800-XXXX.  Is this the only
case of an area code which has an exchange of the same number (ie, the
only area code which has xyz-xyz-XXXX numbers)?  Who does 800-800
belong to?


ethan miller--cs grad student   [e-mail]
#include <std/disclaimer.h>     {...}!ucbvax!cs.berkeley.edu!elm

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Intrastate Rates and Competition
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Tue, 21 May 1991 08:09:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy
M. Silvernail) writes:

> Before I left Alaska, I recall GCI campaigning heavily for the right
> to compete against Alascom for intrastate service.  Did anything ever
> come of that?  GCI claimed it would be able to slash intrastate rates
> with a comparable level of service.

This may be hard for me to discuss objectively, but it has some
amusing facits.  Intrastate competition is coming to Alaska in the
next few weeks.  (You may derive my concern from the fact that I don't
even know the date ...)

Alascom, Inc. (owned by Pacific Telecom) is the regulated carrier of
last resort, and General Communications Inc. is the alternate carrier.
Interstate competition has existed for a few years and has now gone up
the ladder to Equal Access in major markets.

The only significant effect that it has had is one scheduled rate
reduction was instituted six months ahead of schedule, (The schedule
was worked out between AT&T and Alascom for rate equalization, in
1979.)  and a very interesting advertising battle between the two
companies.  I work for Alascom, but I would vote GCI's commericials
just a cut above!  Better jabs.

One GCI commercial made a good deal of fun at the expense of the
general manager of Alascom, who was headquartered in Vancouver, Wn.
They asked if you knew where your money was going, while showing a man
with a briefcase walking through an airport ... on the brief case was
a bumber sticker that said " I love VANCOUVER ".  It was good.  And
then one talked about how the Alascom manager got to work (local hire
is a big deal here), and showed a 737 landing.  Then they cut to how
GCI's manager gets to work in an old beat up VW bus (cause he is a
*real* Alaskan).

Alascom then ran a commercial showing the GCI manager's other car, the
$50,000 model.  Of course it came out in the papers that the poor man
had to drive the VW all winter because it would have looked pretty bad
if he didn't!  (The other car belonged to his wife, from before they
were married too.)

It goes on and on.  They both do really good ads.

The status right now is that GCI is complaining to the FCC that
Pacific Telecom won't sell them circuits on the new Pacific fiber
optic cable at a reasonable rate and refused originally to let them
buy into it.  And AT&T is complaining that they want more compression
(twice as many circuits) used on the fiber to reduce their cost
(subsidies to Alascom).  Alascom is claiming they haven't even filed a
tariff on the fiber, how can the rate be too high, and what do mean we
should compress our circuits more? You don't compress your circuits
that much, why should we provide inferior service?

And GCI advertised that they were going to fiber before Alascom did
too!  And they will, right after Alascom does, by leasing circuits
from Alascom.  Actually Alascom's competition is also one of their
best customers!  Kind of hard to knock that.

The sun is up 18 hours a day, and mosquito's the size of hummingbirds
are everywhere, I'm on vacation, and when I get back to work there
will be competition.  And nothing will change.


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

Subject: Using Halon Around Switching Equipment
From: "Steven S. Brack" <nstar!bluemoon![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 91 16:51:35 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])


David Lemson <[e-mail]> writes:

> [e-mail] (Blake Farenthold) writes:

> > FYI I toured the 911 dispatch center a couple of months ago.

> > The whole dispatch station is protected by a halon fire protection
> > system ... when the alarm goes off they operators and dispatchers have
> > a couple of minutes to evacuate the dispatch area before the
> > (apparently deadly) halon is released.

> Incidentally, Halon works by sucking up all of the available oxygen,
> thus killing the fire -- that's why it's a bad thing to be in the same
> room with vast amounts of Halon.

I recently toured the offices ans switching center for UNITS, Ohio
State's telecom supplier.  They're actually a division of the
University, but operate almost independently.  Their NT SL100 switch
is protected by a Halon suppressant system.  It turns out that things
like foam & water don't mix well with microprocessors and other solid
state electronics. 8) So, most heavy-duty telecom and computing
installations use Halon or some variant thereof.

As an aside, OSU may have to pull out the Halon system and replace it
with something more destructive to their switching equipment, like
CO2.  The reason: Halon 1211 and 1301 (the two most common forms used
in fire prevention) have been shown to be bad for the environment.


Steven S. Brack                  |  [e-mail]
Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower     |  [e-mail]
The Ohio State University        |  [e-mail]
50 Curl Drive.                   |  [e-mail]
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112   USA  |  [e-mail]
[phone]            |  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
From: "Steven S. Brack" <nstar!bluemoon![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 20 May 91 17:25:54 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])


[e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, bluemoon![e-mail]-
> state.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes...

> > If your buddy the plumber doesn't understand such simple
> > concepts as dialing the operator for rate information on unrecognized
> > numbers, then he really shouldn't use any telecom device more involved
> > than a 500 set (not that he couldn't get himself burned there, too .. 8).
> > If you decide, of your own free will, to call a telephone number, then
> > you are agreeing to pay for the telephone service you have requested,
> > be it a $0.25 local call or a $25.00 audiotex number.

> Mr. Brack's argument is truly nitwitted, if that's a word!

> He seems to think that people who receive calls on beepers shoul CALL
> THE OPERATOR and ASK THE RATE for every call to a prefix they don't
> recognize.  Now, what's wrong with that picture?

Would you by a product, then give the clerk a blank check, without
ever checking how much your purchase cost before purchasing it?  Of
course not.  The situations are analogous.  Of course, the telco could
still do something to end the confusion: require users to dial 1
before any added-cost number.  That's what Ohio Bell did for years.
It works quite well.

> 1) Which operator, 0 or 00?

If the call is intraLATA, "0," if not "00," just like the telcos tell
you.

> 2) Don't we have dial-direct nowadays?  Operators aren't "free".

Dialing the operator for dialing charges (and instructions) has always
been a free call.  The only exception would be a COCOT, which may
require a "small" ($10-20 8) deposit.  I needed rate information for
dialing Cape Town, so I dialed the default operator (Ohio Bell), who
transferred me to USSprint.  She transferred me to ATT international,
who told me she'd "have to call London," dialed her up (I could hear
the conversation), and inquired about dialing and rates.  I got my
rate information, all for a free call.  I believe rate information is
a mandated free service.

(Sorry, his third point disappeared, doesb't this editor doesn't yank
back inadvertent cuts.)

> 4) If it's an emergency worth beeping, why should the bozo take
> several minutes just to verify the cost?  Hell, it's a local number (7
> digits) and it's not "900", so why should he even suspect that there's
> a bomb in the envelope?

That's why telcos should require 1+ dialing for value-added calls.
But, *they don't*, so we should be wary of dialing "unknown" numbers.

> 5) To the vast majority of us, the telephone is a communications tool,
> not an audiotex access terminal.  The cost of a telephone call is well
> understood.  From a home phone to any other phone in NYC proper, it's
> under 20c/call.  The fact that a prefix was assigned to audiotext is
> an obscure exception that few people care about.

Saying your phone is this or that doesn't change what, in fact it is.
The modern telephone is an access terminal used by people and machines
for all forms of telecommunications, including audiotex.  The fact
that you are ignorant of the fact that some prefixes and telephone
numbers entail special costs doesn't negate your ultimate
responsibility to pay for all calls you place.

> > No, blind trust is not a good idea.  But, in this case, again
> > not related to what wew were discussing, the contractor (I'm assuming)
> > lied.  The audiotex vendor, on the other hand, simply asked beeper
> > users to call his number.  No lies there.

> OF COURSE it's a lie: He lied that there was an urgent need for a
> callback.  There was nothing for the paged party but a recording.
> Call 911 and ask to play telephone chess with the guy who answers.
> See how he feels.  Beepers are more akin to 911 (emergencies) than to
> the Naughty Peahen Hotline.

A beeper is just a way of telling you that someone wants you to call
them.  It is **incapable** of telling you anything about the reason
he/she wants you to call.  Anyone can have you paged for any reason.
There is no qualification of urgency necessary.

> 50k counts of wirefraud sounds good to me!  Consecutive sentences.

OK.  Let's assume a three month sentance for each count of wire fraud.
In truth, the sentence would probably be longer.  For this crime,
then, the "criminal" would spend 12,500 years (!!!) in prison.  No
murder has ever commanded such a long sentence.  Generally, it's a
good idea to give some thought to what you post.

[e-mail] (Carl Wright) writes:

> I'm not enough of a lawyer to say this with authority, but doesn't it
> seem clear that the calls to the pagers were made with the intent to
> defraud those who were paged.

The provider just asked pager users to call his number.  He made *no
guarantee* as to the cost or nature of the service.  Where's the fraud
in that?

> Everything else, like in Judge Wopner's court, is irrelevant.

> It reminds me of an old computer scam where an operation in Texas had
> invoice forms printed up and rented mailing lists. They mailed out
> small bills to all the people on the mailing list. Many people paid
> the bills rather than complain or assumed that their spouse was
> responsible for the charge.

There was an ad in the {LA Times} that used to run about once a month.
It would say something to the effect that:

                LAST DAY TO SEND IN YOUR DOLLAR
                Mail to: PO Box XXXX
                         Los Angeles, CA

The postal inspector shut that one down.  I don't see why.  If I send
10000 people each a letter asking them to send me money, without
promising them anything, then where's the fraud?

The people who called that 540 number got what they paid for.  "The
rest, as Judge Wopner says, is irrelevant."


Steven S. Brack                  |  [e-mail]
Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower     |  [e-mail]
The Ohio State University        |  [e-mail]
50 Curl Drive.                   |  [e-mail]
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112   USA  |  [e-mail]
[phone]            |  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, Mr. Brack *does* have a valid point
about making promises and not keeping them. One of the oldest scams I
know about involving the mail is the one where women advertise in
'swinger' magazines with no intention of ever meeting the guys who
respond. None the less, they phrase their letters in such a way as to
make the guy think the woman really likes him. They ask the guy for a
'donation' or 'token' to show his sincerity. Please note it is always
a donation -- never anything (such as photos) for sale. The women who
do this (but honestly, it is mostly men posing as women) make out like
bandits and the postal inspector is apparently unable to do anything
since the letter the 'woman' sends out is absolutely free of any
claims or promises of any sort. And if/when our 540 guy goes on trial,
I suspect he will get off for the same reason. He could have as easily
written his number on a wall somewhere, and several fools would have
called it ... but he promised nothing and made no fraudulent claims,
and that may very well be what saves him.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 91 10:03:44 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud


Because of the messages about "calling every number that appears in
the display", may I repeat an old suggestion: Prefix lists help you to
do homework regarding an unfamiliar exchange that comes thru on your
display.


[Moderator's Note: No truer words could be spoken. Many large
companies advertise in such a way that they come very close -- but not
quite -- to the point of committing fraud. Don't immediatly assume you
*must* call someone, or *must* respond just because something
authoritative (such as your pager) says so.  Think first!  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #385
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25238;
          22 May 91 4:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26915;
          22 May 91 2:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac07996;
          22 May 91 1:35 CDT
Date:     Wed, 22 May 91 1:03:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #386
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 22 May 91 01:03:26 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 386

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Bud Couch]
    Re: Requesting Nuisance Call Tracing from the Telephone Company [Kim Greer]
    Re: Probably New FTP-Server [John Hawkinson]
    Re: Using Halon in a Data Center [Scott Dorsey]
    Re: International Call Charges [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Calling Cards in Britain [Clive Feather]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Date: 21 May 91 13:59:14 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Michael H. Riddle) writes:

> I'm just a little surprised at the tone and direction most of the
> comments have taken, just as I'm a little surprised by Toby Nixon's
> silence.  Perhaps the company has not allowed him to say anything,
> although I'd think an approved press release might be available and,
> if so, would certainly help clear the air.  (If I missed one you
> posted Toby, then I apologize.  I know you try hard.)

Since the matter is still in litigation (both the appeal of the
Everex/Omnitel/VenTel suit, and the Multitech trial and others), I
cannot comment except on historical facts.  As much as I might like
to, I cannot comment on anything pertaining to matters that might be
the subject of a trial.

One thing I will say: another writer (not Mike Riddle) stated his
belief that the US Justice Department should "go after" companies that
try to monopolize by lawsuit.  As a matter of historical fact, I
should point out that the defendants in the recent trial (Everex,
Omnitel, VenTel), and several others which settled before the trial,
ORIGINATED legal action AGAINST HAYES.  They filed suit claiming that
Hayes was attempting to monopolize the modem market by enforcing the
Heatherington patent.  Hayes counter-sued for patent infringement
(i.e., we didn't start it, they did).  The claim of monopolization was
thrown out of court by summary judgement -- the court found no merit
at all in their claim. The judge did, however, find merit to Hayes'
claim of patent infringement, which eventually went to trial, the
result of which everyone is now aware.

> [Moderator's Note: Actually, Toby Nixon did send a good response to te
> Digest on this. Perhaps you are behind in your reading?    PAT]

My previous response was to an employee of another modem company that
appeared to be inviting a lawsuit.  I considered that to be a separate
matter from the issues related to the validity of the Heatherington
patent and the related cases.  I was subsequently contacted by the
management of that company, and it was clearly stated that the
opinions expressed by that employee were not those of the company or
its management (as I suspected).


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Date: Tue, 21 May 91 14:39:21 EDT


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

|>      Since the timed escape is an essential part of the command set,
|> it is impossible for a modem manufacturer to claim Hayes compatability
|> without it. Thus, Hayes, if successful at enforcing this patent, has a
|> monopoly on this kind of modem. Indeed, I can't think of a way you
|> could escape from data mode to command mode not using a timed delay
|> and some unique sequence, that wouldn't be possibly contained in
|> transmitted data.

|>      The ability to escape from data mode to command mode is essential
|> in a smart modems operation. The ability to do that in a way that
|> guarantees that escape to command mode won't accidentally be invoked
|> by the data stream would be difficult (I can't think of a way) without
|> timing and a unique string being an essential feature of the escape
|> from data mode.

|>      This type of BS really torques me. I have one Hayes modem and
|> nine clones here, I will not buy another Hayes product.

|>      Not only must modem manufacturers figure this as a cost they have
|> to figure in, but so must consumers. And since Hayes compatables
|> comprise nearly all consumer type modems, we are essentially all being
|> held hostage by Hayes, they, if successful in enforcing this patent,
|> have a complete monopoly on the field.

|>      My feeling is that the Justice Department, gutted by Reagan and
|> Bush, really should be filing anti-trust suits against corporations
|> that participate in monpoly by litigation.

You really ought to talk to somebody who knows a little anti-trust law
and intellectual property law (which you *CLEARLY* do not) before you
make such wild and irresponsible statements.  Seeking patent
protection for an invention has never been considered anti-competitive
behavior.  Why have a patent office if you prosecute everybody who
uses it?  Hayes invested the R&D dollars into developing an essential
technology for the implementation of smart asynchronous modems and now
will get a return on their investment.  This is wrong?  Tell me, does
celestial.com (whatever that is) give away its assets?  If so, I will
watch for your Chapter 11 filing, since you won't be in business very
long.

TI gets royalties from nearly everybody manufacturing integrated
circuits (although a lot of the basic US patents are probably due to
expire) including the Japanese.  They didn't do every single chip
design, but they did invent the enabling technology, and are getting
paid for it.  The Hayes patent is no different.

Enforcing patents, and deciding who may and may not license your
patents is not a matter of restraint of trade under current anti-trust
case law.  This is not a lack of vigilance by our current fascist
government, it's the way anti-trust law and patent law have
intersected for a long time.  Patent protection usually enables
publication of technology, since the inventor is given something in
return for publishing the patent.

Go talk to somebody who knows about such things.  You don't.


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

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 May 1991 04:43:38 GMT


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

>     Since the timed escape is an essential part of the command set,
> it is impossible for a modem manufacturer to claim Hayes compatability
> without it. Thus, Hayes, if successful at enforcing this patent, has a
> monopoly on this kind of modem. Indeed, I can't think of a way you
> could escape from data mode to command mode not using a timed delay
> and some unique sequence, that wouldn't be possibly contained in
> transmitted data.

I was writing from my own rather parochial point of view. My company
(that is, the one I work for, not own) makes Switched 56 DSU's. These
are 56 kB _synchronous_ units. We use a separate _async_ command port
(separate from the data port which handles the signal going to the far
end) to take care of configuration, maintenence, and call control. The
language used by that command port is the AT set. To call a number,
the command ATDxxxxxxxx is entered to the command port. When the far
end answers, the data is sent through the data port. To disconnect -
ATH0.  No "(pause)+++", no patent infringment.


  Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox
 If my employer only knew.
   standard BS applies

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

From: Kim Greer -- rjj <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Requesting Nuisance Call Tracing from the Telephone Company
Date: 21 May 91 11:43:19 GMT
Organization: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC


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

> In article <[e-mail]+ "[e-mail].
> edu"@husc3.harvard.edu writes:

>> Has anyone encountered resistance from the telephone company when
>> requesting a standby trace to identify repeated nuisance calls?  Any
>> magic words recommended to help enlist institutional cooperation will
>> be appreciated!

>    The "magic words" are: "I have already reported the matter to
> my local police department, I am prepared to press charges of
> aggravated harassment (or equivalent crime in your state) if the
> perpetrator is identified, and here is the name of the police officer
> to whom I made the report."

>     You are virtually assured of obtaining *no* cooperation from
> the telephone company (BOC, at least) without going on record by
> *first* reporting the matter to your local law enforcement agency.

This obviously varies by local telco:

  I had the "opportunity" to request tracing by local GTE because of
repeated nuisance calls about a year ago.  GTE indicated to me that I
first must go to GTE and fill out a simple form that had, in essence,
the "magic words" on it, and then sign it.  Signing it indicated that
I would press charges.  I never had to contact the police (but mainly
because the calls stopped the very day I filled out the form, after
going on +- daily for 6+ weeks ...  pretty "convenient", huh?).

>     You are virtually assured of obtaining *no* cooperation from
> the telephone company ...

  Surprisingly, GTE made it very simple, straight forward and fast.  I
literally spent more time just standing in the line to get the form
than it took to fill it out and talk with their security rep. - I know
because I was watching the clock trying to get back to work in a
hurry.  Excluding the time standing in line to get the form, the whole
thing took less than 15 minutes.  There was no effort by them to try
to talk me out of it or try to put up with it a little bit longer to
let it resolve itself -- they just went ahead and did it.

  Perhaps other telco's handle the details differently, but here was
my experience with them:

1.  called them up for specifics of where to go, who to see, etc.
    *after* having read the instructions in the phone book on
    how to handle such calls

2.  went downtown to main branch, stood in line with other people who
    were paying bills, requesting service, etc. and asked for the
    form to fill out

3.  filled it out (name, address, phone #, etc.), signed it (to
    indicate that I would press charges) and then went to the
    courtesy phones and dialed the security rep.  She indicated
    that I would have to:

4.  keep a date and time log of each nuisance call on a form they
    provided, simply to let them match my log with theirs (GTE
    would take whatever action after three matches).  The logging
        was effective for two weeks (I think) before it would have to
        be reinstituted.
and,

5.  agree to let *GTE* handle the situation.

I have to give the local GTE credit for the way they handled it.  Good
luck!


Kim L. Greer
Duke University Medical Center         [e-mail]
Div. Nuclear Medicine  POB 3949         voice: 919-681-5894
Durham, NC 27710                   fax: [phone]

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

From: John Hawkinson <panix![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Probably New FTP-Server
Date: Tue, 21 May 91 14:34:42 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Beer) writes:

> I've received the following mail from [e-mail]. Perhaps
> it can be used as a replacement for bitftp:

[standard ftpmail help file deleted]

> [Moderator's Note: If some of you wish to try this method of accessing
> the Telecom Archives, please report back on the reliability of the
> service.  Also let us know HOW to address the request, the format for
> the commands, etc.

I'd just like to add that bug reports for ftpmail can be sent to
[e-mail].


John Hawkinson   [e-mail]

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

From: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Using Halon in a Data Center
Reply-To:  Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Tue, 21 May 1991 13:55:20 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(james.j.menth) writes:

> ...  Our Army M1 tank has a HALON 1301
> system to avoid fires in the flammable environment inside the crew
> compartment.  HALON's only problem is that it is a floro-carbon ...

   Should I even ask what AT&T is doing with an M-1 tank?  Does this
have something to do with "slamming?"


scott

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 91 12:08:02 -0400
From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Call Charges
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


There is a short list in a magazine I borrowed, called
Telecomunications Jan 1991 pp 73-75 "PSTN Tariffing Issues in Europe"
It only listed a hand-full of cost but it list internal cost also.

1990 Telephone Usage Charge Per minute in US $
                                Adjac.
Country        Local    100km    Country    US
Austria        0.056    0.50    0.65    1.35
Belgium        0.021    0.19    0.54    1.80
Denmark        0.030    0.12    0.36    1.11
Finland        0.018    0.24    0.56    1.20
France        0.016    0.34    0.59    1.22
Germany        0.015    0.36    0.61    1.65
Greece        0.028    0.31    0.91    2.27
Ireland        0.054    0.47    0.86    2.10
Italy        0.015    0.44    0.88    2.63
Luxenbourg    0.042     -    0.53    1.89
Netherlands     0.014    0.09    0.52    1.22
Norway        0.049    0.32    0.52    1.10
Portugal    0.008    0.40    0.83    1.99
Spain        0.011    0.14    0.96    3.08
Sweden        0.012    0.19    0.49    1.07
Switzerland    0.015    0.16    0.69    1.22
UK(BT)        0.072    0.24    0.60    1.00
UK(MCL)        0.067    0.19    0.57    0.90



I hope this helps,

Bill

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

From: Clive Feather <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Cards in Britain
Date: Tue, 21 May 91 9:36:17 BST


In 11-374, Linc Madison asks how to use UK calling cards. I have a BT
card. It carries two numbers: the "dialled calls" number (xxx xx xxx)
and the "operator calls" number (44M xxx xx xxx yy). I also have a
four-digit PIN allocated to me by BT.

 From a private phone, I dial:

    144 <pause><beep> / xxx xx xxx / pppp / <number>.  Slashes
indicate locations where there is a voice prompt if I pause; the
prompt cuts out as soon as I continue dialling. The (male) voice is
the one who does the speaking clock. The number must be in the full
long-distance form: I cannot use local dialling codes or omit the code
if I am calling from the same area code. The 144 may be pulse dialled,
but the rest must be tone dialled.

All BT public phones do pulse dialling only. After I dial the 144, the
phone issues a burst of 10-12 tones (presumably its own number), and
any dialling I do after the beep is sent as tones, not pulses.

Instead of a number, I can dial ##44 (call a preset number: my
office).  At *any* time during a call I can dial ##22/<number>, ##33
(redial), or ##44. These cut off the current call (or busy tone, or
whatever), but do *not* produce a dial tone.

The UK does not have an equivalent to the US 0+ dialling.

Phoning via the operator, I quote the whole of the "operator calls"
number, the number I am calling, and (from the NANP) the area code I
am calling from. I have not tried using the operator in the UK. From
Hungary, the operator knows which country I am calling from (though
many think that "HG" means "Hong Kong" until disabused).

[For UK readers, you can get a BT operator in the USA with 1-800-445-5667.]


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
(USA: 1 800 XDESK 57)  | United Kingdom

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #386
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24543;
          23 May 91 2:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12954;
          23 May 91 1:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22773;
          23 May 91 0:07 CDT
Date:     Thu, 23 May 91 0:06:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #387
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 May 91 00:05:22 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 387

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Using Halon Around Switching Equipment [Kurt Freiberger]
    Re: Using Halon in a Data Center [[e-mail]]
    Re: Using Halon in a Data Center [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Myths About Halon [Louis J. Judice]
    Re: It Still Don't Network ... or? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Robert E. Novak]
    Re: Viewer-Controlled Cable TV [Tom Streeter]
    Re: Probably New FTP-Server [Wes Plouff]
    Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security [Richard Bowles]
    Re: Bellcore and the NNX Area Codes [Hans Mulder]
    Re: Two Phone Numbers, FYI [Tim Irvin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kurt Freiberger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Using Halon Around Switching Equipment
Date: 22 May 91 15:29:51 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University


In article <[e-mail]>, nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@
iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:

> I recently toured the offices ans switching center for UNITS, Ohio
> State's telecom supplier.  They're actually a division of the
> University, but operate almost independently.  Their NT SL100 switch
> is protected by a Halon suppressant system.  It turns out that things
> like foam & water don't mix well with microprocessors and other solid
> state electronics. 8) So, most heavy-duty telecom and computing
> installations use Halon or some variant thereof.

> As an aside, OSU may have to pull out the Halon system and replace it
> with something more destructive to their switching equipment, like
> CO2.  The reason: Halon 1211 and 1301 (the two most common forms used
> in fire prevention) have been shown to be bad for the environment.

And burning electronic equipment, furniture, et al ISN'T????
Something I've always been wondering: PVC insulation makes Cyanogen
(cyanide) gas when burned; so they came out with Teflon insulation
that burns at a higher temp.  But what does Teflon make when it burns?
Reportedly, Phosgene gas.  I'll take good ol' HCN anyday....  Cheers.


Kurt Freiberger, wb5bbw     [e-mail] 409/847-8706 Dept.
of Computer Science, Texas A&M University DoD #264 *** Not an official
document of Texas A&M University ***

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Using Halon in a Data Center
Date: 22 May 91 08:56:03 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
gov (Scott Dorsey) writes:

>> ...  Our Army M1 tank has a HALON 1301
>> system to avoid fires in the flammable environment inside the crew
>> compartment.  HALON's only problem is that it is a floro-carbon ...

>    Should I even ask what AT&T is doing with an M-1 tank?  Does this
> have something to do with "slamming?"

No.  Remember Johnny Fever's "Phone Cops"?


[Moderator's Note: Maybe they use it in disciplinary procedings
against employees caught reading TELECOM Digest.   :)    PAT]

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Using Halon in a Data Center
Date: 23 May 91 01:45:08 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (Scott Dorsey) writes:

> Should I even ask what AT&T is doing with an M-1 tank?  Does this
> have something to do with "slamming?"

You forget to pay your AT&T bill.  The tank arrives at your house.
The guy behind the machine gun very politely reminds you of the past
due bill.

AT&T has had such success with this new collection technique that they
are thinking of getting more tanks.  Sprint, on the other hand, is
investing heavily in "smart" bombs that can deliver a dunning notice
into your backyard with precision accuracy.  It is expect that, in
order to deliver the bills in as unobtrusive a manner as possible,
that they will order several B-2's.

Smaller LD companies, who do not have the financial resources of the
majors, have been cheered by recent events in the Middle East.  It
seems that there is now a large quantity of surplus Soviet tanks and
Armored Personell Carriers available at dirt cheap prices.

As the guy in the tank says, "Thank you for choosing AT&T."


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


[Moderator's Note: Enough already! This digest is for telecom, not for
a discussion of Halon, even though the jokes are funny.  One more
message, then the thread must close, sorry.  (No, really I am not
sorry, I just said that.)   :)   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 91 06:24:19 PDT
From: "Louis J. Judice  21-May-1991 0916" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Myths About Halon


One more quick word on Halon systems. There's a big difference in the
destructive velocity that Halon is discharged with, depending up the
design and implementation of the system. Generally, the cost of a
system is directly proportional to the number of nozzles. Low bid
installations with 2-3 nozzles in a 5000 sq ft room will release with
destructive force. Better systems with many nozzles with almost
instantly fill the room with no ill-effects. I've seen $15,000
microscopes smashed and nearly a hundred ceiling tiles dislodged in
the test of a low-cost halon system at my former employer.  The system
I installed in a DEC facility several years ago, though, was much more
expensive, and caused no damage.

I hope this is some help to those with halon systems. I certainly
understand the environmental issues, but I sure hope CO2 is not
re-established for this purpose, since it is definitely dangerous.


ljj

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: It Still Don't Network ... or?
Date: 21 May 91 14:16:06 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (H.
Peter Anvin) writes:

> A few questions about ISDN:

I will answer as best I can, not being an employee of an operating
company but an employee of a company that manufacturers ISDN terminal
adapters.

> 1. Is is feasible/not feasible to use ISDN as a link in an IP or Ethernet
>    network?

Yes, if you can find somebody else with ISDN at the other end, and to
the extent that it makes sense to have these connection be switched
instead of leased.  Bridging Ethernets over ISDN will be a major
application (just as it already is for Switched 56k service).

> 2. Is ISDN a worldwide standard, or another one of them "we decide what we
>    want" USA standards?

The ISDN standards are being developed in the CCITT, so they are
"worldwide".  Eventually, when Signalling System 7 is implemented on
international circuits, you'll actually be able to use ISDN on these
circuits.  Each country does specify which subset of ISDN options it
will actually support; the T1S1 standards committee and the ISDN-1
industry group have been doing this in the USA.

> 3. Does the 64 kbit/s B-channel rate over ISDN include error correction?

No.  The 64kbps is "clear channel".  You certainly CAN run an error
correction protocol on top of it, such as V.120 terminal adaption or
X.25, but the basic service is not error-corrected.  That makes sense,
since error correction is neither necessary nor desirable for
circuit-switched voice traffic (because the human ear filters out
occassional noise, and the delay of error correction would be worse
than the noise itself).

> 4. Does the D-channel protocol include service identification (say IP,
>    video, voice, modem)...?

Yes.

> 5. Is is possible to call a POTS line with a modem from an ISDN connection?

Yes, but exactly how that is accomplished varies.  Hayes terminal
adapters, for example, provide an analog phone jack into which a modem
can be plugged, to allow you to communicate with remote PSTN modems
through an ISDN voice call.  Another way is through a modem pool at
the ISDN-PSTN gateway (switch), to which you connect using V.120 or
some other adaption protocol.  T1S1 and CCITT Study Groups XVII and
XVIII are currently looking at expanding the Q.931 protocol to
accommodate automatic fallback from ISDN terminal adaption protocols
to PSTN modulations, if the station called is turns out to be on the
PSTN; this would be useful for interworking with both PSTN data modems
and fax machines.  We envision devices that would have a DSP
implementation of a modem that speaks directly to a B channel (called
a "digital modem"), built right onto the terminal adapter.  This would
help the transition from PSTN to ISDN.

> 6. What are typical rates for ISDN?  Is it billed per minute or per block?

That is still very much open.  Current ISDN services are B-channel
circuit switched (which are charged by the minute) or D-channel
packet-switch (which are often FREE on the same switch, depending on
the RBOC, because they haven't really figured out how to charge for it
yet).  Charges for frame relay service are still being discussed.
Charges for packet switched services, once these are provided other
than point-to-point (i.e., by gateways to the PSPDNs), will probably
be by segments or characters, as they are on the PSPDNs now.

I haven't done much research on ISDN charges, but my understanding is
that the time-and-distance charges for circuit-switched ISDN
connections are identical to PSTN charges.  Since most PSTN
connections are circuit-switched 64kbps digital connections anyway,
this makes perfect sense.


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


[Moderator's Note: A new mailing list is getting started, devoted to
the topic of ISDN. I received a note on it today, and will run it here
soon, so watch for it if you would like to join an interesting new
group devoted to this topic.    PAT]

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

From: "Robert E. Novak" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
Date: 21 May 91 18:43:13 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, California


Does anyone have a phone, FAX, e-mail or snail mail address for
INMARSAT?


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: Tom Streeter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Viewer-Controlled Cable TV
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Tue, 21 May 91 21:37:50 GMT


It seems to me that I read in "Electronic Media" that the
view-on-demand system to be tested in Denver by TCI will involve
stocking a room with a couple of hundred VCRs and manually feeding the
movies to customers.  They want to see if the concept works before
investing in the equipment necessary to automate the process.  This
from the company which is refusing to upgrade any of its systems until
it knows whether or not the RBOCs will be allowed into the business in
their own service areas ... ("Yes, let's freeze our lousy service in
place so ANY alternative will look good!")


Tom Streeter    [e-mail]

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

From: Wes Plouff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Probably New FTP-Server
Date: 21 May 91 07:34:23 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


> [Moderator's Note: If some of you wish to try this method of accessing
> the Telecom Archives, please report back on the reliability of the
> service.  Also let us know HOW to address the request, the format for
> the commands, etc.  The Telecom Archives is at lcs.mit.edu. Be sure to
> get into our directory area: 'cd telecom-archives'.    PAT]

Err, the decwrl server has no "cd" command.  You must use the full
directory path for all "dir" and "get" commands.  The decwrl FTPMAIL
server is quite a bit different from BITFTP, so read the help file
carefully.


Wes Plouff, Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard, Mass.  [e-mail]

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

From: Richard Bowles <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security
Date: 22 May 91 02:13:33 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218


[e-mail] (Michael Scott Baldwin) writes:

> The strangest time, however, was when I gave it to the guard when it
> was turned off.  She *asked me* to turn it on for her!  I asked why,
> and she just said "turn it on please".  Once it bleeped and blinked
> for her, she was satisfied. I guess she was convinced that it wasn't
> one of those "fake" phones that you can stash 50 tons of cocaine in or
> something.  I'm waiting for the day they yank the battery off...

I don't think it was cocaine they were worried about. Imagine what
would happen if your phone was filled with some nice unstable high
explosive and you turned it on?  I think the "please turn it on"
policy is several years old -- I remember waiting while someone ahead
of me at the metal detector was frantically trying to find a battery
pack for his laptop.

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 91 05:05:42 +0200
From: Hans Mulder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bellcore and the NNX Area Codes


Carl Wright asked:

> I have quietly read references to pseudo-NNX codes for Mexico as 52n,
> but I can't take it any longer.

> The only way I can make sense of this reference is if we assume that
> the pseudo area code for this pseudo NNX is "011".

> Sorry, but aren't these international country codes, just like Belgium
> and Australia use?

Maybe it's time to spell it out again, rather than quietly referencing
it all the time:

At some point in the foreseeable future, the North America Numbering
Plan will run out of area codes.  Bellcore has announced that they
will then start assigning NNX area codes; they call those
Interchangeable Area Codes.  "Interchangeable" in the sense that such
area codes look like exchange codes.  This will probably happen in
1995.

Rumour has it that they will then assign pseudo area codes 521 through
529 to areas +52-1 through +52-9 in Mexico.  They are already so used
internally; the question is whether the general public will be allowed
to dial those pseudo area codes.  When, and if, that happens, you will
be able to reach Mexico City by dialing 1-525 rather 011-52-5, like
you could use 1-905 until recently.

This will shorten dialling by two digits and will fool countless North
Americans into thinking that Mexico is somehow part of the North
America Numbering Plan after all.

Just pray that no long distance carrier will be pedantic enough to
intercept 011-52-N-XXX-XXXX with a recorded message "The number you
have dialed, 011 52 N XXX XXXX, can be reached by dialling
1-52N-XXX-XXXX", and fail to connect you.


Have a nice day,

Hans Mulder    [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Two Phone Numbers, FYI
Date: Tue, 21 May 91 15:58:38 [phone]
From: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest V11 #384, Mark Becker writes:

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

> > I just knew you would want to update your Roladex file with these two
> > entries:

> > For the pollen count in your area  -- 1-800-962-1234
> > (plus an advertisement for an allergy medication)

> For grins, I dialled this number and pressed 2 (pollen count in my
> area).

> I live in the Boston area (617).  The pollen count returned was for
> the New York/New Jersey area.

I live on the VT/NH border (603) and got the pollen count for Boston.
Not so far off for me, I guess.  A bit unrealistic to think that they
would have info for Hanover, NH.

> When the playback completed, I was presented with dialtone.  But it
> was not local dialtone (audio characteristics are different).  And I
> could break the dialtone by pressing a button.

I did this also, tried a local number to see if it was our campus
switch, and tried a LD number (don't tell anyone).  Both sounded like
a connection was being attempted, but then the audio sounded like it
was cut off, so I was unable to tell what happened.

> Interesting.

I thought so too.


Tim Irvin


[Moderator's Note: From Chicago just now I got the dial tone, dialed 0
for the operator and waited a couple seconds. I heard a click, and a
recorded message came on saying 'if you would like to make a call,
please hang up now; then dial again, or ask your operator for assist-
ance.' Then it clicked again, and disconnected me.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #387
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27597;
          23 May 91 3:53 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24359;
          23 May 91 2:24 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12954;
          23 May 91 1:15 CDT
Date:     Thu, 23 May 91 0:55:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #388
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 May 91 00:54:55 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 388

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security [Brent Chapman]
    Re: RF Detonation [Brian Kantor]
    Re: 9's in Telephone Numbers [Tim Irvin]
    Re: 9's in Telephone Numbers [Larry Lippman]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Carl Moore]
    Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: One City With Two Area Code [David Gast]
    Re: Myths About Halon [Terry Begley]
    Re: A Very Simple ISDN Question [Daniel Senie]
    Re: Ring Tones Around the World [Bud Couch]
    Re: 800-800 Prefix [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    New Mailing List Getting Started: ISDN [Per Sigmond]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brent Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Tue, 21 May 1991 22:10:26 GMT


[e-mail] (Michael Scott Baldwin) writes:

> The strangest time, however, was when I gave it to the guard when it
> was turned off.  She *asked me* to turn it on for her!  I asked why,
> and she just said "turn it on please".  Once it bleeped and blinked
> for her, she was satisfied.

This has been routine at many airports for the last several years.  I
am always asked to make my beeper go "beep", and make my computer (if
I'm carrying one) show a startup screen.  This has happened to me at
Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Phoenix, Palm Springs, Las Vegas,
and several other airports over the last four years or so.


Brent Chapman             Telebit Corporation
Sun Network Specialist    1315 Chesapeake Terrace
[e-mail]         Sunnyvale, CA  94089
                          Phone:  [phone]

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RF Detonation
Date: 21 May 91 22:17:11 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


My RCA TacTec walkie burned my wrist one day when I managed to
accidently brush my watch band against the battery charging contacts,
and the high current through the resulting short circuit heated up the
metal band quite quickly.

I can easily believe that a bullet could be detonated in much the same
way.

My Motorola and GE radios cannot do that, for they have a blocking
diode inside the battery pack that prevents the battery from
discharging through the external contacts -- clearly a better design.

In the early days of two-way radios, some vacuum-tube mobile
transmitters used motor-generator sets ("dynamotors") to produce the
600 or so volts needed in the power output stages.  In one memorable
incident, a CHP officer transmitted while his car was being fueled,
and the motor brush sparks ignited the gasoline fumes in his trunk
(where the radio was installed), blowing the trunk lid off the car and
ruining the overhanging gas station canopy.  The radio continued to
work, of course.


Brian

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 9's in Telephone Numbers
Date: Tue, 21 May 91 16:46:01 [phone]
From: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest V11 #384, David Gast writes:

as well as others:

[discussion about 9xxx in telephone numbers deleted]

One more thing on this topic (I have a feeling Pat's going to close
this one out soon):

My phone number (since the dawn of me having telephone service in my
name) has always ended in 6466.  Call me superstitious, call me
strange but I got kind of attached to these four little numbers over
the years.  Well, when I moved to NH a few months ago I requested my
old 6466 buddy from the phone co.  The lady said that she'd check to
see if it was available in my exchange.  (I guess I should point out
that I moved into a *very* small town.)  Well, after holding for a
while, she came back and told me that only the 9000 block of numbers
was available in my exchange (can you imagine only one block of
numbers).

I immediately was concerned about having a 9xxx number because I had
always thought of them as payphone numbers.  But not ever having to
make collect calls home, it didn't seem to be a problem.  The biggest
problem was having to give up my old number.

Anyway (back to the point), my whole town (about 250 people) have 9xxx
numbers and NET could have given them any other block of 1000 numbers
since 0000-8999 are completely unused in the exchange.  So, I guess it
is no longer a big deal.

What is really strange (off the subject -- sorry Pat), is that any of
these numbers gets a recording (in fact any unused number in the area)
that says, "The number you have reached X-X-X X-X-X-X is being checked
for trouble, please try your call again later."  This was a problem
when I was giving a friend my new number, but I gave him the wrong
number, and he tried to reach me for over a week, continually getting
"...checked for trouble...".  He finally called DA and discovered he
had the wrong number.


Tim Irvin

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

Subject: Re: 9's in Telephone Numbers
Date: 22 May 91 00:31:06 EDT (Wed)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> The practice of not using 9xxx as telephone numbers was not
> nation-wide.  My parents' phone number assigned in 1959 was 99x-9xxx.
> A friend of mine had the number 99x-99xx.  (And one of the x's in each
> number was a zero).  Although I did not call collect frequently, I
> never had any trouble when I did call collect.  Other people also had
> 9xxx numbers.  Incidentally, 99x were very popular exchanges; for all
> practical purposes they have been completely assigned for years.

> The old Bell system was not so uniform in its policies and procedures
> as we are frequently like to reminisce about.

    I can tell you from firsthand experience that in smaller SxS
CO's (say, 3,000 lines and less) in the Bell System it was so common
as to be almost universal that numbers ending in -9XXX be used for:
(1) test lines and telephone company offices; (2) coin station lines;
and (3) business lines and PBX trunks.

    In the case of the SxS CO we are dealing with common line
finder and connector groups that would require features different from
that of residential POTS lines.  Such features include but are not
limited to:

1.    Higher traffic requirements (i.e., more CCS) per line may
    utilize more than one connector shelf (10 connectors) per
    100 terminal numbers.

2.    Higher traffic requirements for call origination may utilize
    ROTS (Rotary Out Trunk Switches) to provide greater than 10
    selector and/or outgoing trunk paths per selector digit level.

3.    Requirement for message register operation may dictate that
    lines be placed in common linefinder groups.

    While greater traffic handling could also be achieved by
spreading line assignments through more hundreds groups and leaving
unassigned numbers, there was a tradeoff between this technique (which
required more SxS shelves) and that of concentrating lines in smaller
groups (which were usually associated with ROTS).


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: Wed, 22 May 91 11:17:00 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud


What does "audiotex" mean?  Just last night, I saw 215-556 listed in
the Philadelphia call guide as such (it's blocked by default) for
adult conversations, etc.

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50k Counts of Wire Fraud
Date: 22 May 91 16:28:34 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@
iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes...

> Would you by a product, then give the clerk a blank check, without
> ever checking how much your purchase cost before purchasing it?  Of
> course not.  The situations are analogous.  Of course, the telco could
> still do something to end the confusion: require users to dial 1
> before any added-cost number.  That's what Ohio Bell did for years.
> It works quite well.

It is not, of course, in keeping with the North American Numbering
Plan, but was an artifact of stepper switches whiched used 1 as the
access number to toll offices.  Nowadays 1 may mean "area code
follows". Time T is coming...

>> 1) Which operator, 0 or 00?

> If the call is intraLATA, "0," if not "00," just like the telcos tell
> you.

The NYC exchange has four area codes (516, 914, 212 and 718), and one
of them (914) is in multiple LATAs.  In any case, the price of a 540
call is not with the operator.

>> 2) Don't we have dial-direct nowadays?  Operators aren't "free".

> Dialing the operator for dialing charges (and instructions) has always
> been a free call.  The only exception would be a COCOT, which may
> require a "small" ($10-20 8) deposit.

If everybody dialed 0 for every unknown number, then the rate of
operator calling would skyrocket and they'd charge.  Some telcos have
already suggested dialing 0 should carry a charge.

> The provider just asked pager users to call his number.  He made *no
> guarantee* as to the cost or nature of the service.  Where's the fraud
> in that?

The fraud is that he was intending to sucker people into doing
something that they had no intention of doing: Calling a pay-per-call
number.  As Pat even pointed out in another note (about the 900 number
for info on 900 numbers), if the ad doesn't list the price, it's a
no-no.  At best you can say that the scam artist was "advertising" his
540 number on pagers.  But by not divulging the price, he was
violating the usual rules (I'm not positive it applies in NYS but it
probably does) that ads for these services MUST state the prices.
That IN AND OF ITSELF is a violation.


Fred R. Goldstein Digital
Equipment Corp., Littleton MA [e-mail] voice: +1
508 952 3274
Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let
alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?


[Moderator's Note: Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread,
but like others, it has really gotten away from telecom, so we have to
close it out now.    PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 91 19:18:37 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One City With Two Area Code


I don't see what's so unusual.  Los Angeles now has 213 and 818.  In a
short time, the 213 part of LA will be divided into 213 and 310.  The
Moderator and others have discussed at great length the division
between 312 and 708 (I think that's it).  While the division generally
follows the city limits of the city of Chicago, I seem to remember a
few exceptions.  Under the new plan for splitting 212, the split will
not be geographical.

I presume there are lots of exceptions.  Towns expand.  Area codes get
chopped up.  I don't think the list needs 100 messages on exceptions.
There must be a lot.


David

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 91 09:28:36 CST
From: Terry Begley <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Myths Ahout Halon
Reply-To: ivgate!inns![e-mail]
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE


David Lemson writes:

> Incidentally, Halon works by sucking up all of the available oxygen,
> thus killing the fire - - that's why it's a bad thing to be in the same
> room with vast amounts of Halon.

   This is only partially correct.  Halon works by displacing *SOME*
of the oxygen in the room, thus causing the fire to snuff itself out
for lack of oxygen.  People can stay in a room where a properly
installed Halon system has been discharged.  Their voices rise (like
you have inhaled helium) but there is no damage to the person.

  Of course, this assumes that the Halon system has been properly
installed.  Firing off a large Halon fire extinguisher in a small,
enclosed room could be a problem.


Terry Begley

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


[Moderator's Note: This was left over in the queue, but we really must
close the Halon thread now.   PAT]

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

From: Daniel Senie <peanut![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Very Simple ISDN Question
Date: 22 May 91 01:44:15 GMT
Organization: Daniel Senie Consulting, Clinton, MA


Boxes to make analog devices work over ISDN are supposed to be
available.  It will be impossible to roll out ISDN for residential
service without such gizmos, and they'd better have enough battery
backup potential for keeping the line running in the event of an AC
failure.

Your comments regarding ISDN and analog not interacting ever is
perhaps the way things will be at bigger corporations, but not
elsewhere. The 64000 BPS pipe provided by an ISDN B channel is the
same as what your current analog voice circuit gets digitized into in
the C.O. today. The only difference in service between an Analog to
ISDN converter in your house and running analog to the CO is where the
Analog/Digital conversion takes place.

There is a big advantage in doing the A/D conversion closer to your
house rather than at the C.O. since the analog lines pick up noise
without a means for compensation. SLC-96 units provide a similar A/D
conversion outside the C.O.


Daniel Senie               UUCP: uunet!lectroid!peanut!dts
Daniel Senie Consulting    ARPA: peanut![e-mail]
48 Elm Street              CSRV: 74176,1347
Clinton, MA 01510          TEL.: 508 - 365 - 5352


[Moderator's Note: A new mailing list discussing ISDN is getting under
way. For information on how to subscribe, read the final message in
this issue of the Digest.   PAT]

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re:Ring Tones Around the World
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Wed, 22 May 1991 04:31:26 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: 'Notes on the Network' is a well-known publication
> which has been mentioned here in the Digest many times. As to the
> difference in ringing/busy signals here in the USA, the difference is
> due purely based on the manufacturer of the equipment used in the
> office in particular. One sounds one way, another some other way.  PAT]

I just got an order form in the mail from Bellcore offering me the new
"BOC Notes on the LEC Networks, 1990" for the sum of $395.  I remember
"Notes" (the Blue Book) as selling for about $50. Ah, the wonders of
divestiture and inflation!  For those whose budgets allow, the
Document Number is SR-TSV-002275, from

Bellcore
Customer Service
60 New England Ave
Piscataway, NJ 08854-4196        $395 + applicable sales taxes

They also want to know what "Industry Segment" you are:
                            LEC
                            IEC
                            Manufacturing
                            Consultant
                and my favorite.........other


Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox   If my employer only knew.   standard BS applies

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 91 02:33 GMT
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800-800 Prefix


Ethan Miller made the following inquiry in Telecom #385:

> I called a car rental company today at 800-800-XXXX.  Is this the only
> case of an area code which has an exchange of the same number (ie, the
> only area code which has xyz-xyz-XXXX numbers)?  Who does 800-800
> belong to?

800-800 seems to belong to US Sprint (judging from the recording I got
when I dialed 800-800-0000).  As to whether it's the only instance of
an xyz-xyz number, I've found that 213-213-xxxx is a valid phone
number, and many others are theoretically possible as the use of
area-code like exchanges increase.


Sander J. Rabinowitz | [e-mail] -or- | [phone]
Brentwood, Tenn.     | [e-mail]   |       8-)

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 91 21:28:14 CDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Per Sigmond <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Mailing List Getting Started: ISDN


An ISDN mailing-list is now in operation in the Internet community.
The topics of the list are:

   "All aspects specific to ISDN (protocols, services, applications,
        experiences, status, coverage, implementations etc.)."

The discussion includes both data and voice, and is open for
Broadband-ISDN as well.

An archive of the list is available by anonymous FTP to
"ugle.unit.no"; file "archives/isdn".

To subscribe, send a message to: [e-mail]

List coordinator: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #388
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00486;
          23 May 91 5:15 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19265;
          23 May 91 3:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ag24359;
          23 May 91 2:36 CDT
Date:     Thu, 23 May 91 2:01:10 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #389
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 May 91 02:01:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 389

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: COCOT Complaints [Steven A. Minneman]
    Re: 800-800 Prefix [Nick Sayer]
    Re: Obtaining Unlisted Numbers [Leonard Johnson]
    Re: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims??? [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: Cellular Information Wanted [Tony Harminc]
    Why Are *Telephone Keypads* Built Upside Down [Jamie Mason]
    Re: One City With 2 Area Codes [Ken Levitt]
    Re: IDDD Calling [Fred E.J. Linton]
    One More Time! Re: Using Halon in a Data Center [Kenneth Herron kherr]
    Re: Airfone [Kent Borg]
    Cheap 9600 bps Modem [Ken Jongsma]
    Calling US 800-Numbers From New Zealand [Richard Foulk]
    Wierd 555-1212 Call [Bruce Oneel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 May 91 12:49:04-1795
From: "Steven A. Minneman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another COCOT Complaint
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steven A. Minneman )
Organization: Fujitsu Network Switching of America, Inc.


There have been a number of questions about what makes blocking access
to your interexchange carrier of choice illegal.

The first law was the FCC Memorandum Opinion and Order DA 89-237,
adopted February 24, 1989.  The second was issued in the FCC Rule
Making 6767, adopted June 14, 1990.  The third is a law I believe that
Bush just signed this month.  All prohibit denying access to your
interexchange carrier of choice.  The last two actually require that
they provide you with a method of dialing your carrier of choice (such
as 10XXX).

When you run into problems like those noted in previous articles here
where you aren't allowed to access your carrier of choice, simply drop
a line to:

    Federal Communications Commission
    Common Carrier Bureau
    Washington, D.C. 20554

They WILL respond and will investigate the problems.

I wrote them about a problem of this type in 1988, and got excellent
response.  I also like to think that my letter had some effect in
getting the subsequent laws adopted.

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

From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800-800 Prefix
Date: 22 May 91 15:53:01 GMT
Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA


[e-mail] (ethan miller) writes:

> I called a car rental company today at 800-800-XXXX.  Is this the only
> case of an area code which has an exchange of the same number (ie, the
> only area code which has xyz-xyz-XXXX numbers)?  Who does 800-800
> belong to?

Sprint. 800-800-KUOP has been our college radio station's pledge line
for a couple years now.


Nick Sayer    [e-mail]  N6QQQ    209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

From: Leonard Johnson <esseye![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Obtaining Unlisted Numbers
Organization: Smiths Industries
Date: Wed, 22 May 91 14:59:42 GMT


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail].
net (Dennis G. Rears):

> As I had legitimate need to contact her and the corespondent (look
> that up in your legal dictionary) I needed to get the number.

> It's funny though the only time I called her and the corespondent was just
> to verify the phone number.

So did you really have a legitimate need to contact her or not?
Wouldn't registered mail have worked?

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

From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims???
Date: 22 May 91 21:33:32 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> cmkrnl![e-mail] writes:

>> "Give us the numbers of the friends you call on AT&T's plan.  We'll
>> give you at least 10% savings [not so bad so far] and we'll offer to
>> switch them to MCI."

> Did you get that number right? Does MCI honestly believe that any
> person in his right mind would, for the measley chump change amount of
> 10%, take on all of the problems of MCI? From my many experiences with
> MCI, that company would have to offer calls at "90% off" before I
> would even entertain ANY thoughts of signing up.

Please folks, when you flame a company at least give some background
on why you are doing it!

I have been using MCI for four years now, after trying both AT&T and
SPRINT.  I switched from AT&T to save me money (~$15/month with my
calling patterns), and I switched from SPRINT due to noisy lines
(which I hear is no longer a problem).

I have always recieved excellent and prompt service from MCI. Also
line noise is almost non-existant (maybe one modem call per two months
experiences it).

The only complaint I have with MCI is that they removed the
around-town feature from their card, but nobody else has it either.


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

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 91 17:17:53 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Information Wanted


I have received a number of private notes asking what I was referring
to when I said "the DOC reference document" in my recent posting on
cellular mobile information.

The DOC is the Department of Communications.  It issues a large number
of publications on various topics, most of which are free of charge.
All documents mentioned below are free.

Since the Canadian and US cellular standards are essentially identical
and compatible, the following documents may be of interest to US as
well as Canadian readers.  I imagine US readers would be able to
obtain similar information from their local agency (the FCC ?)

All the following are covered in the "Index of Spectrum Management
Documents Available to the Public" (which can itself be ordered).
There are also innumerable documents covering everything from burglar
alarms to stereo TV to "Suppression of Radio Interference from
Elevators"!

SRSP-503  Technical Requirements for Cellular Radiotelephone Systems
          Operating in the Bands 825-845 and 870-890 MHz

This is just a few pages but it does discuss the channel allocation
and System ID (SID) formats, and briefly discusses Canada/USA cross-
border coordination of cellular systems.  It seems to predate the
extended channels.

RSS-118   Land & Subscriber Stations: Voice, Data and Tone Modulated,
          Angle Modulation Radiotelephone Transmitters & Receivers
          Operating in the Cellular Mobile Bands 824-849 & 869-894 MHz.

This is what I think of as the "analogue" or "hardware" document.  It
is chock full of RF engineering stuff, test methods, test requirements
for test instruments(!) and so on.

IS-01     Interconnection Standard for the Interfaces Between Cellular
          Radio Systems and Other Common Carrier Systems

This is an oldish (1985) document discussing how the cellular carriers
are to connect to the rest of the world, via two-wire, four-wire, and
T1 interfaces.  Whether they actually did it this way I don't know.


Annex A     Cellular System Mobile Station - Land Station Compatibility
to RSS-118  Standard

This is the good one - what I think of as the "digital" or "software"
document.  It essentially tells you what you need to know to write the
code to run a cellular mobile set.  It is *not* a tutorial (hence my
earlier query).  It provides a very detailed description of the states
the set can be in, and processing instructions for each state.  It has
a much more limited discussion of how the land station works, e.g.
descriptions of what should be sent, but not why.  There is certainly
not enough information to design an entire cellular system :-)

The address for the DOC is:
Department of Communications
DOS/PP
300 Slater Street, 6th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0C8

There is no mention of whether they will send documents to foreign
addresses free of charge, but it wouldn't hurt to try.


Tony Harminc

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

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Are *Telephone Keypads* Built Upside Down
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Science Undergraduate Student
Date: Wed, 22 May 1991 23:55:46 -0400


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

> What I have always been told, and this is _pure_ folklore with no
> facts to back it up, is that the keypad was originally the same
> as that of a ten key adding machine. People who used these machines
> were so adept at using the keypad that the telephone systems would
> miss digit when the person keyed them too quickly. The upside down
> arrangement was used intentionally to slow people down so that the
> digits could be recognized.

    Sounds a lot like the querty keyboard which also (according to
folklore) was designed to slow people down so they would no jam
typewriter keys.

    Of course, now we have computer keyboards on fast computers
which will accept chracters faster than Superman could type.  And my
local switch can handle my modem dialing with DTMF tones of less than
a 35ms duration.

    So now they are both unnecessary, and besides, we have gotten
as fast with them as with the things that we typed too fast on.  And
now we are used to them, so we are stuck with these crippled
interfaces becuase people used to be able to outtype machines.  And
some idiots decided to slow down the people instead of speeding up the
machines.


Jamie

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 91 16:33:39 EDT
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One city with 2 area codes


Thank you to all who responded.  It is now clear that this is not an
isolated instance.

The next release of our software will include an expanded data
structure to allow for flexibility in this area.


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 21-MAY-1991 16:35:11.90
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IDDD Calling


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (KATH
MULLHOLAND) asks:

> Is there a list available of the number of digits to be expected
> when dialing overseas?  For some countries, yes, for others no:
> for example, the university phone number of one of my colleagues in
> Hagen, West Germany, is long enough that some "expected number of
> digits" routine at the switch of my default LD carrier tripped over
> it, giving me a recorded rebuke that the number I had dialed was too
> long for the international country I was dialing to.

With the intervention of an overseas operator's supervisor, however,
the call was successfully completed -- and yes, the number was *not*
too long.

Elsewhere, of course, numbers can be "too short" -- in Warsaw, most
phone numbers use six digits -- for these, the country-code/city-code
combination is 48/22.  Newer phone numbers have seven digits, of which
the first is "6", and for these the c-c/c-c c is 48/2.  After the 48,
it would seem that eight digits are expected.  BUT: there are also
*three-digit* phone numbers -- for LOT airlines reservation service,
for a radio-taxi company, for a variety of other services.  I've been
told that +48 22 919, for example, should ring through (never having
wanted to call a Warsaw cab from this side of the Atlantic, however,
I've never tried it :-) ).


Fred E.J. Linton  Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.  649 Sci. Tower  Middletown, CT 06457
E-mail:  <[e-mail]>  or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com>
Tel.:         + 1 203 776 2210 (home)  or  + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work)

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

From: Kenneth Herron kherr <[e-mail]>
Subject: One More Time! Re: Using Halon in a Data Center
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Wed, 22 May 1991 12:50:32 GMT


[Moderator's Note: Well okay, just one more ...  :)   PAT]

[e-mail] (Scott Dorsey) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (james.j.menth) writes:

>> ...  Our Army M1 tank has a HALON 1301 system to avoid fires in the
>> flammable environment inside the crew compartment.

>   Should I even ask what AT&T is doing with an M-1 tank?  Does this
> have something to do with "slamming?"

I guess you haven't been reading the Digest much lately.  It has been
common knowledge here that AT&T is poised to get tough on COCOTs.


Kenneth Herron                           [e-mail]
University of Kentucky                   [phone]
Department of Mathematics


[Moderator's Note: Now quit it! Stop making fun of the Mother Company
like this!  Oh well, if you insist, send a few more!     PAT]

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

From: Kent Borg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Airfone
Date: 23 May 91 01:29:27 GMT
Organization: Camex Inc., Boston MA


All this talk about Airphone reminded me.

Does anyone remember the ads JS&A or DAK or someone once had about a
portable home phone (the kind with a base station) that would be
compatible with "soon to be available" airplane phones?  Instead of
leaving your credit card as collateral and bringing the "public" phone
back to your seat, you would pull you private copy from under the seat
in front of you.

Whatever happened to the brave/foolish souls who bought it?  Are they
now happily phoning without marching up and down the aisle first, or
are they still waiting for that system to catch on?


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

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

Date: 20 May 91 15:35:00 EDT
From: "OCEANA::JONGSMA" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cheap 9600 bps Modem


I just came across an interesting article in a recent issue of {PC
Week}.  The following is paraphrased from the article:

     Image Communications has announced a 9600 V42/V42bis/V32 internal
     modem for a list price of $299. An external modem will be available
     in the fall for $349.

     The modem supports MNP4 and is based on the Rockwell 9696AC chipset.
     Rockwell supplies the "engine" for 75% of the modem market.

     Image is the same company that has been shipping the TwinCom
     96/24 Fax Modem.

     Image will sell this modem direct and through distributors.

     It will ship in a few weeks.

I was very impressed with the price, although the usual caveats about
buying the first run of a product apply. The cheapest 9600 modem that
I'm aware of up until now was the PM9600SA that sells mail order for
about $450. If you're looking for a cheap way of getting 38.8K
throughput, this may be the way to go. Don't expect a lot of support
from the company though. They say they'll swap units or refund your
money- no tech support. I just called them and they said they were
accepting orders ([phone]).

Usual Disclaimers, although I probably will order one in a few weeks
after I hear some field reports.


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

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 91 00:46:23 HST
From: Richard Foulk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling US 800-Numbers From New Zealand
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu


I have a friend that's moving to New Zealand soon.  She asked me to
check on the possibility of accessing US 800 phone numbers from there.

I expressed my skepticism but promised I would check.


Thanks,

Richard Foulk        [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 91 09:27:10 EDT
From: Bruce Oneel  <oneel@heawk1>
Subject: Wierd 555-1212 Call


Sunday had been a bad day going worse, and I needed to make a phone
call with no phone books.  So, off to information.  I live in DC so we
have 202, 301, and 703, which you have to get right these days for the
call to go through.  I was in DC and using ITT's 950 number called 301
information.  But, I really wanted info on a 202 number so they
politely told me that I needed to call 202-555-1212.

OK, off to 202-555-1212.  What's the first question out of the
info-person's mouth?  What city please.  I was stunned.  I responded
with "what choices are there?"  They were a bit stunned.  I said that
I called 202-555-1212 and they said they had no idea who I called but
could give me information on DC.  Oh well, it did work.  I guess it
must be combined with another information office.


bruce

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #389
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14640;
          24 May 91 3:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27120;
          24 May 91 2:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28350;
          24 May 91 1:03 CDT
Date:     Fri, 24 May 91 1:01:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #390
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 24 May 91 01:00:31 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 390

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Collecting Call ID Info to PC or MAC [[e-mail]]
    Batteries and Ammo Myth (was Cellular Phone in Aircraft) [Henry Schaffer]
    Knowing if You Are Dialing a Toll Call [Kirk Goins]
    Cellphones, Towers and Airport Security [Marty Brenneis]
    Computerised Phone Accountant [Mark J. Elkins]
    Applied Computing Devices [David Michels]
    Bell Canada to Offer Audible Message Waiting Indication [Nigel Allen]
    Troubleshooting Failed Calls From a PBX [Alan Gilbertson via Nigel Allen]
    540 and Other Booby Traps: Info Not Available [Wm Randolph Franklin]
    Personal 800 Numbers [David A. Neal]
    IntraLATA Competition [John Higdon]
    Line Identfication Number Needed [Patton M. Turner]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Collecting Call ID Info to PC or MAC
Date: 22 May 91, 16:31:37 EST


Greetings Telecom Specialists:

I am currently looking for a device that will allow my Macintosh
and/or PC to retrieve caller ID info from our university's digital
phone system.

We in the Information Center have reason to track incoming calls with
software running on a Mac (or PC) which will involve taking notes
"electronically" from within an application.  I need my application to
be able to extract caller ID info from the phone system as a call
comes in.

Does anyone out there know of a card or easily connectable device that
will connect to my MAC (via serial port) or PC (via serial port) and
let me do this?  Is it possible to make a device like this if one is
not available.?


University Computing and Learning Services
            INFORMATION CENTER
      Ohio University, Athens, Ohio
        BITNET: kesler@ouaccvma
    INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Batteries and Ammo Myth (was Cellular Phone in Aircraft)
Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Tue, 21 May 1991 14:11:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Mike Ardai) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 380, Message 1 of 10

> [This is getting rather far from Telecom...]

Sure is - well, I'll test the moderator's patience further. :-)

> ...  Putting one of them into
> the same pocket as bullets will cause the bullets to short out the
> charging studs.  This will heat them up and cause them to fire.  I
> seem to rememeber that a cop shot himself that way back in the 70's in
> NYC.

  This is a wonderful urban myth with a good psychological
explanation.  I get careless and shoot myself -- quick, what
explanation/excuse can I use? ...  Well, it has been shown that a
cartridge going off in a pocket will cause noise, scorch marks, and
bruises.  It doesn't penetrate through clothing into flesh, and so
this can explain being "shot".  Still, many people will buy this
excuse, and so it is worth a try.  (For details, see Hatcher's
Notebook by J. Hatcher.)


henry schaffer  n c state univ

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

Subject: Knowing if You Are Dialing a Toll Call
From: Kirk Goins <undrground![e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 91 09:52:02 EDT
Organization: The Underground - Pennsylvania


As a side note, in the 215 area code you need not (and I think on 1
Jan 92 you won't be allowed to) dial a "1" to get any number in the
215 A/C. The reason stated by Bell Of PA is to FREE up enough
space/lines/exch anges or somethings until they can upgrade there
system in future. To me it's not knowing if I'm making a TOLL CALL or
NOT.  Sounds more like a way to raise my phone bill.


Kirk Goins   UUCP: uunet!cbmvax!amix!undrground!kgoins
Internet: undrground![e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 91 08:37:54 PDT
From: Marty the Droid <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellphones, Towers and Airport Security


> Scott Stratmoen | ..!ast!freedm!scott writes:

> The third went to no service even when standing
> 200ft from a cell tower!

This is no real suprise Scott. The service folks need to use a hi gain
Yagi to test the radios from under the tower. There is a cone of
silence under the cell tower. I had a hard time in LA with my 3W lunch
box, when I looked up I realized I was under the antenna.

[e-mail] (Michael Scott Baldwin) writes:

> {I don't mean to horse a dead beat, but I do have a telecom-related
> story about bringing cellular phones on planes...}

> The strangest time, however, was when I gave it to the guard when it
> was turned off.  She *asked me* to turn it on for her!  I asked why,
> and she just said "turn it on please".  Once it bleeped and blinked
> for her, she was satisfied. I guess she was convinced that it wasn't
> one of those "fake" phones that you can stash 50 tons of cocaine in or
> something.  I'm waiting for the day they yank the battery off...

I was asked to put my pager thru the x-ray machine at SFO one time.
When I asked the supervisor why they did this he showed me the book
they keep of bulletins. There was a picture of an old large pager with
a small gun stashed inside. Now I'm always happy to demo my phone,
camera, two-way, whatever so they are happy. Most of the time when I
hand them my UHF two-way (not a ham unit, a GMRS radio) and my medic
pouch they don't look at much of anything else I have. They hardly
look at the knife and letherman in the pouch. The one lady security
person who asked questions wanted to get one like it for her paramedic
husband.


Marty 'The Droid' Brenneis
Industrial Magician   droid@well

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

From: Mark J Elkins <olsa99!mje99![e-mail]>
Subject: Computerised Phone Accountant
Date: 21 May 91 19:06:53 GMT
Organization: Mark's Machine (Working for Olivetti Africa)


I asked for information on this before.  I received two replies but
can't get back to one of the authors.  I'm looking for contact info on
something called  "Mitel Smart-1 Dialer".  Its meant to be able to
monitor four lines and provide ASCII data (via RS232??)

I need a non-800 number - or Postal (or e-mail :-) address.

If anyone has expearence on this (or similar) device - please mail me
and let me know.


Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Africa
UUCP: {uunet,olgb1,olnl1}!olsa99!mje (Mark Elkins)
LKINS  [e-mail] (Postmaster) Tel: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (MICHELS DAVID)
Subject: Applied Computing Devices
Originator: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 22 May 1991 04:49:29 GMT


I'm interested in a network management box made by ACD (Applied
Computing Devices). It claims to be a all-in-one network management
box that can talk to just about every major type of device out there.

I would like to know if anyone has any experience with this company
and "solution".


Thanks,

Dave Michels

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada To Offer Audible Message Waiting Indication
Date: 19 May 91  00:22:34


AWMI, also known as "stutter" dial tone, was previously limited to
Centrex customers. Along with visual message waiting indication (VMWI,
a new service for voice mail), it will be available to third-party
voice mail services, but the message from the Canadian government's
Department of Communications doesn't explicitly say so.

This information is taken from Bulletin 91-04 of the Terminal
Attachment Program Advisory Committee (TAPAC).

Technical specifications of these interfaces are given in the
following Bell Canada documents:

Interface Document ID-0008, March 1991: "Visual Message Waiting
Indication (VMWI) Terminal-to-Network Interface"

Interface Document ID-0009, March 1991: "Audible Message Waiting
Indication (AMWI) Terminal-to-Network Interface"

Specifications can be obtained from:
    Bell Canada
    Attn: Diane Morris
    220 Laurier Avenue West, Room 1650
    Ottawa, Ontario  K1G 3J4
    Telephone [phone]

Here is the rest of the TAPAC bulletin:

 To: All DOC Terminal Equipment Certificate Holders, DOC Approved
Testing Facilities and Members of TAPAC

The purpose of this bulletin is to advise terminal provides of a
potential opportunity to generate new terminal business.

Disclosure Notice: The Terminal-to-Network Interface for Visual
Message Waiting Indication (VMWI)

Bell Canada has advised TAPAC that a Technology Trial is planned for
VMWI in the near future. This feature will be offered as an option to
residential and business subscribers. The preliminary Interface
Document describing the terminal-to-network interface used to VMWI is
available to all interested parties. The introduction of tariffed
services is planned for the last quarter of 1991.

In-band modem transmission of VMWI commands indicates the presence or
absence of voice messages in the subscriber's voice message mail box.

Information Notice: The Terminal-to-Network Interface for Audible
Message Waiting Information (AMWI).

Bell Canada is making available the existing AMWI signal specification
used in conjunction with Voice Messaging Systems.  This feature,
previously limited to Centrex customers, will now be offered as an
option to residential and business subscribers. The Interface Document
describing the AMWI signal is available to all interested parties.
Tariffed service is planned for introduction in the last quarter 1991.

The AWMI signal is generated by periodic interruption of the standard
dial tine by the Central Office. This indicates to AMWI subscribers
that a message is present in their voice mail box.


Nigel Allen    [e-mail]

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

From: Alan Gilbertson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Troubleshooting Failed Calls From a PBX
Date: 17 May 91  00:03:07


Forwarded from FidoNet's MDF echo by Nigel Allen ([e-mail])]

A piece of troubleshooting just completed here may be relevant for
other telecomm managers who run into this situation: suddenly a
percentage of calls from a PBX to local telco CO (as opposed to calls
routed direct to an IXC) return "Your call cannot be completed as
dialed" or "Your long distance company cannot complete your call as
dialed" (when the number dialed was a local call.

At least some cases, adding CLASS services eats up processor time and
increases the time between a ground flash acknowledgement to the PBX
and the attachment of DTMF receiver/register in the CO.  If the PBX
begins sending digits too soon, the CO can miss the first one or two.

I had never seen this particular problem until relatively recently,
when users began reporting a high percentage of apparent misdials,
particularly during high local traffic periods.  The start of the
problem coincided with the introduction by the LEC (GTE in this case,
using a GTD5 end office) of some new CLASS services.

Increasing the pre-dial delay on outpulsing from the PBX completely
handles this, needless to say, but it was a mystery for a week or so
until we were able to correlate the dates the trouble began and the
introduction of the CLASS services.


Alan

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

From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: 540 and Other Booby Traps: Info Not Available
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 22 May 91 21:59:31 GMT


Since several people have claimed that any person mature enough to use
a phone w/o a keeper should be aware of these booby trap, or
letterbomb, exchanges, I tried to find out more information about
them.

1. (As I mentioned before) the phone book is silent, except about 976
costing $0.35.

2. I called NyTel again.  They gave me the following list: area codes
700 and 900; exchanges 394, 540, 550, 970, & 976.

i) How many of you people, who said everyone has the obligation to
know this, knew about 394?

ii) The NyTel rep was unaware that these are normal exchanges in some
area codes, such as 540 being used in Morristown, NJ, which someone
mentioned.  She offered to block them, but that would presumably block
normal calls also.

iii) She stated that I knew more about this than she did, and the only
place I might possibly get more info was to call the long distance
carrier.

3. AT&T said that they knew nothing about this and told me to try NyTel.

4. I tried MCI for fun.  They'd never heard of this and didn't know
where to look.

5. The NYS Public Service Commission was totally useless.

6. Now I suppose if I complained to NyTel enough they'd find someone
who knew, but I've already done much more than most people would, and
I still don't know what are the dangerous (area code, exchange) pairs.

Natural justice would indicate that I shouldn't have to pay for
calling a number that no one will tell me in advance is dangerous.  Of
course, that has no bearing on how the phone companies actually
operate.


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


[Moderator's Note: I'd suggest since MCI knew nothing about this,
that folks begin making their 540 calls via MCI, ha-ha ... or Sprint.
Let *them* get stuck with the humongous charge from NY Tel.  Before
long they'd learn, and begin intercepting 540 like they do 976.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 21 May 91 23:35:59 CDT
From: "David A. Neal" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Personal 800 Numbers


On the thread of personal 800's, I'd just like to point out that Cable
and Wireless' 800 numbers are programmable via the same number you
dial to complete calls. For security, they use a total of 12 digits,
four are duplicated but I think can be changed (also online). There is
*no* charge for changing the number to which your 800 number is
forwarded, and I change mine at least twice a day.

C&W claims it may take as long as 15 minute for the change to take
place, but I've never had it take more than two minutes when I've
tried it.

A friend of mine called me from Austin today on the 800 number and I
didn't even know he was out of town... :-)

Just a shameless plug from a happy customer. I don't get anything if
you sign up with C&W and I don't work for them.

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

Date: Wed, 22 May 91 16:45 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: IntraLATA Competition


Seeing the handwriting on the wall, Pac*Bell has some contingency
plans for the day that intraLATA toll traffic competition is allowed.
The public proposal is that a three-digit code be required for each
and every call to be routed over an alternate carrier (no pre-
subscription), but what is not talked about is the other shoe that
will create a large thud.

In order to cream the competition, Pac*Bell will suddenly lower its
toll rates by about twenty percent. This will turn the market on its
ear, particularly in how it relates to resellers such as Centex,
BizTel, and others. In essence, these people will be forced out of
business. It will also raise the residential rate by about six percent
to gain a little margin there. Currently, residence service is priced
at right around cost (no, Virginia, Pac*Bell does not LOSE money on
residence service, regardless of the propaganda). The revenue lost on
intraLATA would be partially recovered in this manner.

My own position is that since there are ways to, even now, circumvent
Pac*Bell's monopoly on intraLATA toll traffic, I would prefer the
status quo. Competition in the intraLATA toll market would simply make
it easier for the less creative among us at a substantial cost to the
residence user, no?


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

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

From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Line Identification Number Wanted
Date: Wed 23 May 1990  00:00:00 GMT


Does anyone know the line identification number for South Central
Bell?  I think the proper name may be ANI test number. Also, does it
vary from CO to CO and does it have a definite format (ie N11, which
many REA sub'd CO use).

Thanks in advance,


Patton Turner KB4GRZ   internet: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #390
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08396;
          24 May 91 23:58 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01823;
          24 May 91 22:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22286;
          24 May 91 21:27 CDT
Date:     Fri, 24 May 91 20:46:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #391
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 24 May 91 20:46:49 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 391

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Some Comments on History of AIOD [Larry Lippman]
    Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent [Robert Dinse]
    NYNEX Pops the MPOP [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    ONA Offers New Horizons for Telesleaze [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Handheld >-> Transportable Cellular Wanted [Marty Brenneis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Some Comments on History of AIOD
Date: 23 May 91 00:41:21 EDT (Thu)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Fred R. Goldstein) writes:

> Story behind the story: Back in the olden days (when steppers were
> used), the telco used to provide two kinds of Centrex.  Centrex-CO
> used CO switches; that's what we have today.  Centrex-CU put a switch
> (usually a Bell 701 stepper!) on customer premises and delivered a
> similar service.

> Centrex-CU did deliver your extension number for billing purposes,
> 911, etc.  (If they had 911 back then!)  This was done via a data link
> from the switch to the CO, reporting which extension had seized which
> trunk.

> When the stepper went away, this service was made available to newer
> PBX users, under the name "Automatic Identified Outward Dialing"
> (AIOD).  Many PBXs of the day, such as Dimension, supported it.  BUT
> it was frightfully expensive, something like $3/month/extension.
> Since it didn't bill for WATS or FX, few customers found it useful.

    AIOD first became available in 1966.  There were two common
versions of AIOD: the original "A1" version, and the smaller "A2"
version.  An AIOD implementation contained both apparatus in the CO
and apparatus at the PBX site.

    The Western Electric AIOD apparatus utilized electronic
circuitry that was unique and was largely based upon "magnetic core
logic".  Individual magnetic cores (i.e., not in a matrix like
computer core memory) driven by transistors not only provided register
storage, but were used to create AND, OR and other logic gates using
multiple windings on a given core.  Transistor relay drivers provided
interfaces to switching apparatus.

    Ferrods were used as trunk scanning elements in the CO portion
of the AIOD apparatus; the CO portion was much more complex than the
PBX portion.  The CO apparatus also used magnetostrictive delay lines
as memory elements to build data frames for transmission to the CAMA
interface.

    AIOD for the 701-series PABX also required the installation of
ANI.  The PABX ANI was similar to the older ANI B used with SxS CO's,
but was a separate and distinct design for the 701.

    The smaller AIOD A2 apparatus was also available for the WECo
757A wire-spring relay/crossbar PABX.  Believe it or not, there was
Centrex-CU implemented on the 757 -- although very few installations
were made.

    The 101 ESS was also used for Centrex-CU (sometimes referred
to as Centrex-CE).  The 101 ESS had internal capability for AIOD
without requiring the hardware described above.

    AIOD was available for the 770 and 812 PABX's, but was short
lived as soon as Dimension became available around 1975.  The simple
and much more practicable alternative to AIOD on the Dimension was
SMDR.

> When 1983 came (when the FCC ordered all PBXs detariffed; this had
> noth ing to do with divestiture!), the last few remaining Centrex-CU
> systems were handed over to AT&T and repriced as PBXs.  The
> previously-bundled trunks, including both DID and AIOD, went under
> telco tariffs.  The total price went WAY up.

    I suspect that AIOD is long dead.  When the Bell System began
implementation of AMARC in the later 1970's, I believe that no AIOD
interface (direct or through a BDT) existed, and AIOD quickly became
an orphan.

> I'm not sure if modern PBXs even support AIOD.

    I don't believe there was ever any non-WECo apparatus that
provided an AIOD interface.  The AIOD PBX --> CO data link was, um,
also "unique".  It used an FSK modem for serial data communication
with mark and space frequencies of 1150 and 1850 Hz (it ain't even
202-compatible!).  The transmission rate was 735.3 bits/sec - real
common, huh? :-)  Data was sent in 41-bit words (1 start bit, 20 bits
to encode 4-digit trunk number, and 20 bits to encode 4-digit station
number).


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] (Robert Dinse)
Subject: Re: Hayes Wins Damages on its Command Set Patent
Date: 23 May 91 03:16:55 GMT
Organization: ESKIMO NORTH [phone] SEATTLE WA.


     Several points:

     Regarding XON/XOFF - When is the last time you tried to use this
with UUCP? If you have, then you would know why that is not a workable
scheme.  Indeed, when you don't know what data is going to be
transmitted over a link, there is no way to guarantee any particular
stream of data will be unique.

     In regards to the old schemes that used a seperate dialer, with
two serial ports, or if you rely on control lines to signal an escape
to command mode, yes then there are alternatives. But there are
computers that have neither of those options available to them (mostly
low end machines).

     Of the schemes that did allow escape from data mode to command
mode with a single port, with no control line intervention, and
without break, only using ASCII data, because that is all some systems
can generate, what other options are available?

     The other problem I have with Hayes is philosophical. It's one
thing to patent a paper clip, it's quite another to patent >ANY<
method of binding loose papers together.

     If Hayes had patented say using a pause of some defined value,
followed specifically by '+++' followed by another pause that would be
one thing, quite different from patenting ANY time delay followed by
ANY unique character string followed by another time delay. Also, if
Hayes had enforced this from the beginning >BEFORE< it had become an
accepted standard I'd have different feelings about it. But I feel
waiting until now, until everybody is using it is slimey at best.

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 91 08:18 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NYNEX Pops the MPOP


        Planners and operators of industrial-strength data networks
with circuits terminating in the seven-state NYNEX area will soon
discover, if they have not, that NYNEX told the Interexchange carriers
(IECs) that they will no longer accept orders for inside wiring from
IECs effective with orders bernig due dates after May 24.

        NYNEX advised the IECs, but not anyone else in any effective
way, that effective with that date, any inside wire desired by
customers of IECs must be ordered from NYNEX "locally."  ...
apparently with each and every local NYNEX inside wire sales point ...
and by implication, thus some entity with an established business
relation with NYNEX.  This would mean that whoever is the entity on
the premises one needs inside wire placed in apparently must place the
order.  I've drawn this implication because it's doubtful a LEC wants
to take miscellaneous orders to place wires in premises from almost
anyone, anywhere.

        The underlying phraseology behind this is that NYNEX intends
to provide connectivity on dedicated interstate circits only to the
Minimum Point of Penetration of a customer location.  The implication
drawn is that one must contract locally for whatever connectivity is
needed from the MPOP to where one wants signals delivered.

        The MPOP concept is one fraught with problems, for MPOPs of a
premises can range from a protector on a pole on the street (even in a
metropolis) to the basement or some intermediate floor of a skyscraper
to the edge of a multi-acre industrial park. (Indeed, one early MPOP
story in a western state had the MPOP located 26 miles from the Park
Headquarters!)

        The approximately 1400 OTHER LECs in the U.S. routinely take
orders from the IEC's for premises connectivity and accomplish
whatever is needed in premises wiring to deliver signals to the place
in the premises specified.  In doing so, they place the Channel
Interface Unit (commonly called an 829 CIU) in close proximity to the
location of the using function, and the IEC uses remotely-controllable
functionality in the "829" to perform operational maintenance testing
of the circuit directly to the using location on the premises.

        No small part of this is to avoid a an operational jeopardy to
the customers of the IEC, because should they order the "dispatch" of
LEC field repair people to the premises to investigate a suspected
problem, the LEC reserves the right to apply a "maintenance of
service" charge that typically runs $125 and up (often UP) in case the
LEC decides "no trouble found."  (And, we all know how magically local
wire trouble often disappears about the time a repairman arrives to
declare, "No trouble found!")

        My discovery of this was to get only verbal notice from an
AT&T employee who was handed the "hot potato" on May 22.  I have two
outstanding orders in NYNEX' seven-state territory and was essentially
told that AT&T couldn't do anything about it; that I'd have to make
alternate arrangements to get connectivity from WHEREVER the MPOP
might be in buildings near Boston and on Long Island for circuits that
AT&T will have ready there in late May and early June.  (Plus, of
course, figuring out what to do about all futures.)

        I hope this description shows that a.) NYNEX wants a deal in
which interstate users must be willing to give them a blank check for
whatever in NYNEX' sole judgement, connectivity to a location in a
building should cost (as a one-time charge), and b.) to locate the
last point of maintenance testability (the 829) in places that can
range up to miles from the MPOP, while placing the IEC's customer at
total risk of protracted service outage and unwarranted "maintenance
of service" charges .  Users and planners of interstate WANs can
probably recognize the ways in which unwarranted problems and expense
can arise from what NYNEX has popped on us with its action.

        This seems to me to be a misuse of NYNEX' monopoly control of
local connectivity across seven states in at least two ways.  First,
refusal to cooperate with IECs in providing connectivity to the using
location on premises must be a restraint of interstate commerce in
connection with providing connectivity for unless the user agrees to
unspecified charges.

Second, placement of the maintenance device in the sole judgement of
NYNEX at whatever point in the circuit it deems similarly restrans
maintaining that connectivity in a timely and inexpensive fashion.

        AT&T does not come off looking well in this matter for its
limp-wristed way of handling it or notifying AT&T's customers, either.
(I will say no IEC will probably do any better, though.  But, AT&T
likes to imply it is willing to be held to a higher standard than the
other IEC's.)

        Among actions I contemplate: Informal complaints to the FCC
and the state regulators of each NYNEX company (NY Telephone, New
England Telephone and Southern New England Telephone), plus a letter
of complaint to Mr.  Robert Allen at AT&T, just so he remembers what
his bread-and-butter business is.  I'll compose those after I get over
the added work I will have recovering from this sudden and arbitrary
change by NYNEX.

        Hopefully, other readers in this forum will get some better
notice than I got of NYNEX' unpleasant surprise.  If anyone has any
helpful additions to thought or action, I'll appreciate hearing them.



[Moderator's Note: Mr. Robert Allen no longer has any say-so over
what NYNEX wishes to do. And although you may call them limp-wristed
for their handling of this, you must realize that whenver AT&T does
attempt to push the LEC's one way or another, there is always someone
waiting in the wings to run crying to the Judge about AT&T being too
involved with the LECs. So this time, AT&T is handling the whole
thing at arm's length.    PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 91 09:23 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ONA Offers New Horizons for Telesleaze


        OK, Telesleaze fans.  Here's a really marvelous way that
opening telecommunications to competition by getting into the FCC's
mandated Open Network Architecture will brighten and benefit all our
lives. (Why is it that the worst seems to come out first?)

        It seems someone has a patent to inject advertising messages
in the silent intervals between audible ringing signals.  Worse yet,
the RBOCs seem to be all agog at this marvelous new thought about
getting revenue out of otherwise "dead air time!"

        Communications attorney Vic Toth of Reston, VA has reported
that a firm he describes as creators of a "home spun invention from a
backyard in Kansas" called Phone Spots, Inc. has the LECs "real hot"
over the idea as they meet in a group called the IILC discussing ways
and means to provide "enhancements" to local exchange switching by
creating access points in the LEC exchange.

        Toth's report indicates that telephone consumers might be
compensated for enduring this form of telesleaze by receiving a
discount on their local service bills or being given free local
payphone calls. (Of course, so far only the "techies" are talking.
The commercial office of the LECs has yet to be heard from.  From
there, I expect to hear some tripe that no, there's no kickback to
sufferers; rather, PUC permission to inflict ringing-interval
telesleaze as a "means to defer rate increases" -- for at least a
month -- will be their rationale. It's Telco Hymn number 132 for those
who want to look up the words in the LEC Hymnal.)

        Well, I guess we can anticipate a whole raft of free market
opportunities to arise from this:

   *Advertising agencies are probably already hiring vice presidents
    to place spots and research audiences in this whole new market
    segment.

   *Writers of slogans as once used on Burma-Shave signs along U.S.
    highways may once again find employment (as they will have to
    fit advertising into four-second slots betweem two-second
    audible ringing signals).

   *Hardware manufacturers can forecast their market of 14,000
    units to sell (this being the number of central offices in the
    U.S., as I recall).

   *Sellers of 900 rip-offs will have a far more economical and
    pervasive means to entice you into further telephone scams
    (Just think of listening to a 900 pitch EVERY time you place
    a call!)

   *LECs will derive yet a tertiary revenue source by tariffing a
    monthly charge to *stop* the telesleaze on your order (Do we have
    any *7n codes left for an "ad blocking" option?).

    ....and so on. The mind boggles, once the nausea subsides.

        I bet our readers at Rolling Meadows are already working on
this marvelous enhancement to our lives and well-being. However, the
STP Rule ("Sorry, That's Proprietary") probably applies, so they can't
comment. I'll speak for them:

        Bleeeecchhh!

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 91 09:16:33 PDT
From: Marty the Droid <[e-mail]>
Subject: Handheld >-> Transportable Cellular Wanted


I am looking for a cellphone handheld that will plug into a
transportable unit for portable/mobile operation.

We have several execs who travel to many different locations. In some
of these locations a handheld will work fine, in some there is the
need for a full 3W radio. We need a system where they can have a
transportable unit that can live in the car here at home, can be
removed and schlepped on a trip in a carry bag, and can have the
handheld disconnected for those times when it works OK.

What is out there that does this???? (Big 'M' are you listening?)


Marty 'The Droid' Brenneis   uupsi![e-mail]  415-258-2105

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #391
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11281;
          25 May 91 1:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17331;
          24 May 91 23:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01823;
          24 May 91 22:33 CDT
Date:     Fri, 24 May 91 21:48:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #392
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 24 May 91 21:48:23 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 392

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Editorial on CLASS Features [Creative Loafing, via Toby Nixon]
    Marconi, Cape Cod Phones, and Spark Gaps [Jack Winslade]
    MCI Telemarketers Speak Chinese! [David Lemson]
    Higdon vs. Thrifty Tel on Radio Talk Show [John Higdon]
    International Calling to 800 Numbers [Bryan Montgomery]
    C&P Telephone "Anti-Slam" Flag and Amazing Service [Bob Stratton]
    Information Needed About OKI 692 [Bob Stratton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Creative Loafing Editorial on CLASS Features
Date: 23 May 91 17:14:20 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


I thought you all might find the attached editorial interesting, since
it discusses CLASS features from the perspective of a non-technie
journalist.  Any typos are my fault.

If you wish to reply, Creative Loafing's fax number is [phone].


Toby

                                 -----

(From "Creative Loafing", Atlanta's "alternative weekly" newspaper,
18 May 1991, pg. 23, "Creative Thinking" [editorials] section).

"BIG MA IS WATCHING"
by C. B. Hackworth (editor)

               "Watson, come here; I want you."
               -- Alexander Graham Bell, March 10, 1876

    I'm not sure if anyone truly realizes it yet -- or maybe
nobody cares -- but after more than two centuries, the American way of
life is coming to an end.

    Blame technology, greed and apathy.

    In the beginning (and exactly when that was is very difficult
to pinpoint), the change was slow and subtle enough so as to be almost
undetectable.  Now, however, it is proceeding with such astonishing
speed and open brazenness that the enormity of it all is too much to
grasp as anything other than science fiction or wild conspiracy
theory.

    Believing that, and ignoring the truth, may provide a few more
nights of undisturbed sleep.  But one morning in the very near future,
you will wake to find that the rights you thought you had aren't worth
the parchment they're written on.

    Consider, just for example, the right to privacy.

    We probably should have started to wonder about ourselves when
we decided that it was acceptable to have to pee into a cup in order
to earn a living.  Or when we came to tolerate illegal searches and
seizures by law enforcement as an unfortunate but necessary step in
the war against drugs.  Or when we began to let ourselves be
identified by Social Security number even when applying for a card to
rent videotapes at a Turtle's.

    Currently, one of the greatest threats is hidden in plain
sight: the telephone.

    An ever-increasing offering of new "services" by the phone
company has reduced the term "invasion of privacy" to something of an
oxymoron.  Thanks to an insidious but brilliant marketing campaign
based on Hitler's "big lie" technique, the public accepts, without
question, Touchstar and other new options as _conveniences_, when, in
fact, they are the exact opposite.

    Back when good old Alexander Graham Bell started working on
the idea of transmitting speech by electric waves, I somehow don't
think he had "Call Waiting" in mind.

    While undoubtedly one of the rudest developments in the
history of mankind, "Call Waiting" is an innocuous annoyance, like
that stupid half-page of ads the {Atlanta Journal-Constitution} wraps
around the Sunday funnies.  Not so some of the other Touchstar
services.

    Take "Call Return," which enables you to punch in a star and
(appropriately enough) the number 69 in order to ring the telephone
from which the last call to you originated.

    Most of the people who order this service are obsessive about
using it when somebody calls them and hangs up.  They _never_ give up.

    Say your pocket pager (read: electronic leash) goes off and
you don't recognize the number.  You call it and immediately recognize
the voice on the other end of the line as your boss, who you suspect
almost certainly wants you to stop what you're doing and head straight
to the office, so you hang up.  Or, maybe you want to leave a message
on your girlfriend's answering machine that you won't be able to keep
a date, but it turns out she's at home and you hang up because you
don't really want to _tell_ her.

    You know these people have "Call Return" and it will be a
matter of seconds before the phone you just hung up starts to ring.
You lunge for your _own_ answering machine, to cut it off before your
greeting can be heard.  Then, you take the receiver off the hook and
begin to panic, knowing that your boss or girlfriend is probably smart
enough to call _your_ number to see if it _just happens_ to be busy,
too.

    OK, here's what you do, even though it's illegal:

    Immediately use "Call Forward" to transfer all your calls to
some other number.  When the person you've hung up on uses their "Call
Return," you'll hear a sort of half-ring, but they'll reach the other
party. (This works best if you forward the call to someone else they
know or a body shop selected at random from the Yellow Pages.)  You
then cancel the "Call Forward," returning your service to normal while
your boss or girlfriend bless someone else out for hanging up on them.

    That worked just fine until "Caller ID" came along.

    Already available in the Atlanta area, "Caller ID" displays
the number of the telephone from which a call is originating.  Hang up
on a boss or girlfriend with "Caller ID," and you're screwed.  They
know it's you.

    Worse, forget all about trying to call from a bar to tell your
wife that you're at the office working late -- or, heaven forbid, from
the apartment of some _other woman_.

    And still worse, don't even _think_ of calling _anyone_ you
don't want to have your number.  It makes no difference that you're
paying Southern Bell for an unlisted "private" number.

    Presumably, the phone company will soon come out with yet
another new service to circumvent "Caller ID" by _preventing_ your
number from showing up on the little screen.

    Then they'll develop something _else_ to counteract _that_.

    It's a protection racket, when you get right down to it.

    Southern Bell is playing both sides, catering both to those
who wish to intrude and those who wish to avoid intrusion.

    The right to privacy?  That's one option the phone company
isn't offering at _any_ price.

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 91 19:20:42 CST
From: Jack Winslade <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Marconi, Cape Cod Phones, and Spark Gaps


In a recent message, Mike Riddle (mikee@ivgate) writes:

> Historic interlude.  If I remember correctly, Marconi's original
> station on Cape Cod was a VLF installation.)

I believe that Marconi's original transmitter would have blanketed the
spectrum from VLF to VHF, so I guess you're correct.  ;-)

 From what I can remember, Marconi's rig was something like a huge
mechanical spark-gap interrupter driving a tuned circuit (LC tank)
that was supposed to be resonant at a couple of hundred kHz.  In
actuality, it would put out pulses of energy more or less at the
resonant frequency of the tank, with harmonics extending up in the
direction of blue light.  ;-) On a spectrum analyzer, it probably
would look like 'grass' over much of the lf-hf spectrum.

If I remember correctly, yes, it was Cape Caaawd, right outside the
town of Truro on the Lower Cape.  I used to vacation in that area in
the 70's.  Old Strowger types would have had a field day playing with
some of the funky dial systems that were out there at that time.

One bit of trivia that will interest some readers is what I remember
out in Provincetown, at the very tip of the cape.  Provincetown had
the only 5-crossbar installation in the area, but what was stranger
was that many (I do not remember if all) pay phones out there were on
the 3xxx level.  I remember checking quite a few of them and most that
I remember were 3xxx.  Now, imagine this, try to explain to your
friends why in the heck at every pay phone you stare at it, swing the
handset to read the number, but do not do anything else, like make a
call.  (That was considered a bit strange, even for P'town. <big
grin>)

For those of you who think that spark-gap RF generators are all gone,
they are very much alive and well in one field, although decreasing in
number.  Spark-gap RF electrosurgery generators are preferred over
tube or solid-state units by some physicians.  There are many Birtcher
and Burdick units still in service.  The surgeons say they get a
better coagulating (hemostasis) action with the 'real' spark RF
generators than with the newer ones, even those that simulate the
spark waveform with added harmonics.

Well, gang, I'm afraid that's all of the trivia for today. ;-) We now
return you to the Tale of Randy, COCOTs and 900 sleaze.


Good Day!         JSW

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Telemarketers Speak Chinese!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 24 May 1991 16:55:00 GMT


I was at my girlfriend's apartment last night, and one of her
roommates (whose name the phone is in), who is Chinese, got a call
from a telemarketer who first asked, in Cantonese, "Do you speak
Cantonese?"  She understood that well enough to say "No."  The
telemarketer then went on in Chinese asking if she wanted to switch to
MCI!!!

Boy, what kind of list did they get that number off of?


David Lemson   University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant
Internet : [e-mail]         UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 91 02:00 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Higdon vs. Thrifty Tel on Radio Talk Show


A southern California long distance reseller has snagged some press
lately through its unorthodox handling of "hackers". From an
unidentified industry rag:

"By simply turning a tariff into a product, Anaheim, California-based
Thrifty Tel has been raking in the dough, while collecting about a ton
of computer equipment to boot. 'All you have to do is detail in your
filing with your state public utility commission what your needs are,'
says Vice President Rebecca Bigley. 'And once its approved, it becomes
an indisputable receivable.'"

The tariffs call for charging "hackers" $2,880 per code or line per
day; a $3,000 set up fee per line, plus some unspecified labor costs.
In essence, Thrifty Tel makes more money off "hackers" than of
legitimate customers. Does this all seem a little shady to you?

Well, if so, readers in the Los Angeles area might want to tune in KFI
(640 AM) from 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM next Tuesday, May 28. Ms. Bigley will
be the guest. What Ms. Bigley does not know yet is that yours truly
has been invited as an in-studio guest to make sure that not too much
BS flows from her about her efforts. I have read her tariff filing and
have a number of questions about her motives.

I promise not to flame her too badly. But I would urge anyone
interested to listen and call in if so moved (it IS a call-in show).
But now I need to book a flight to LA -- yuuch....


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


[Moderator's Note: Please John! I strongly urge you to make a tape of
the show and transcribe some excerpts for us here. It should make a
very fascinating issue.  Won't you please consider it?  Thanks.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 91 10:36:25 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: International Calling to 800 Numbers


Hello there,

A quickie:  Whilst I was driving home last night, this talk about giving
PIN's over the phone with account numbers, what do you do if you are
making a calling card call from a rotary dial or overseas ?

Anyway, I was really posting regards 800 numbers from abroad, I have
only really found two ways around the problem, neither really all that
user friendly:

1) To call a switchboard, company, university, etc and ask them to
dial for you - you can get some strange responses from the other end,
but it does work occasionally!

2) You can use ATT/MCI Call America type schemes but you need an
account with them and I'm not sure what they charge for this service.
I think it is the same as calling a regular US number with their
respective schemes.

Whilst I'm here a quick plug, is there anyone out there looking for an
English Electrical & Electronic degree Engineer for employment /
sponsorship from Summer '92. I'll be happy for any leads or to supply
further details.

Cheers,


Bryan Montgomery


[Moderator's Note: I believe the way this is handled by AT&T in their
'USA Direct' program is you pay for a call to the International
Operating Center in Pennsylvania, then an 800 call is dialed out from
a line there.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 91 11:12:28 EDT
From: Bob Stratton <[e-mail]>
Subject: C&P Telephone "Anti-Slam" Flag and Amazing Service
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I was recently ordering service from C&P Telephone (A Bell Atlantic
company) of Maryland, and I was repeatedly stunned to find what I
consider to be exceptionally accomodating service -- has anyone else
noticed this change from RBOCs??

When I requested a old number, I was told that the NNX was "frozen --
probably due to equipment upgrades".  Out of curiosity, I asked what
kind of switch was there now, and the person immediately told me,
which shocked me, having gone through hell when trying to get this
info on past occasions.

I expressed disappointment at being unable to get the number I wanted,
and asked for her "second level" (supervisor). She put me on hold,
came back once to tell me that her second level had referred her to a
particular department (the frame foreman?), and came back to tell me
that she had indeed secured the number I requested.

To compound the shock, she then said: "If there's something you really
want, that's the right way to handle it."

When I placed the original order, I requested that no changes to the
LD carrier selection be made without written authorization. I had to
make a few changes the day after that (before the service was turned
on), and I asked for confirmation that this restriction was entered.

The order-taker blew me away when she informed me that there was a
special flag that specifically restricts "mechanized" changes to
accounts.  She even read me an excerpt from the manual, which states
something to the effect of "when this flag is set, any
mechanized/automatic changes to the account will drop out with an
error indication..."

She indicated that there had been a big problem with inadvertent LD
carrier changes, and wasn't sure why, but said that this flag was
specifically created to deal with the issue.

I've also noticed that the order people are taking pains to explicitly
specify which services are optional, and in the case of non-published
numbers, that people with Caller*ID could still get the number.

This does not correspond with my traditional experiences in dealing
with C&P. Is it just Baltimore that's like this, or have all the areas
improved their service? I spent two weeks last winter begging C&P of
Virginia to tell me what kind of switch I was on, and when I could
expect CLASS services. *sigh*


Bob Stratton           |
Stratton Systems Design| SMTP: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Alexandria, Virginia   | PSTN: [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 91 11:49:55 EDT
From: Bob Stratton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed About OKI 692
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I'm about a micron away from placing an order for an OKI Phones 692
Cellular Phone. If anyone out there has good/bad/indifferent
experiences with this phone, please send me your comments.

It seems to fit all of my (rigorous) requirements, including
selectable .6/1.2/3.0W output, complete handset programmability, good
talk time, hands-free, and alphanumeric memory (this wasn't a
requirement, but is useful).

Also, if anyone can tell me if I'm shooting myself in the foot by
buying Bell Atlantic Mobile Systems service as resold by GTE
Mobilecomm, please do. They resell both Cellular One and BAMS service,
which surprised me. Go figure.

Thanks,
Bob Stratton           |
Stratton Systems Design| SMTP: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Alexandria, Virginia   | PSTN: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #392
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14426;
          25 May 91 2:43 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10999;
          25 May 91 0:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac17331;
          24 May 91 23:39 CDT
Date:     Fri, 24 May 91 22:43:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #393
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 24 May 91 22:43:35 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 393

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 9's in Telephone Numbers [Bill Gripp]
    Re: 9's in Telephone Numbers [John Higdon]
    Re: Viewer-Controlled Cable TV [Paul Fuqua]
    Re: Viewer-Controlled Cable TV [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims??? [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims??? [John Higdon]
    Re: A Very Simple ISDN Question [Jonathan M. Zweig]
    Re: Myths About Halon [[e-mail]]
    Re: IDDD Calling [Bruce Oneel]
    Re: Why Are *Telephone Keypads* Built Upside Down [Mark Himelfarb]
    Re: Why Are *Telephone Keypads* Built Upside Down [R. Kevin Oberman]
    Re: Why Are *Telephone Keypads* Built Upside Down [Brian Kantor]
    Re: It Doesn't Need to be a COCOT to Burn You [Robert E. Zabloudil]
    Re: 800-800 Prefix [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bill Gripp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 9's in Telephone Numbers
Reply-To: Bill Gripp <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bank of New York
Date: Wed, 22 May 91 13:58:02 GMT


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

> Incidentally, one of the exchanges was 991.  At that time, I believe,
> exchanges ending in 1 were uncommon.

Funny, the phone my parents have (since 1964) and my uncle had (since
the late '50's) is COlfax1 (261).  My inlaws have had 661 since that
same time frame also.  Guess NJ Bell didn't hear you shouldn't use
xy1  =8^).


Bill

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 91 02:13 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: 9's in Telephone Numbers


[e-mail] writes:

> What is really strange (off the subject -- sorry Pat), is that any of
> these numbers gets a recording (in fact any unused number in the area)
> that says, "The number you have reached X-X-X X-X-X-X is being checked
> for trouble, please try your call again later."

The number referral machine has several messages that it can deliver.
When a number changes, telco programs the old number associated with a
new number in the machine. When someone calls the old number, the call
is forwarded to the machine with the info specifying the called
number.  The machine then spits out, "The number you have reached,
XXX-XXXX, has been changed. The new number is YYY-YYYY", etc. If a
call is forwarded to the machine indicating a dialed number that is
not in the machine's database, then the generic recording that you
describe above is given.

When ever you hear the "being checked for trouble" message, that
simply means that telco is forwarding the number to the referral
machine and that nothing has yet been programmed in to the machine
itself.


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

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 91  12:38:10 CDT
From: Paul Fuqua <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Viewer-Controlled Cable TV


streeter at athena.cs.uga.edu (Tom Streeter) wrote:

> This from the company [TCI] which is refusing to upgrade any of its
> systems until it knows whether or not the RBOCs will be allowed into
> the business in their own service areas

TCI may want to be in the telephone business -- in Dallas, they've
come up with the cable equivalent of "slamming."  They subscribed all
their customers, no exceptions, to a new premium channel, free for one
month.  The catch is that at the end of the month, the customer has to
call to unsubscribe, or be charged for the following months.


Paul Fuqua                     [e-mail], ti-csl!pf
Texas Instruments Computer Science Center, Dallas, Texas

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Viewer-Controlled Cable TV
Date: 23 May 91 20:51:32 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <[e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


    I hate to interrupt all this talk of Brave New Technology and
what not, but whatever happened to the interactive cable/videotex
service that was pioneered in the 70's in Columbus, OH ?

    How do they say it in French? Plus ce change...


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 1991 13:39:37 EDT
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims???


I also found MCI's service and pricing to be excellent, and was an MCI
customer since divestiture.  THeir sales techniques could use some
work.  I switched when MCI called one night and got permission from my
fifteen-year old son to add some seven-dollar monthly charge to my
bill.  I don't know what the charge was for, and I don't care.  My kid
doesn't pay the bills, and I was furious that they pressured him ito
okaying whatever new program they were selling.


Kath Mullholand      UNH  Durham, NH

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 91 10:31 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: MCI Advertising For New Slamming Victims???


Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]> writes:

> Please folks, when you flame a company at least give some background
> on why you are doing it!

It has all been rehashed before; I thought it was not necessary to
spell it out again:

1. Slow throughput on PEP calls to many locations;

2. Constant billing problems between my many residence lines;

3. Bogus calls that would appear month after month;

4. A "customer service" department that was impossible to deal with;

5. A "calling card" that worked in some places and not others;

6. A distinct attitude that since I was not personally a "Fortune 500"
   company, my complaints and concerns were trivial.

Also mentioned quite clearly before was the fact that if one's usage
and requirements are simple, then many problems will not surface.
Complex service requirements tend to bring out the real trouble. This
is similar to the times when GTE has been on the grill and the
invariable messages show up -- "What are you talking about? I have had
perfectly good service with my single GTE residence line for years!"


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

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

From: "Jonathan M. Zweig" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Very Simple ISDN Question
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: Thu, 23 May 1991 11:41:23 PDT


[e-mail] writes:

  [stuff deleted]

> Bottom line -- ISDN is a pure digital medium. Analog equipment will
> NOT work with it. Period. Answering systems included. I expect two
> products to appear to take care of this. ISDN answering machines and a
> limited ISDN to analog converter. The latter would work well with
> things like answering machines. I don't know about modems. In theory
> they would work, but I suspect that there might be interoperability
> problems.

GACK! This is in direct disagreement with the existence of POTS
interface doohickies I have seen demos of.  Basically a box that has
an RJ11 jack for a vanilla phone, and just enough ISDN smarts in it to
accept dial strings, produce ring voltages, etc.

I admit it's pretty horrid to think of turning my data into analog
screamishness so it can get redigitized a meter away, but it would
certainly work to plug a Trailblazer into the analog jack of a
suitably equipped ISDN phone. 64,000 digitizations per second is
64,000 digitizations, whether my CO's 5ESS switch does it, or the box
on my wall.


Johnny Phone

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

From: Kral <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular 911 Calls
Organization: Digital Research Inc
Date: Thu, 23 May 91 15:58:10 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Marc T. Kaufman) writes:

> Halon is not "deadly".  It is a nice clean chlorofluorocarbon.
> However, it works by displacing the oxygen in the air, which makes
> breathing somewhat more difficult.  A more rational reason for leaving
> is to avoid breathing the smoke from the fire that caused the system
> to activate.

While the guy who pushes the stuff likes to demo it by having it dump
on him in a booth (to demonstrate its safety), I know a computer
operator and a DEC FE who suffered from slightly bruised lungs after
being dumped on.  It comes out with enough force to knock you down, if
you're near a nozzle.


kral * 408/647-6112 *     ...!uunet!drivax!braun * [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 91 09:11:02 EDT
From: Bruce Oneel  <oneel@heawk1>
Subject: Re: IDDD Calling


[Text deleted about number of digits for international dialing.]

My favorite one was in 1983 or so, I was tech support for a computer
site at a US Military base in Germany.  They didn't give the guy
manuals so I called him two or three times a week.  The first time I
did it my supervisor mentioned that I'd have to talk to the "German"
operator.  I thought that Germany was direct dial so I just fired the
number in and got some poor person who didn't speak English.  I told
him I was sorry in German and then was told by my supervisor that this
military base had numbers that were one digit too long for Germany so
AT&T just dropped the extra digit.  So, I called the C&P operator.
No, she said, Germany is direct dial and before I could protest, I was
talking to this poor German again.

Let's try again.  Called the C&P operator, asked for an AT&T operator.
Got one, explained problem, so she direct dialed before I could
protest and now the German was getting a mite pissed.  One more time
 ... local C&P operator, got an AT&T operator, got an AT&T international
operator and explained my situation.  Nope, Germany is direct dial and
so I got a now sputtering German.  Last time, C&P operator, AT&T
operator, AT&T international operator, FDR international operator ...
Correct Number!!!

It only got slightly better each time I did it.


Bruce


[Moderator's Note: You are better off sometimes doing as I do in these
cases: Ask the AT&T operator to connect you to a supervisor at the
IOC. Don't bother explaining anything until you reach that point.  PAT]

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

From: Mark Himelfarb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Are *Telephone Keypads* Built Upside Down
Date: 23 May 91 12:34:43 GMT
Reply-To: Mark Himelfarb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stratus Computer, Hardware Engineering


I seem to recall reading some early-1960's Bell System Technical
Journal articles that addressed the configuration of the 'new' touch
tone keypad.  They had the present keyboard, keyboard with '1 2 3' on
the bottom, even ten buttons as a fixed rotary dial.

The present keypad was found to be the best combination of speed and
accuracy.


Mark Himelfarb
Stratus Computer---------->  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why Are *Telephone Keypads* Built Upside Down
Date: 23 May 91 16:44:56 GMT


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

> What I have always been told, and this is _pure_ folklore with no
> facts to back it up, is that the keypad was originally the same
> as that of a ten key adding machine. People who used these machines
> were so adept at using the keypad that the telephone systems would
> miss digit when the person keyed them too quickly. The upside down
> arrangement was used intentionally to slow people down so that the
> digits could be recognized.

This is the reverse of the true story. Bell Labs did extensive testing
of keypad layouts back before the first Touch-Tone phones were buile
and found that there were far fewer dialing errors from the average
user when the keypad was in the top to bottom order. This is
documented in an old Bell Tech Journal.

I think the typical user was also faster on this arrangement, but I
don't remember for sure. AT&T was concerned with errors since they
cost AT&T $$$.  Remember that the typical telephone user has never
become proficiant with an adding machine keypad. And the number who
were was far smaller in the late 50s when Bell Labs was doing the
research.


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. Especially
anything gnu.

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Are *Telephone Keypads* Built Upside Down
Date: 23 May 91 16:14:28 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


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

> Sounds a lot like the querty keyboard which also (according to
> folklore) was designed to slow people down so they would no jam
> typewriter keys.

As I recall, the then Bell Labs conducted research on the various
configurations for the touch-tone dial, and found that the one
currently used seemed to be the easiest (i.e., fastest with fewest
errors) to use for a reasonable large sample of the general public.  I
recall reading the research results, with the scores for the various
configurations, what must be nearly two decades ago.  If I could
recall the source, I would certainly cite it here, but my memory isn't
that good.

As for the QUERTY keyboard layout, it was a result of laying out the
keyboard for mechanical efficiency -- so that the commonest letter
pairs would be operated from opposite sides of the machine so that the
type bars containing those letters would have the lowest chance to
collide.  If you have ever typed on a true typebar-style mechanical
typewriter, you have undoubtedly had to clear a key jam, so you know
why that is important.  The "speed" myth is debunked in more than a
few of the "urban myth" books, as well as in previous articles in this
group.

Is it that most people feel so frustrated with their lives that they
just automatically tend to believe an explanation that seems most
anti-human, or what?


Brian

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

From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: It Doesn't Need to be a COCOT to Burn You
Date: 23 May 91 16:14:09 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


In article <[e-mail]> telecom-request@lll-winken
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 376, Message 3 of 10

> I recently had an experience with an ATT-defaulted Ohio Bell payphone.
> I was at work and received an urgent message to call home.  I live in
> Columbus (614), but my "home" is in Toledo (419).  So, I pulled out my
> trusty ATT nonsubscriber calling card (thanks for the tip, Pat),
> dialed 0-419-XXX-YYYY, got the "AT&T" announcement, dialed my card
> number, and got connected.  I talked only long enough to find out that
> nothing terrible had happened, then hung up.

> Well, I got my ATT bill yesterday, and it showed a one minute
> call (the call I just described) as costing $1.17!!  My "normal"
> alling-card rate is $0.21 / minute.  I called ATT, and the rep I spoke
> with told me that since it was an Intra-LATA call, Ohio Bell handled
> it, and could charge up to $1.20 per minute.

Something is wrong here.  Ohio does not have that many LATA's, and 614
is one of them.  If you dial outside our area code, it must automatically
be inter-LATA.

Similarly, all of 513 is a LATA (except Cincinnati Bell territory),
all of 419 is a LATA, and 216 has more than one LATA.  I don't have my
phone book in front of me, but I like to study it .. 8^), and I'm sure
that's what it says.

I'd investigate further.


Bob Zabloudil  [e-mail]    Opinions my own, etc.

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 91 9:41:32 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800-800 Prefix


But what is 213-213 used for?  Would it be or not be a number that
would be given out to the public for incoming calls?

The toll free "800" numbers are ALWAYS given out with the area code.

The 212-516 phone I cited recently (at Grand Central Station in New
York) uses a nearby area code as a prefix but is not set up for
incoming calls.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #393
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16126;
          25 May 91 3:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28694;
          25 May 91 2:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10999;
          25 May 91 0:51 CDT
Date:     Fri, 24 May 91 23:46:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #394
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 24 May 91 23:46:37 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 394

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Follow Me Roaming - a Few Corrections [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Modem Isolation Device Needed? [Ken Mandelberg]
    AT&T Announces New Technical Reference 800 Number [Barton F. Bruce]
    Why a Twist in Modular Cables? [Jim Rees]
    Analysis and Comment: 'Booby Trap' Toll Exchanges [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    Re: 540 and Other Booby Traps: Info Not Available [Nickolas Landsberg]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Claus Tondering]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Robert L. Oliver]
    Re: Knowing if You Are Dialing a Toll Call [Carl Moore]
    Re: Knowing if You Are Dialing a Toll Call [Robert L. Oliver]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23-MAY-1991 05:23:16.77
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Follow Me Roaming - a Few Corrections


I just got around to reviewing some of my recent posts about roaming,
as well as Pat's and a few other posts which in part dealt with Follow
Me Roaming. (I think Steve Forette was one of the other people.)

I noticed that when I wrote about FMR, I described it as "flakey" and
slow, that is to say, quite unreliable overall. Yet most of the other
posts described how quickly it worked and that it was indeed QUITE
reliable.

Generally, despite what my posts may have indicated, I too find FMR to
be quite fast and rather reliable. Since GTE took over the FMR system
and moved to Tampa during the summer of 1990, service has become a lot
better. Activations which used to take 30 or more minutes are now
accomplished in less than five, and usually within two minutes.
Deactivations are equally as fast. And generally, if you hit *18 to
invoke FMR, you will not have to do so again as the system rarely
"forgets" to forward your calls anymore. (It would sometimes
acknowledge that a roamer had entered *18, but for one reason or
another not turn FMR on, even hours later.)

The main problem which I have with FMR, and one that I've written to
GTE/FMR (and posted to the Digest) about is post-midnight activations.
FMR deactivates at 12:15AM (or a bit later), local time, in the system
in which one is roaming in. Thus, if I roam in Boston with FMR, on my
GTE/San Francisco account, my calls are no longer forwarded after
9:15PM California time, which is quite inconvenient. Moreover, if you
hit *18 at 12:20AM, or even 1AM, your calls may not be redirected to
you for *THREE HOURS* or more.

To most people, getting calls between 12AM-3AM local time is no big
deal, but to me it is, and thus I am very disappointed with how GTE
handles post-midnight deactivations. Moreover, I see no reason why
they can't re-write the FMR software (or modify it) to allow for FMR
to stay on for a 24-hour period after hitting *18, or for a special
code, *17 (or whatever) so that it won't turn off at 12AM, etc. The
"A" carriers, which have a system analogous to FMR, uses a 24 hour
cycle. As soon as I can utilize the "A"s' system, I'll compare it to
FMR and see which one has better overall service.

Note that post-midnight activation delays may also be a problem in
some systems that don't always "register" a *18 request at the time.
Frequently, I hit *18 in Boston at about 1AM, then go to sleep (well,
I don't bring the phone in the house, but you know ..! :) ). I do this
so the next morning FMR will be up and running, yet this doesn't
always work, and GTE claims that this is also due to the post-midnight
delays. (Yet NYNEX/Boston seems perfectly happy to bill you $4 for
this call, regardless of what happens!)

Overall, thus, FMR is a usable and reliable system as long as you
don't need to use it at night. So posts suggesting that FMR works well
are quite correct.  But after 50+ attempts at activations after
12:15AM in five east coast, two west coast, the Atlanta and the New
Orleans systems, I can say that (at least in those systems) FMR is
very unreliable and generally useless after 12AM.  I keep hoping
something is done to rectify this, but I fear I will just have to use
the "A"s instead. Not a great choice either way.  :(

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused by my previous
characterizations of the FMR system.


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

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

From: Ken Mandelberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modem Isolation Device Needed
Date: 24 May 91 02:22:42 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Dept of Math and CS


When my modem is connected to my phone line, I can hear a hum on
extension phones. The hum appears on extensions not connected to the
modem (as well as one that is connected through the modem). The hum
doesn't effect the modem at all, as far as I can tell.

Is there an isolating device I can put between the modem and phone
line that would isolate the modem (and hum) when the modem is not off
hook.


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: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Announces New Technical Reference 800 Number
Date: 24 May 91 01:28:03 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


The following is part of an AT&T letter dated May 6, 1991:

AT&T's Customer Information Center (CIC) in Indianapolis, Indiana is
pleased to announce the availability of AT&T communications technical
publications through our toll-free number, 1-800-432-6600.

Formerly available through AT&T's Distribution Center in Piscataway,
New Jersey, all Information Publications, Compatibility Bulletins,
Technical References, and Technical Descriptions that are issued by
AT&T are now ready to order form CIC.

A new catalog will be published by AUGUST 1 and can be ordered through
the toll-free number as well. To reserve your copy of the upcoming
catalog, please call 1-800-432-6600 and request item number PUB10000.

We value your patronage and...

It is signed by L Woodard, Documentation Management Director, CIC.
The letterhead's numbers may be of use to those beyond 800 access:

2855 North Franklin Road
Indianapolis, IN 46219-1385
Phone [phone]   Cornet 358-8500   Fax [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Why a Twist in Modular Cables?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan ITD
Date: Thu, 23 May 91 13:51:12 GMT


Can anyone tell me why there is an electrical twist in most (US)
modular cables?

Every ready-made RJ-11 cable I've ever seen has the plugs attached on
the same side of the cable at each end.  This results in an electrical
twist in the cable, so that pin 3 at one end is connected to pin 4 at
the other.  For phone line use this is usually not a problem, but I
just wonder why they don't put the plug on the other way around at one
end, to make a straight cable.

I got to thinking about this recently when I started using these
cables for RS-232.  If you're clever about pin assignments, this twist
can be useful for RS-232.

So is there a reason for it, or is it just manufacturing convenience?

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

Date: Sat, 25 May 91 02:54 GMT
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Analysis and Comment: 'Booby Trap' Toll Exchanges


Wm. Randolph Franklin recently wrote (portions deleted):

> 2. I called NyTel again.  They gave me the following list: area codes
> 700 and 900; exchanges 394, 540, 550, 970, & 976.

> i) How many of you people, who said everyone has the obligation to
> know this, knew about 394?

> 3. AT&T said that they knew nothing about this and told me to try NyTel.

> 4. I tried MCI for fun.  They'd never heard of this and didn't know
> where to look.

The Moderator Noted:

> [Moderator's Note: I'd suggest since MCI knew nothing about this,
> that folks begin making their 540 calls via MCI, ha-ha ... or Sprint.
> Let *them* get stuck with the humongous charge from NY Tel.  Before
> long they'd learn, and begin intercepting 540 like they do 976.   PAT]

I did in fact experiment to see if calls in all of the 212 exchanges
mentioned by Mr. Franklin would be intercepted by LDCs, using the
following five companies: ATT, MCI, US Sprint, Metromedia/ITT, and
Allnet.

I did this by dialing 10xxx-1-212-yyy-9990, where xxx is the carrier
access code and yyy is the toll exchange in question. (I deliberately
ended the phone number with 9990 under the assumption that a phone
number ending with 9990 rarely exists.)  I then listened to the
intercept recording, to see where it was coming from.  If the
recording came from the LDC, it would vary based on the carrier that
was selected, while if the recording came from the NyTel, it would not
vary, regardless of the carrier, so it would be safe to conclude that
the LDC did not intercept the call.

The result: Only Allnet intercepted calls made to 212-394; all the
other LDCs tested allowed the calls.  None of the LDCs allowed calls
to any of the other exchanges mentioned in Mr. Franklin's post, with
the exception of AT&T, which allowed calls to 212-976.  I followed up
on this one by dialing 1-212-976-1212 (which is NYC's Weather Line -- I
have AT&T as my default LD carrier), and the call went through.

Opinion (insert the usual disclaimers here): I hope the situation in
New York doesn't become a trend throughout the country.  It seems to
me that anytime an exchange is used for toll services that is valid
for standard calls somewhere else, it's going to inevitably generate
quite a bit of confusion, both among customers and telephone
companies, and it does appears to be hurting both sides.  We've seen
what can happen to the customer, but what about the long distance
carriers?  They have to keep up with all these non-976 exchanges,
and so far they're only partially successful, but what about later
(when many more exchanges will appear)?  And, of course, the local
telco has to field all the new complaints over unexpected charges.

With all these factors in mind, it seems like there's plenty of
incentive to get a nationwide standard established for local toll
exchanges, such that a given exchange is known across the country as
being either for normal use or for toll services.


Sander J. Rabinowitz | [e-mail] -or- | [phone]
Brentwood, Tenn.     | [e-mail]   |       8-)

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 91 08:49:47 EDT
From: Nickolas Landsberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 540 and Other Booby Traps: Info Not Available
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> Since several people have claimed that any person mature enough to use
> a phone w/o a keeper should be aware of these booby trap, or
> letterbomb, exchanges, I tried to find out more information about
> them.

> 1. (As I mentioned before) the phone book is silent, except about 976
> costing $0.35.

> 2. I called NyTel again.  They gave me the following list: area codes
> 700 and 900; exchanges 394, 540, 550, 970, & 976.

> i) How many of you people, who said everyone has the obligation to
> know this, knew about 394?

Huh?  394?????  When I worked for dear old NYTel (I won't admit how
many years ago) 394 was an "official" exchange (along with 395, 396,
etc.)  In the days when exchanges were pronouncable, this was
"EXchange-4".  Anyone from NYTel know when it happened that the 4
board went to being a toll call?

As an aside, in those days I had craftspeople reporting to me.  I was
"assigned" 394-3825.  The shop-steward claimed it was just a
coincidence that 3825 spelled what it did. :)


Nick Landsberg


[Moderator's Note: 3825 as in "DUCK! Here comes the boss!"   PAT]

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

From: Claus Tondering <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S
Date: Fri, 24 May 1991 06:12:23 GMT


[e-mail] (Andy Behrens) writes:

> # Tone codes (first is ring, second is engaged):
> #  A: double ring, repeated regularly (UK ringing tone)
> #  B: equal length on/off tones - about 1Hz (UK & USA engaged tone)
> #  C: slow equal length on/off tones
> #  D: fast equal length on/off tones - 2Hz to 3Hz
> #  E: tones separated by long pauses (USA ringing tone)
> #  F: long tones separated by short pauses

> 45  BD       Denmark

No! Denmark is ED, not BD.

Claus Tondering
Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark
E-mail: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: And he really should have left the USA out of his
list also, since we have a wide variety of ringing and busy signals,
depending on where you call.  Each little telco has their own it
seems, but gradually they are getting standardized.   PAT]

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

From: "Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
Organization: Rabbit Software Corp.
Date: 24 May 91 21:31:58 GMT


[e-mail] (Rick Broadhead) writes:

> I've also noticed that busy signals and ringing signals can vary
> WITHIN a country.  For instance, in Canada and the United States,
> these tones vary depending on the exchange dialed.  ...

> [Moderator's Note: 'Notes on the Network' is a well-known publication
> which has been mentioned here in the Digest many times. As to the
> difference in ringing/busy signals here in the USA, the difference is
> due purely based on the manufacturer of the equipment used in the
> office in particular. One sounds one way, another some other way.  PAT]

Well, I can understand the slight differences in tones, etc.  But
something rather odd occurred today: I dialed a number in 703, and
instead of receiving the standard U.S. single ring, I received a
non-US double ring.  I realize that the equipment can produce whatever
it wants (indeed, our PBX uses double-ring to indicate outside calls,
but the outside caller still hears the US single ring).  Isn't there
some sort of BellCore standard that says that the CO has to produce a
US single ring?


Robert Oliver
Rabbit Software Corp.        215 993-1152
7 Great Valley Parkway East     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note:  Has anyone noticed that DID numbers into answering
services in the USA now all seem to have their own sort of ring, with
the same single ring, but a different pitch?  I've gotten so I can
tell immediatly when my call is (going to be) picked up by an
answering service to which the called party has forwarded his number.
(Or if the number I dialed is a DID line terminating in an answering
service. Sometimes voice mail DID lines ring that way also.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 91 11:01:32 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Knowing if You Are Dialing a Toll Call


I sent mail directly to Kirk Goins explaining that 215 is running out
of NNX prefixes.  When you have to start using N0X/N1X prefixes, long
distance within your area can no longer be 1 + 7D; you have to use 7D
or (to keep the leading 1 for all long distance) 1 + NPA + 7D.

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

From: "Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Knowing if You Are Dialing a Toll Call
Organization: Rabbit Software Corp.
Date: 24 May 91 21:26:00 GMT


undrground![e-mail] (Kirk Goins) writes:

> As a side note, in the 215 area code you need not (and I think on 1
> Jan 92 you won't be allowed to) dial a "1" to get any number in the
> 215 A/C. The reason stated by Bell Of PA is to FREE up enough
> space/lines/exch anges or somethings until they can upgrade there
> system in future. To me it's not knowing if I'm making a TOLL CALL or
> NOT.  Sounds more like a way to raise my phone bill.

Actually, the old Bell of PA usage of the 1+7D to indicate toll calls
within the 215 area code was a kludge that violated the BellCore North
American Numbering Plan.  Bell of PA has to correct this kludge which
*DOES* free up more numbers (allowing area-code like N1X/N0X
exchanges) and exhaust those before BellCore will allocate a new area
code for a split.


Robert Oliver   Rabbit Software Corp.    215 993-1152
7 Great Valley Parkway East    [e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Mr. Oliver's signature did not say *which city or
state* he is located in -- I didn't truncate it!   :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #394
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20243;
          25 May 91 5:49 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16177;
          25 May 91 4:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14891;
          25 May 91 3:08 CDT
Date:     Sat, 25 May 91 2:22:54 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #395
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 25 May 91 02:22:30 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 395

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings? [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Cheap 9600 bps Modem [R. Kevin Oberman]
    Re: Cheap 9600 bps Modem [S. Spencer Sun]
    Re: Calling US 800-Numbers From New Zealand [Robert L. Oliver]
    Re: Calling US 800-Numbers From New Zealand [Bob Hale]
    Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security [David E. Bernholdt]
    Re: Why Are *Telephone Keypads* Built Upside Down? [Ben Burch]
    Re: 800-800 Prefix [Joseph Stein]
    Are Telco Profits Too Large? [Bryan Montgomery]
    INMARSAT References Wanted [Ken Donow]
    Inside Wiring Questions [John Parsons]
    Re: Answering Machine Modification Needed [Andrew Morely]
    Not Again ?? ! ?? Re: Using Halon in a Data Center [Rob Boudrie]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 25 May 91 0:35:28 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings?


Most readers of telecom who know a little about the fascinating
history of AT&T know that the Western Electric subsidiary was into a
number of things besides strictly telephones, per se, as was the Bell
Labs.

It is still sort of a thrill to watch an old motion picture from the
1930-40 era and see a notation in the credits saying 'sound by Western
Electric' ...  when did they get out of the motion picture sound
business?

But of more interest to me now was Western Electric's involvement in
phonograph records.  It must have been very minimal and limited to the
early days of sound recordings.

Going through my *very old* (1948-49) phonograph records and tapes I
came across "Bach on the Biggest", a recording made of the organ at
the Atlantic City (NJ) Auditorium. It was a 'complimentary/radio
station copy' provided to a station here for promotional purposes, and
the advertising material with it said it was produced "using the
latest and most modern 'sound-capture' techniques of the Western
Electric Company ..." The first 33 rpm records began appearing late in
1948 as I recall.

An accompanying tape was a 'modern reproduction' of a wire recording
(anybody out there remember wire recorders? Of course! I knew some of
you would!) made many years earlier by Western Electric apparently for
promotional purposes. The wire-recording converted to 'modern magnetic
tape media' (1949, har har!) was of Henry LeMare, municipal organist
for the City of Atlantic City during the 1920's era. It was also
recorded at the auditorium there.  LeMare would have probably recorded
it on some earlier type of media; then it went to wire, then tape. It
is not clear to me if Western Electric did the original recording of
LeMare or if they did the conversion to wire recording. The Western
Electric employee who gave me these about 1958 when I was in high
school had retired on pension from WECo several years earlier after
almost forty years of working for them, and has been dead for thirty
years, so I have no one to ask who would remember anything about it.

Western Electric worked with all the major movie studios back in those
days, but I didn't realize they also worked on phonograph records and
wire recordings ... or did they?  Are these antiques just special
things they did for promotions, etc?  Any ideas?


PAT

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cheap 9600 bps Modem
Date: 23 May 91 17:09:20 GMT


Note that the original post specified V.32, not V.32bis. V.32bis is a
far better protocol and will be the industry standard for some time to
come. I suspect that folks will be dumping their stocks of V.32 modems
and prices will drop quickly. While there is nothing wrong with V.32
modems and they will interoperate with V.32bis, the performance will
not be nearly as good as with the new standard.


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. Especially
anything gnu.

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

From: "S. Spencer Sun" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cheap 9600 bps Modem
Date: 24 May 91 16:45:04 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Class of 1994


In article <[e-mail]> jongsma%oceana.decnet@
benzie.si.com (OCEANA::JONGSMA) writes:

> buying the first run of a product apply. The cheapest 9600 modem that
> I'm aware of up until now was the PM9600SA that sells mail order for
> about $450. If you're looking for a cheap way of getting 38.8K
> throughput, this may be the way to go. Don't expect a lot of support
> from the company though. They say they'll swap units or refund your
> money - no tech support. I just called them and they said they were
> accepting orders ([phone]).

Then you haven't heard about the CompuCom, which uses a proprietary
9600 protocol and sells for $169 to sysops, not much more to
end-users.  Of course, it only does 9600 (19.2 throughput) to other
CompuComs.  but it has MNP5.

I do not have an address or phone for them though.  (I have a Dual
Standard myself.)

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

From: "Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling US 800-Numbers From New Zealand
Organization: Rabbit Software Corp.
Date: 24 May 91 21:45:00 GMT


[e-mail] (Richard Foulk) writes:

> I have a friend that's moving to New Zealand soon.  She asked me to
> check on the possibility of accessing US 800 phone numbers from there.

> I expressed my skepticism but promised I would check.

Contact AT&T (1-800-CALL-ATT) and find out about getting a USA DIRECT
card.  I bet you could use that to make 800 calls from abroad.  Anyone
know for sure?


Robert Oliver
Rabbit Software Corp.        215 993-1152
7 Great Valley Parkway East     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Nore: Mr. Oliver, please put your city/state in your
signature line!  With USA Direct, I think you pay for a call to the
IOC, and it is then dialed out to the desired 800 number.  PAT]

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

From: Bob Hale <btree![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling US 800-Numbers From New Zealand
Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego
Date: Fri, 24 May 91 20:47:50 GMT


A friend of mine just returned from six months in New Zealand.  While
he was there he received a letter from the IRS claiming that he owed
money.  Since the letter was not decipherable due to lack of
information he asked us to get him a telephone number so that he could
call the IRS.

The 800 number that the IRS gives you does not work from New Zealand.
The normal phone number that we finally extracted from the IRS
connects the caller to a recording telling the caller to use the 800
number.  Catch 22.


Bob Hale          ...!ucsd!btree!hale
619-535-3234      ...!btree![e-mail]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security
Date: 23 May 91 20:46:57 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> The strangest time, however, was when I gave it to the guard when it
> was turned off.  She *asked me* to turn it on for her!  I asked why,
> and she just said "turn it on please".  Once it bleeped and blinked
> for her, she was satisfied. I guess she was convinced that it wasn't
> one of those "fake" phones that you can stash 50 tons of cocaine in or
> something.  I'm waiting for the day they yank the battery off...

    The concern is about explosives rather than drugs. Apparently
they tell these people that if the radio/calculator/cell phone/
vibrator works as the manufacturer intended, then it can't be a bomb.
They usually take apart cameras, too (though they don't ask you to
turn them on, usually).

    This thread remindst me of the time I flew from Seattle to
Oklahoma City carrying an engineering model of a power supply from the
AWACS on-board central data processor. This beast was about thirty
pounds of heat sink, with a few power transistors in TO-3 cans mounted
on the surface, and wires hanging out everywhere. In short, it looked
more like a bomb than a bomb would. I carried it onboard with me both
ways, and passed through four airport security installations, of which
only one (the last one) even asked me what it was.

    Needless to say, I was relieved to be asked. Oh, for the good
old days...


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The word going around is that with Iraq behind us,
the stringent airport security of the past several months will be
relaxed somewhat starting in June.   PAT]

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

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <bernhold@red8>
Subject: Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security
Date: 23 May 91 14:08:13 GMT
Organization: Quantum Theory Project, Univ. of Florida


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

> [e-mail] (Michael Scott Baldwin) writes:

>> She *asked me* to turn it on for her!  I asked why,
>> and she just said "turn it on please".  Once it bleeped and blinked
>> for her, she was satisfied.

> I think the "please turn it on" policy is several years old

Indeed, this _has_ been going on for several years.  And I believe
that, at least at one time, they _did_ remove the batteries of
anything you tried to carry on prior to international flights -- seems
to me that was instigated by the bomb on the PanAm flight over
Scotland.

Side note: A friend of mine recently traveled with a SCSI disk drive
for her Mac in her carry-on.  She had a hard time convincing the
security folks that it really was _on_ and _working_ after they
finally found an AC outlet to plug it into.

For my money, I'd rather the security people were cautious.  Sure its
an inconvenience, but if someone manages to get a bomb aboard, lots of
people are going to be inconvenienced.

And now back to telecom...


David Bernholdt            [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project        [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611        904/392 6365

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

From: Ben Burch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Are *Telephone Keypads* Built Upside Down
Organization: Analysts International Corp, Chicago Branch
Date: Fri, 24 May 1991 20:29:05 GMT


I was under the impression that there was a much more reasonable
reason for the DTMF pad configuration; the alphabet!  The number to
letter correspondences from the rotary phones could not be changed,
and any geometry other than the current one would have perversely
reversed the letters!  Made sense to me.


Ben Burch   [e-mail]

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

From: Joseph Stein <sequent!techbook.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800-800 Prefix
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Sat, 25 May 91 00:23:00 GMT


I was under the impression that one couldn't have a prefix be the same
as an AC.  Isn't there some "fluke" in telco equipment that prevents
having a 0 or 1 as the second digit of the prefix?


techbook.com      |  TECHbooks Employee; I work for  |
Joe Stein         |  TECHbooks, but,  the views and  |
                  |  opinions are my own.


[Moderator's Note: There is no 'fluke' that it cannot be done. For
many years -- like more than a half-century? -- it *wasn't* done,
mostly as a way to avoid confusion for callers and telco operators
alike. Of course, 'way back when', they did not assign the same prefix
code in adjacent area codes either. There were so many four-digit and
seven-digit convenience-for-the-community dialing arrangements which
extended across state lines and area code boundaries it became
impossible to keep up with. And with the growing shortage of workable
codes, those special dialing arrangements became an extravagance the
network could no longer support. Until around 1970, northwestern
Indiana in the 219 area served by Illinois Bell dialed anywhere in 312
with just seven digits and vice versa.

And on the southern edge of Chicago -- on the Indiana side -- sat
little Whiting, population 8000, and a manual phone exchange until
the middle 1960's. From Chicago, we dialed '911' and waited ... after
five seconds or five minutes the operator would come on the line and
respond by screaming "Whiting!!"  in your ear ... and you'd ask for
six-oh-nine if you wanted the Walgreen Drug Store, or one-two-three-four
if you wanted the recorded announcment giving the movie schedule at
the Hoosier Theatre. For Standard Oil you could ask for two-one-one-one
but saying 'Whiting Refinery' worked also,; they'd plug you into the
refinery operator either way. I made the last manual call in Whiting
the night of the cut, and the first automated call a few seconds
later, at 2:00 AM that morning.  Until the Hoosier Theatre closed a
couple years ago their number remained 219-659-1234.    PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 91 10:57:35 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Are Telco Profits Too Large?


Hi,

Food for thought:  British Telecom announced yesterday profits of 95
pounds a second ie annual profits of 3000 billion pounds ... leading
to comments from competitors that BT charges too much for use of its
local lines. I don't know how this compares to US telecom operators,
but I think it could be described as somewhat excessive.


Bryan

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 91 21:18:23 PDT
From: cdp![e-mail]
Subject: INMARSAT References Wanted


I would appreciate references to articles, studies, or analyses of the
tariff and pricing policies used by INMARSAT (the International
Maritime Satellite Organization).  Also any contacts with appropriate
analysts would be appreciated.


Ken Donow     W.L. Pritchard & Co.
7315 Wisconsin Avenue  Suite 520E
Bethesda, MD  20814
Voice:    301-654-1144   Fax: [phone]
Email:    cdp![e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 91 08:44:31 mdt
From: John Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inside Wiring Questions


In the Feb. 12, 1991 {PC Magazine}, a reader asks for recommendations
for wiring a new home for telecom and local area networks.  Frank
Defler, Jr. recommends IBM "Type 3" twisted pair cable and "Type 110"
patch panels, even though they cost substantially more than common
wire and "66" blocks.

I've never seen "Type 3" cable nor "Type 110" patch panels.  My
questions are:

1. What's the difference between Type 3 cable and the usual AT&T
   twisted pair inside wire?

2. Ditto for Type 110 vs. 66 blocks?

3. Are the differences really worth the extra cost?

4. If the answer to #3 is "yes", who's a good source for this stuff?

Also, Mr. Defler suggests testing the installation with a Microtest
Pair Scanner, costing $2500.  Any comments on this?  Alternatives?

Thanks,


John Parsons   [e-mail]   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Morley A.B.)
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Modification Needed
Date: 24 May 91 14:30:41 GMT


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

> A friend has a Panasonic answering machine (KX-A11A) that includes a
> feature that lets one record both sides of an on going conversation
> with the touch of a button.  There is a wish to disable the beep every
> 15 seconds.  Any help out there?

I have a similarly named Panasonic, and I find that this works:

PROG  # 2 1 MEMORY

(This is from my memory apologies if inaccurate!).  It's similar to
what they tell you in the manual to do to enable recording (they tell
you to do PROG # 2 2 I think).

I hope this works for yours!


Andrew Morley - Flossie - [e-mail] ... [e-mail]

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

From: Rob Boudrie <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 24 May 91 10:11:22 EDT
Subject: Not Again ?? ! ?? Re: Using Halon in a Data Center


> Should I even ask what AT&T is doing with an M-1 tank?  Does this
> have something to do with "slamming?"

The James Coburn movie "The President's Analyst" gives insight into
possible future directions of telecommunications, as well as TPC
mindset.


Rob Boudrie   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #395
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26784;
          26 May 91 4:08 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13993;
          26 May 91 2:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08705;
          26 May 91 1:26 CDT
Date:     Sun, 26 May 91 1:05:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #396
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 May 91 01:05:10 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 396

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    A Memorial: The Eastland Disaster [TELECOM Moderator]
    ANI Services [Jeff Sicherman]
    AT&T Readyline Number Change [Paul Wilczynski]
    Telephone Keypad Ordering [Lauren Weinstein]
    Re: Why a Twist in Modular Cables? [John Higdon]
    Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings? [Henry E. Schaffer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 26 May 91 0:17:32 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Memorial: The Eastland Disaster


Who wrote the song a few years ago with lyrics which said (in
discussing old memories) 'those too painful to remember, we simply
choose to forget ...' ?

Since it happened 76 years ago this summer, people can be excused if
they don't remember it -- indeed, if they never even heard of it.
Summer, 1915 was a time which found the employees of AT&T in great
shock and sadness over the 'Eastland Disaster', an event intended to
be a happy, joyful day of relaxation for the employees of Western
Electric and their families ... but which became a hellish nightmare
remembered in great detail for many years afterward.

They'd talked about it for weeks before: Saturday, July 24, 1915 was
the day for the annual company outing; a day when faithful employees
of the company's Hawthorne Works (WECo's plant in Cicero, IL) would be
rewarded with bonuses; when promotions would be announced; and all
employees and their families would enjoy lunch, entertainment and a
cruise on Lake Michigan.

Nearly three thousand people attended the outing.  Hawthorne Works had
about seven hundred employees in those days, and nearly every employee
was in attendance. They brought their spouses and children, but it was
not that uncommon for husband and wife to both work for WECo together
at Hawthorne Works. Their children and grandchildren came; boys
brought their girlfriends and girls their boyfriends. AT&T was a very
generous employer; there'd be no charge for anyone at what had become
an annual summer outing, since the company would foot the bill, at a
cost later estimated by the {Chicago Tribune} at nearly $10,000, when
the cost of renting the cruiser ship Eastland was included.

The Eastland was a very large, very modern steamer. It was a favorite
way for Chicagoans to spend an afternoon or evening, with dinner and
drinks on a lake cruise which lasted about four hours. Twice daily the
boat left from the Clark Street docks on the Chicago River and
traveled east several blocks to the lake, then out into Lake Michigan
for a cruise which eventually found its way back to Clark Street. It
made two trips daily most days, at noon, then again at 7 PM. But on
Saturday, July 24, 1915 the Eastland had been chartered by WECo for
use the entire day. Throughout the morning, food and beverages were
being loaded aboard the ship by a crew of several dozen people who
would serve the employees of WECo. Part of the day's events would
include the obligatory speech by the Hawthorne Works superintendant,
and the presentation of monetary bonuses and awards to employees whose
work had been superior during the past year.

The week before, discussions among employees had been devoted almost
exclusively to the event, including transportation to and from
downtown Chicago, since most employees of Hawthorne Works lived in the
western suburban area of our city. Car pools were planned, and the
company had rented busses to bring employees without cars who gathered
at the plant that Saturday morning at the specified time. They even
closed the plant that day, suspending the production line so that
everyone could attend.

The {Chicago Tribune}, Sunday July 25, 1915 noted: "The caravan
arrived almost en-masse. For almost one hour yesterday morning, they
came for a day of pleasure and joy-riding; hundreds of machines within
minutes moving along Randolph Street and Washington Boulevard. They
parked the machines where space permitted and the happy and sometimes
boisterous employees walked to the dock and began boarding the vessel
which would for many be the instrument of their death minutes later ..."

The Eastland was equipped to handle large crowds. It had accomodated
over two thousand passengers at one time in the past ... but the load
this day was too much. As the ship pulled away, the passengers would
go from one side to the other to see the sights as described by the
master of ceremonies. In a matter of only minutes, the rush of
passengers from one side to the other caused the boat to overturn and
then sink. The overturning was very rapid, with hundreds of passengers
thrown in the water and trapped underneath the vessel.

Many were able to swim to shore while others held on to the side of
the boat as long as possible waiting to be rescued. Good swimmers
helped poor swimmers to reach shore. But the panic and general
confusion ensuing caused 812 people to lose their lives that Saturday
afternoon, most just a matter of yards from the banks of the river.

Of the 812 dead, about 200 were employees at Hawthorne. The other 600
or so were families and friends of employees who had attended to take
advantage of AT&T / WECo's generosity that day. Over 400 were women
and children who had gotten trapped under the boat when it first
turned over. Five pregnant women were killed. Although the Chicago
Fire Department and Rescue Team were quick to arrive on the scene
within minutes of the alarm being given, their efforts were almost
useless considering the magnitude of the problem and the number of
people needing immediate help.

In the {Chicago Tribune} on Sunday, July 25, 1915, the headline
screamed of "hundreds who met their death in an instant" and noted the
problems facing the rescuers:

"Not realizing the magnitude of the dilemma, the first Batallion of
Rescuers arrived to see the horror which confronted them, and
immediatly a dispatch went out for all available men from other
Batallions in the vicinity to proceed at once to the scene. Because
South Water Street was clogged with machines -- the police having
earlier given permission to the company's employees to park as space
permitted in the vicinity, the Rescue Teams were thwarted in their
attempt to quickly approach the banks of the river.

"As the bell in the steeple of City Hall continued to peal, announcing
the disaster and calling men to the scene, it also called thousands of
office workers and shoppers in the downtown area who went as curiosity
seekers to the location, further hindering the Rescue Teams in their
efforts until finally the Chief of Police and many officers barricaded
the area and urged people to leave at once.

"Groups of physicians and nurses moved among the victims as they were
brought to the shore, helping those they could, and pronouncing dead
those they could not. Throughout the afternoon and evening, even as
this newspaper went to press, police and rescuers continued to remove
bodies from the water. A salvage vessle has begun the task of
uprighting the Eastland and towing it to the shore where investigators
will board the ship to learn the exact sequence of events which caused
this terrible incident to occur."

There were numerous stories in the paper over the next few days,
including an announcement of hearings by the Chicago City Council into
the incident. The exact death toll was announced and revised on at
least two occassions during the week ahead.

Monday, July 26, 1915 was a day of great sadness at Hawthorne Works as
emplyees milled about, discussing their many co-workers who would not
be returning to their tasks.  Flags were flown at half-staff for many
days afterward.  Funeral services were conducted daily that week, and
a company-wide memorial service later in the week was attended by
thousands of people from AT&T and Western Electric offices throughout
the Chicago area. Executives came from corporate headquarters, and two
persons present were Alex Bell and his wife Mabel.

Going to Hawthorne Works the day after the memorial service, they
stopped at each work area to speak briefly with the workers. Mabel
took extensive notes of the names of the victims as they walked along,
and the circumstances of family members who survived. As each story
was told, she'd make notes, and occassionally turn her head away when
the tragedy slapped her in the face: "Oh, that's John Parker's work
bench.  He lost his wife and their little daughter; they buried her
this morning."

Although Alex Bell had not been involved in telco management for many
years at that point -- he had resigned long before as a corporate
officer after severe disagreements with the management -- both he and
Mabel retained considerable stock holdings in AT&T. Later on, every
person on Mabel's list -- and there were hundreds -- received a note
of condolence from Mr. and Mrs. Bell, along with a modest financial
gift from their personal funds sent 'to be used where the need is
greatest, and hoping it is understood that although we cannot be with
you at this time, we think about the events of that day often, and
feel a personal obligation to assist.'

Had the Eastland disaster occurred in later years, our legal beagles
would *still* be going at it in court ... but 1915 was a different
time. Labor regulations were *much* different; workplace environments
were unlike anything we are familiar with today; and in general people
were far less sophisticated about their rights, and legal remedies
available to them.  Within weeks, production was resumed at about
normal at Hawthorne. New workers had been hired, the grief had been
resolved by many of the survivors, and although not forgotten, the
incident had been put in the back of the minds of most of those
involved.

The {Chicago Tribune} spoke about it occassionally for a few months,
and the City Council passed some very strong ordinances regarding
safety precautions when large crowds of people were gathered in one
place, including rules pertaining to the maximum number of people
permitted on the dock at one time, or on vessels in the river or lake.
Then all went quiet, and only the victims who surivived remembered.

The victims of the Eastland disaster had a reunion annually for a
number of years. By about 1945, no one was left at WECo who had been
present that day ... then the reunions stopped occurring. Perhaps
there are two or three people living today -- they'd be in their
nineties if they are alive -- who were there the day the company
picnic turned into a nightmare.

How easily we forget ... by 1990 most Chicagoans were unaware of the
event at all, until the {Chicago Tribune} reminded them on the 75th
anniversary of that day.  And to mark the 75th anniversary, a group of
high school students constructed a marker to show where it all
occurred on Clark Street at the river. Along with the Mayor of
Chicago, a representative of the Chicago Fire Department, and someone
from AT&T who attended, they installed the marker. The marker stands
on Wacker Drive, between Clark and Dearborn Street on the south bank
of the Chicago River should you ever be in the area and want to look
at it. Very simply it states that 812 persons employed by or
associated with AT&T's Western Electric Hawthorne Works lost their
lives at that spot on July 24, 1915.  Most folks walking by
unfortunatly don't even see the sign, or stop to read it.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sat, 25 May 91 00:46:54 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANI Services
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  Does anyone have a number within AT&T to get information on INFO 2
(I believe that's the right name for it), which is the ANI delivery to
800 number owners. The last time I tried to get this data through
their regular phone maze I ended up with someone who knew nothing
about what I was talking about and said they would call back but
didn't.

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

Date: Sat, 25 May 91 16:59 GMT
From: Paul Wilczynski <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Readyline Number Change


Speaking of changing the number to which an 800 number forwards ....

I have AT&T Readyline (sp?) service.  I recently moved my office, so I
called AT&T and had them direct my 800 number to the new office.

What's AT&T's logical method of doing this?

1)  Cancel the account.

2)  Open up a new account with the new receiving number (same 800 number).

3)  Charge me $46 for 2).


Think I'm gonna buy some AT&T stock.


Paul Wilczynski
Krislyn Computer Services

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

Date: Sat, 25 May 91 11:26:24 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Keypad Ordering


As others have pointed out, extensive Bell Labs research was directed
toward the topic of keypad ordering in the late 50's.  I distinctly
recall the BSTJ article discussing the results.  Improving both speed
and accuracy were the important factors.

An amusing point is that they tested a *very* wide range of
configurations.  Not only were adding machine style and the current
style tested, but a variety of more obscure arrangements.  For
example, they tested having the buttons in two rows, with both
vertical and horizontal orientations tested (the two row configuration
was the standard operator MF keypad configuration, by the way).  They
also tested having the buttons in a circle in the same positions as
the finger holes on a dial phone.  As I recall this was found to be a
pretty "bad" configuration in terms of usage, but today you can find
phones with that exact configuration on the market!

The issue of the current layout being opposite that of the adding
machine was explicitly addressed in the article, I believe.  It is
important to remember that prior to the advent of the first
"four-banger" digital calculators (e.g. the "Bomar Brain" -- remember
when they appeared and cost over $100?), adding machines/calculators
of any sort were big, mechanical, noisy, expensive, and generally only
found in businesses (they also tended to create significant amounts of
electrical interference from the motors inside, but that's another
story).  They were not commonly used by most people, so the adding
machine keypad layout was a non-issue as far as the bulk of the
population was concerned at that time.


 --Lauren--

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

Date: Sat, 25 May 91 12:19 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Why a Twist in Modular Cables?


[e-mail] (Jim Rees) writes:

> Every ready-made RJ-11 cable I've ever seen has the plugs attached on
> the same side of the cable at each end.

> So is there a reason for it, or is it just manufacturing convenience?

Yes and yes. Bulk cable (for putting the ends on yourself) has a ridge
on one side. By standardizing which way the ridge goes into the
crimper, it is easy to accurately and speedily put modular plugs on
the cable without worrying about whether you have "end A" or "end B"
in your hands.

Modular receptacals come in two flavors: receptacal and instrument.
There is an assumption of pair rotation between the two, hence the tip
(green) and ring (red) will match at their respective ends, regardless
of the actual color of the conductor in the cable, which can vary
depending on which way it is "facing".


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

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

Date: Sat, 25 May 91 22:45:05 -0400
From: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings?
Organization: NCSU Computing Center


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 395, Message 1 of 14

> ...  The first 33 rpm records began appearing late in 1948 as I
> recall.


Pat,

  I'm pretty sure that 33 rpm records started quite a bit earlier -
probably in the '30s.  My folks had a record player with a 33 rpm
setting, and some 33 rpm records which I'm pretty sure were pre-WWII.
My memory is that the modern 33 rpm LP records have a smaller groove,
and that was the post-WWII innovation.

  This is all from distant memory.


henry schaffer  n c state univ


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for your note. I honestly do not think there
were any 33 rpm records as early as you say. Maybe someone else has
the answer to this.

In the next issue of the Digest on Sunday morning, we'll continue this
Memorial Day theme with messages on early radio pioneers and a
response to an earlier article about Marconi and Cape Cod.  If you're
going anywhere over the holiday, drive the other guy's car for him
also if you know what's best for you.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #396
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28849;
          26 May 91 5:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14673;
          26 May 91 3:38 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13993;
          26 May 91 2:33 CDT
Date:     Sun, 26 May 91 1:50:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #397
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 May 91 01:49:56 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 397

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Marconi, Cape Cod Phones and Spark Gaps [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Radio's Early "Inventors" [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Telecom Publications [Sean Williams]
    Re: Cheap 9600 bps Modem [Timothy Newsham]
    Re: Modem Isolation Device Needed [John Higdon]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Rick Broadhead]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 25 May 91 10:12 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Marconi, Cape Cod Phones and Spark Gaps


In article(v11,iss.392), Jack Winslade <ivgate!Jack.Winslade@uunet.
uu.net> provides a reply to a query about the technology used in
Marconi's epochal transatlantic radio transmission:

> In a recent message, Mike Riddle (mikee@ivgate) writes:

>> Historic interlude.  If I remember correctly, Marconi's original
>> station on Cape Cod was a VLF installation.)

Jack replied:

> I believe that Marconi's original transmitter would have blanketed the
> spectrum from VLF to VHF, so I guess you're correct.  ;-)

> From what I can remember, Marconi's rig was something like a huge
> mechanical spark-gap interrupter driving a tuned circuit (LC tank)
> that was supposed to be resonant at a couple of hundred kHz.

   Well, Jack, you drove me off to some history books, just to see how
good your memory is, and it's pretty good.  However, by the time of
his transatlantic success, he hadn't yet used the rotary spark inter-
rupter.  The best short description I have at hand is from "A History
of Electrical Engineering," by Percy Dunsheath, London, Faber & Faber,
1962.

   In the chapter, "The Electron in Engineering," Dunsheath pictures
Marconi's first transmitter and receiver.  The transmitter is no more
than a battery interrupted by a telegraph key in the primary circuit
of an induction coil that has a spark gap in its secondary with an
"aerial plate" and a ground connection to the electrodes of the spark
gap.  (I find the notion of an "aerial plate" quite interesting, for
any number of early histories running into the 1920's consider a radio
antenna as one plate of a capacitor with earth forming the other
plate.

One book shows ever larger and larger "flat-top" antenna structures,
such as the one built by Telefunken for its station LPZ near Buenos
Aires.  It stretched one-half kilometer wide by 2-1/2 kilometers long.
That of GFEX at Hillmorton, near Rugby, England covered 900 acres of
land, suspended on twelve 820-foot-high towers spaced 1320 feet apart
in a figure-8 arrangement. The GFEX antenna was said to have a
capacitance of .045 microfarad, with a total resistance on one ohm!
Clearly, the builders of these behemoths felt that creating a huge
induction field was the way to obtain a strong magnetic field.  Power
levels of these beasts ran from 200,000 watts to one million watts!)

   But Dunsheath writes of Marconi: "In 1900 Marconi made a major
modification of the transmitting circuit.  The spark gap was removed
from the main aerial and placed in an oscillatory circuit consisting
of a condenser made of several Leyden jars in parallel and the single
turn rimary of a transformer, the secondary of which had many turns
and was in the aerial-to-earth circuit." The text goes on to indicate
this idea of placing a resonant circuit in the transmitting antenna
was also applied to Marconi's receiving antenna, and with unspecified
power levels at unspecified frequencies, ranges of several hundred
miles were reached.

   Then, Dunsheath describes Marconi's transatlantic experiment thus:

"The spark system of Marconi having made such strides, he was
encouraged to contemplate bridging the Atlantic and in 1900 the first
high-power radio station was constructed at Polhu in Cornwall.  In
place of the induction coil fed by a voltaic battery an alternator
driven by a 25 horsepower oil engine worked through transformers to
give a voltage of 20,000.  The aerial system consisted of 50 wires
supported on masts 200 feet high." (Another book contains a photo
showing four apparently wooden towers surrounding a small building at
Poldhu.) "Towards the end of 1901 Marconi left for St. John's,
Newfoundland, and set up temporary aerials by means of kites and
balloons, with which, on 13 December 1901, he received the agreed
three-dot signals which were being transmitted from Poldhu.  The
wavelength used was from 2,000 to 3,000 feet."

        Later, Dunsheath describes that, "...different forms of
interuptor were sought.  Rotary contactors, in the form of discs with
external spokes passing near to fixed studs, were driven by the
alternator shaft and became common practice."  He then goes on to
describe how Poulsen in Denmark (1903) enclosed large arcs in a
hydrogen (isn't that explosive?)  bath and a strong magnetic field to
produce undamped (continuous) oscillations up to one megahertz.  The
Poulsen arc converters were built into units up to 100,000 Watts each
with as many as ten units in parallel used at a U.S. Navy station near
Bordeaux, France producing one megawatt in this way.  In the same
period, Alexanderson and others were building high-frequency
alternators typically of 200 kilowatts each. to produce signals a bit
higher in frequency than the arc transmitters of that eraly day.

        So, it would appear that Marconi first used a (probably rough)
form of alternator, and at the indicated wavelengths, its frequency
was 328 to 492 kilohertz.  (I guess frequency control wasn't too
important in 1901, since there was no one else to interfere with.)

        But with resonant antennae and semi-smooth waves, I would take
issue with Jack's surmise that the signal reached up to blue light.
I'd say it was only up to about TV channel 7. ;-).

       But, if he had a 25 horsepower engine and high efficiency, that
could produce about 18,000 watts of power.  Considering it would be
another decade until deForest would produce a triode vacuum tube to
amplify weak received signals, getting 3,000 miles on 400 kilohertz
 ... which is Medium Frequency, by the way ... it took a few years for
the art to settle on Low Frequency and VLF ... GFEX ran at 16
kilohertz and 540 kilowatts in its antenna in the 1920's.), Marconi
did very well, indeed.  Few of us in later generations ever got a
medium-wave signal that far on a planned basis!

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

Date: Sat, 25 May 91 23:00 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio's Early "Inventors"


        From time to time, debates surface over who really "invented"
several of the core technologies of telecommunications.  "Inventors"
earlier than Morse, Bell, or Marconi and other early workers can be
found in nations around the globe.

        Among examples of these are a Russian named Popov, claimed to
have preceded Marconi with radio, several English and German inventors
who in fact operated telegraph systems before Morse and England's
equivalent borad-ranging inventor to Thomas Edison, Joepsh Wilson
Swan.

In addition to numerous developments in chemical technology such as
bromide printing paper for photography, cellular lead plates for
batteries and artificial nitrocellulose, Swan publicly demonstrated an
electric light bulb ten months before Thomas Edison's claimed success.
In fact, a bitter dispute arose in England between Swan and Edison,
but was resolved by a merger of their English companies in 1881.

        Current news includes announcement of the claim of yet another
American early "inventor of radio," one Nathan B. Stubblefield.  In an
AP dispatch printed March 24, Stubblefield's claim, accompanied by a
photo from about 1892 says:


           "SINGER CAMPAIGNS TO PROVE GRANDFATHER INVENTED RADIO

                             "By Allen G. Breed
                          "Associated Press Writer

       "Pikeville, Ky. -- The history books say Italian physicist
Guglielmo Marconi invented wireless telegraph -- the forerunner of
radio." <Yet another example of the technological ignorance of our
press.  Since when was wireless telegraphy any less radio than was
wireless telephony?  Continuing the quote:> "But a pop singer is out
to prove his grandfather developed the concept first.

        "So far, however, few people are tuning in to the arguments of
Keith Stubblefield that Nathan B. Stubblefield is radio's true inventor.

       "A Smithsonian Institution expert dismisses Stubblefield's
contributions, and even in Kentucky, the elder Stubblefield's home
state, the broadcasting association has refused to recognize him as
radio's inventor.

       "Marconi is credited with developing wireless telegraphy in
1896."  < Marconi's first transmission was in 1895.  He obtained a
British patent in 1896. Continuing again:>

        "In 1892, Stubbleield amazed onlookers in Murray, his eastern
Kentucky hometown, when he transmitted the human voice using what he
called "wireless telephony," says Stubblefield's grandson, who uses
the name Troy Cory in his singing career.

        "Stubblefield never got a patent for the device, although he
did patent improvements to wireless telephone equipment in 1908.  He
died a pauper in 1928.

        "Now, almost 100 years later, Cory, 47, says he is nearly
obsessed with having his grandfather recognized.

        "`We want to educate the public, we want to educate the people
to show them how he did it,' Cory said.  `The children are being
educated that the wrong person invented the radio, and they don't know
that it was an American ... They've been defrauded by some teacher, by
some book.'

        "To change that, Cory has designed a poster honoring
Stubblefield, and his Television International Magazine is editing a
history of radio that cites Stubblefield as its inventor.

        "Cory has some supporters.  Kentucky Gov. Wallace Wilkinson
signed a resolution last month declaring Stubblefield the inventor of
radio.

        "But at a meeting here Thursday, the Kentucky Broadcasters
Association amended the resolution so that it only recognized
Stubblefield's `contribution to the early development of wireless
transmissions.'

        "Cory was furious.  Outside the meeting, he confronted Francis
Nash, who was commissioned by the group to write a history of Kentucky
broadcasting and who urged that the resolution be amended.

        "Stubblefield's invention used amplitude modulation, the basis
of AM radio, Cory told Nash.

        "`Now if that's not radio, I'll eat my hat,' Cory told Nash.

        "Nash, a 25-year broadcasting veteran, said there was no
evidence that Stubblefield's device used modulation.

        "`He was using methods other people had already abandoned,'
Nash said. `It wasn't really radio.'

        "Elliot Sivowitch, a specialist in radio and television
history with the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, said there
were dozens of experiments similar to Stubblefield's between 1865 and
1900.

        "But Cory called Nash a `psuedo-intellect,' accused him of
fraud for altering the resolution and vowed to sue.

        "`It's not a joke, this is serious to me,' he said.

        "He said he also may sue the National Association of Broadcasters,
which failed to recognize his grandfather at its convention in Las
Vegas last month."  <end of quotation from AP>

        ...The photo accompanying the article does show two pairs of
rods in its foreground, perhaps driven into the earth.  If in fact,
these were the transmitting connections of Stubblefield's apparatus,
it could in fact be one of the many forms of "grouwd transmission"
used at least into WW I by the U.S. Army Signal Corps, in which the
"antenna" consisted of a pair of rods separated by a distance
approximating a wavelength at both the transmitter and the receiver.

        The Army Signal Corps "Radio Communication Pamphlet No. 40,"
titled "The Principles Underlying Radio Communication," dated May 24,
1921, in fact states, "It has been found by Kiebitz and many other
observers that signals can be effectively received on an antenna
consisting of a single long wire on or a short distance under the
surface of the earth.  This is called a ground antenna."  Later:
"Ground antennas have been used in some experiments for transmitting,
but there is apparently no advantage in their use for this purpose."

        The book, "Radio Theory and Operating," by Mary Texanna
Loomis, with dates of 1925 through 1928, shows a Dr. Rogers obtaining
a patent in 1919, "...which he gave to his country during the World
War."  It also mentions a priority claim proved by two naval officers,
Willoughby and Lowell, as well as claiming that Loomis' grandfather
had transmitted signals using submerged wire of different length in
1865.  The text says Dr. Rogers was successful at communicating with
Europe in 1925 on "extremely high frequencies," which in that time
would be what our "short wave" is today.

        So there's the story.  Was Stubblefield's transmission radio
or not?  Were there indeed many others?  The press story is so weak on
the details of technology that we can't really tell.

        Perhaps some other reader of the Digest can help clarify the
matter.

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

Date: Sat, 25 May 91 18:06 GMT
From: Sean Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Publications


Offhand, does anyone know the addresses of {Communications Week} or
similar publications?  I am interested in subscribing. Please respond
directly.

Thanks ahead of time!

Sean E. Williams          | [e-mail]
Spectrum Telecommunications      | "I own Spectrum, so our
333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227  | opinions are very similar"
Duncannon, PA 17020-0227  USA      | voicemail: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Listen kid, all you need to know is how to
subscribe to TELECOM Digest. I'll give you any information necessary.
Like my competitor {The New York Times}, all the news that fits, I
print. If you didn't see it here, then it was insignificant. :)  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 24 May 91 22:36:26 hst
From: Timothy Newsham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cheap 9600 bps Modem

> V.32bis is a far better protocal

As I understand it, V.32bis is still not an official protocol.  The
CCITT people are still "considering" it and still have not made the
proposed protocal official, although it is a foregone conclusion by
most folks that it will soon become the next modem standard.

For those who don't know, V.32bis will the standard for communication
at the real speed (not effective throughput) of 14,400bps.  And then
if you have a V.32bis modem with V.42 error correction and V.42bis
data compression, you'll have a maximum effective throughput of 56k
bps (ISDN! :).

Forval already makes a V.32bis V.42bis modem (also with MNP5) that
sells for about $1000.  I want one! :)

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

Date: Sat, 25 May 91 01:37 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Modem Isolation Device Needed


Ken Mandelberg <[e-mail]> writes:

> Is there an isolating device I can put between the modem and phone
> line that would isolate the modem (and hum) when the modem is not off
> hook.

Any modem complying with Part 68 of the FCC R&R will not cause that
problem. The hum is caused by an imbalance and/or leakage to ground
within the modem. It should be repaired or replaced. Band-Aids should
not be used in this case.


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

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

Date: Sat, 25 May 91 20:03:28 EDT
From: Rick Broadhead <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World


Robert L. Oliver (cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]) writes:

> But something rather odd occurred today: I dialed a number in 703, and
> instead of receiving the standard U.S. single ring, I received a non-U.S.
> double ring.

I had a similar experience just a few days ago.  I dialed a number in
my own area code (416), exchange 392, and was quite surprised to hear
a double ring.  This is the first time I have ever heard a double
ring on the calling end.

Are there any telephones on the market for a residential line that
produce a double ring?  Or is such a feature restricted to PBX system
phones?


Rick Broadhead   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I don't know if you meant it the way it came out,
but the telephone instrument has *nothing* to do with the ring you
hear as the caller.  What you heard must have been some kind of fluke;
some temporary switch problem.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #397
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01628;
          26 May 91 6:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27621;
          26 May 91 4:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac14673;
          26 May 91 3:38 CDT
Date:     Sun, 26 May 91 2:53:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #398
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 May 91 02:53:09 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 398

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Follow Me Roaming - a Few Corrections [John Higdon]
    Re: Batteries and Ammo Myth [Henry E. Schaffer]
    Re: Modem Isolation Device Needed [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Calling US 800-Numbers From New Zealand [Jonathan Dwyer]
    Re: Why a Twist in Modular Cables? [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: NYNEX Pops the MPOP [Barton F. Bruce]
    Indiana Bell Switching to Local Measured Service [Doctor Math]
    I Was Caught in a Big Halon Discharge [Bob Hale]
    Magazine Article Review: The Software Patent Crisis [Ronald Greenberg]
    Administrivia: Topics Closed Out [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 25 May 91 01:51 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Follow Me Roaming - a Few Corrections


Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]> writes:

> The main problem which I have with FMR, and one that I've written to
> GTE/FMR (and posted to the Digest) about is post-midnight activations.

This is the only problem I have ever had with FMR recently -- but for
a different reason. A couple of days after returning from a trip to
LA, I was standing next to my bike in front of the Federal Building in
San Francisco. I needed some info for a records search, so I dug out
my handheld. After paging the person who had the info, I waited (and
waited) for the return call. I tried again. Finally, MY pager went off
showing a number which I called.

It turned out to be the person I was paging who was very annoyed. "If
you are going to page someone and direct them to call your handheld,
the least you could do is turn it on." It was on. And it seemed to
work fine. Suddenly I had a thought.

"Was the voice that told you the phone was unavailable male or
female?"  It was male. My home system, GTE San Francisco, uses a
female voice.  What on earth was going on?

It turns out that the FMR activated days before in Los Angeles had
failed to deactivate automatically. The voice announcing my
unavailability was coming from PacTel Los Angeles. No problem; I used
the "clear call forwarding" code. One more thing to check when
returning from a trip!


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

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

From: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Batteries and Ammo Myth
Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Sun, 26 May 1991 02:18:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> "Henry E. Schaffer"
<[e-mail]> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 390, Message 2 of 12

>  This is a wonderful urban myth ...

  Nonetheless it is a very good idea to keep ammunition out of
electrical and thermal conditions which might set it off.  Even
considerably less force than a normal gunshot can damage an eye or
cause other injury.  John DeArmond told me that my original posting
could be taken as overly downplaying a real danger, and upon
re-reading it I think he's right.  Be careful, and don't take chances.


henry schaffer  n c state univ

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Isolation Device Needed
Date: 25 May 91 23:17:01 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken
Mandelberg) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 394, Message 2 of 10

> When my modem is connected to my phone line, I can hear a hum on
> extension phones. The hum appears on extensions not connected to the
> modem (as well as one that is connected through the modem). The hum
> doesn't effect the modem at all, as far as I can tell.

> Is there an isolating device I can put between the modem and phone
> line that would isolate the modem (and hum) when the modem is not off
> hook.

    If you have hum on the line because of the modem, then there
is something wrong with the modem, or the house wiring.

    You don't say what brand and model it is -- this is helpful
when trouble shooting. But you can do one simple thing to decide
whether it is a wiring problem. Locate a line cord with only two
wires (most have four). Cheap nasty ones have two. Use that between
the modem and see what happens to the hum. If it goes away, you can
leave it that way. If you want to dig further, see if the modem has
A-lead control (An option of Hayes and other modems). Remove the
A-lead control.  Check the jack the modem is connected to, wire only
the red and green wires on the jack.

    If the hum persists, you have a "longtitudinal balance"
problem with the modem. This means one side of the modem's phone line
is too close to ground potential. It could be an internal short in the
modem -- open and see. It could be a crummy cheap modem -- another
reason to state brand and model.

    One way to fool the hum is switch the phone leads in the jack
(The red and green ones), this often gets rid of hum.

    Also in gross cases, you may have the jack wired with a ground
wire (usually yellow) where Tip or Ring should be.

    Anyhow if the modem meets FCC Part 68 and the phone wiring is
Kosher, you should have no hum.


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

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

From: Jonathan Dwyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling US 800-Numbers From New Zealand
Organization: Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Date: Sun, 26 May 1991 04:14:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, btree![e-mail] (Bob
Hale) writes:

> The 800 number that the IRS gives you does not work from New Zealand.
> The normal phone number that we finally extracted from the IRS
> connects the caller to a recording telling the caller to use the 800
> number.  Catch 22.

This is a real problem outside the US.  More than once I've had the
problem whereby I call an 800 number from Australia or Japan, and am
unable to get through.  It's generally a TelCo recording saying that
the service is unavailable.  Then if I call the non-800 number I am
greeted by a message saying that the company wants my business, and
has installed an 800 number ... etc.

There's only *one* catch ... and it's the best catch of all!

In most cases I've just called another company who does *not* have the
800 service.  If I need that particular company, as I have once or
twice, I've had a friend in the US phone the 800 number for me, asking
that they call me abroad.  Funny, only once was there no call!


Jonathan Dwyer ([phone]) - University of Queensland Psychology |
[e-mail]  St. Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland, AUSTRALIA|

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why a Twist in Modular Cables?
Date: 26 May 91 02:49:15 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> Can anyone tell me why there is an electrical twist in most (US)
> modular cables?

> I got to thinking about this recently when I started using these
> cables for RS-232.  If you're clever about pin assignments, this twist
> can be useful for RS-232.

> So is there a reason for it, or is it just manufacturing convenience?

The wall to the phone cords have the wires flipped, and early on
ModTap had made EIA to modular adapters for such cables, but soon
realised their mistake and stopped. Many people have modular patch
panels and can route EIA signals from one part of a building to
another. There is NO way be be sure there will be an odd or and even
number of cords in between.

If the plugs are crimped on so the wires go straight through, and all
adapters are wired that way, you will have no problems.

That is the way the DATA industry generally does it. In many sites
'PHONE" cords have caused needless confusion and are BANNED. With
polarity guards built into modern TT dials, and ringing being across
the line and not to ground, many sites make life simple and ALL
modular cords, both EIA DATA and 'phone' cords are wired straight
through. FWIW most folks use six or eight wire cords for everything,
and cords that come with phones are generally four or even two wire,
so the problem ones are easy to spot.

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NYNEX Pops the MPOP
Date: 26 May 91 03:11:41 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> Planners and operators of industrial-strength data networks
> with circuits terminating in the seven-state NYNEX area will soon
> discover, if they have not, that NYNEX told the Interexchange carriers
> (IECs) that they will no longer accept orders for inside wiring from
> IECs effective with orders bernig due dates after May 24.

You may want to ALSO note AT&T's NEW service I just recently got data
on.

They RENT T1s from 'someone' (may well NOT be the LEC) and install
channel banks in YOUR building to provide you individual DS0 based
circuits.

This really targets those users with needs too small to justify their
own T1s, and they needed at least five circuits worth of orders to
start such a service up.  This could be a small department in an
otherwise datacomm savy big company.

This is AT&T **BYPASSING** the LEC for you.

The prices I saw were NOT as exciting as I thought they should be, but
were less than an equivalent circuit through the LEC. But if a single
user needs to get five, at that point a T1 is already paid for. That
five may just be to get it in. Other tenants or departments can then
add circuits one at a time. The real trick here is that the end user
does NOT need to hassle with channelbank ownership.

It is also possible, but I don't know if it is offered by AT&T, to get
cards in the channel bank that take the v.35 or EIA-422 cable directly
rather than needing twisted pair to a CSU/DSU for DDS.

It also seemed as though only BIG buildings were being served at
locations where BYPASS carriers were well established.

They listed the few BUILDINGS currently served. A couple of examples:

111 Wall St. (CitiBank)
Penatgon

The 'who wires what for whom' in the last mile rules are changing. The
LECs that were too greedy may yet get what they deserve (NO business).

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

From: Doctor Math <[e-mail]>
Subject: Indiana Bell Switching to Local Measured Service
Date: Sat, 25 May 91 14:45:42 EST


As those of you in the affected area probably are aware, there is a
three-year ban which prohibits Indiana Bell from forcing everyone to
have local measured service. It expires very soon, either June or
July. No further explanation should be required as to how much of a
Bad Thing this could potentially be. If it remains unchallenged, and
Bell converts everyone to local measured service, I'm strongly
considering doing without a phone.


[Moderator's Note: I'm sure they'll miss you as a customer.  :)  PAT]

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

From: Bob Hale <btree![e-mail]>
Subject: I Was Caught In a Big Halon Discharge
Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego
Date: Thu, 23 May 91 22:03:16 GMT


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

[ good discussion about Halon deleted ]

> I watched a test of a Halon fire supression system installed at Yale a
> number of years ago.  The testers remained inside the room as the
> system was set off; they seemed quite unconcerned.  A decent-sized
> Halon system is pretty impressive to watch when fired: It has to get a
> sufficient concentration of Halon throughout a room FAST.  This
> requires that the Halon be forced into the room at high pressure,
> creating quite a wind -- all sorts of things go flying.  Also, as the
> Halon expands rapidly, it undergoes adiabadic cooling, rapidly
> dropping the temperature in the room -- so the room instantly fills
> with fog.  In all, a startling experience if you aren't prepared for
> it -- but not in and of itself dangerous.

I suspect that the test you witnessed was performed with a dummy
substance in the tank rather than Halon.  The cost of a tank of Halon
suitable for a typical computer room is several thousand dollars for
the Halon alone.  When my employer had the Halon system tested here
they used a dummy material that fogged up the room for a few minutes.
The mist is apparently used to decide where the gas flows and how well
it covers the intended area.

I was an unwitting participant in a real Halon discharge.  Two
schmucks from a private fire company had been fooling with the fire
alarm system all morning and hadn't succeeded in what they were trying
to do.  I and several others were standing in a newly constructed
area, soon to be equipped with a raised floor.  Suddenly a noise
comparable to a jet aircraft passing overhead at 50 feet altitude
started and continued.  My first thought was "that jet must be in
serious trouble and will probably crash across the street."

When the sound didn't change after a couple of seconds my next thought
was "it's not a plane, it must be a break in one of the high-pressure
gas lines we have here.  What kinds of gases do we have in the
building?  Compressed air - no problem.  Dry nitrogen - probably OK,
we'll just have to get out of this room soon.  Hydrogen - get the ****
out of here instantly!!"  But then I realized that if it were hydrogen
it would explode before I could move more than a couple of paces so I
just stayed put.  Soon the sound stopped.  There was no mist or other
visual effect (aside from the trash on the floor being blown all over
the room).

We remained in the room for a few minutes and then went to the
adjacent area which was also physically unaffected.  About fifteen
minutes later the fire company employees arrived to find out if the
Halon had been discharged.  The situation was very close to a lynching
at that point.  This was a fairly small area and the Halon tank only
cost about $1800 to refill.  None of us suffered any adverse physical
effects from it.


Bob Hale         ...!ucsd!btree!hale
619-535-3234     ...!btree![e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 23 May 91 21:51:21 -0400
From: Ronald Greenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magazine Article Review: The Software Patent Crisis
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park


With regard to the question of what should and shouldn't be patentable,
people may be interested in the {Technology Review} article "The
Software Patent Crisis" by Brian Kahin, pages 52-58 in the April 1990
issue.

The table of contents synopsis reads as follows:

"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is awarding exclusive rights to
thousands of programming processes ranging from machine instructions
to features of the user interface.  The independent software
entrepreneur may all but disappear and the viatality of the industry
is at stake -- as is the future of computer-mediated expression."

Apparently, the Patent Office has gotten much more liberal about
awarding software patents lately.  One point in the article that I
find disturbing in conjunction with this is the following:

"Many programmers suspect that patent examiners lack knowledge of the
field, especially since the Patent Office does not accept computer
science as a qualifying degree for patent practice (it accepts degrees
in electrical engineering)."


Ronald I. Greenberg        [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 91 2:05:58 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Topics Closed Out


I am in the process of returning a very large number of messages back
to their senders on the following topics:

     Halon
     Hayes Patent Suit
     Enough Counts of Fraud
     Cell Phones on Aircraft
     Explosions caused by RF

All the above were very interesting topics, and in some instances had
a marginal relevance to the telecom theme here, but all have since
gotten away from telecom and into all sorts of other tangents.

I've got about 75 messages on the above topics waiting in the queue,
and all are being returned to the senders now. Don't take it personally
folks ... and do keep on writing ... but not on these topics!  Thanks!


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #398
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26357;
          26 May 91 18:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21662;
          26 May 91 16:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02573;
          26 May 91 15:45 CDT
Date:     Sun, 26 May 91 15:22:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #399
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 May 91 15:22:18 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 399

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Welcome Back to Bitnet [TELECOM Moderator]
    Thrifty Tel's Blurbs [John Higdon]
    Re: Collecting Call ID Info to PC or MAC [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Cheap 9600 bps Modem [Michael Schuster]
    Call Forwarding Comes to the Netherlands [Piet van Oostrum]
    Interactive Cable [Ed Hopper]
    Re: Ringing Tones [Rick Broadhead]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 26 May 91 12:35:07 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Welcome Back to Bitnet

I had been unable to send copies of TELECOM Digest to Bitnet
subscribers for about a month due to various kinks here ... the
gateway machine we used (nuacc) was down for awhile, then very cranky,
and now is being removed from service sometime during June.

I tried some alternate routings and ran into trouble with those also.
Now it appears that for the past couple issues we have once again
managed to restore the connection.

So for Bitnet readers who WERE receiving the Digest until the end of
April should be receiving it again. If you have NOT received the past
two or three issues, then because I had no accurate record of your
address (when my list got thoroughly trashed) you will need to be
added back on.

   ** I prefer to send to an Internet address if you have one **
I will send to a Bitnet address if that is all you have, but I prefer
to impose upon the gateway we are now using as little as neccessary.


PAT

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 91 00:20 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Thrifty Tel's Blurbs


Here is some of the promotional literature of Thrifty Tel. It looks as
though it was prepared on a Commodore Pet.

  ****

            Thrifty Tel
          Unlimited  Flat  Rate  Service

SERVICE

UNLIMITED long distance telephone service for a monthly *Flat Rate* of
$295.00 plus 39.83 in taxes and fees for each telephone line
installed.  Call anywhere throughout the United States 24 hours a day,
seven days per week and enjoy Thrifty's digital fiber optic quality
for one low monthly *Flat Rate*.

COST

$295.00 plus taxes and fees of $39.83 per line payable in advance each
month for UNLIMITED long distance telephone service.

A non-recurring processing fee of $195.00 per line. You do not pay any
deposits or hourly labor charges for installation.

FEATURES AND TERMS

==>    Digital fiber optic quality and clarity.

==>    Guaranteed rates in a one year contract.

==>    No queuing or busy circuits.

==>    A 30 minute call limitation.

==>    A monthly statement itemizing each call is not available with
    this service.

Thrifty guarantees your rate in writing. They Talk ... We Deliver.

To find our how you or your business can experience tremendous savings
with Thrifty Tel's Flat Rate service in addition to our many other
products available, please call Thrifty for a free consultation and
analysis.
                Thrifty Tel, Inc.

[Street address of a very small, "hole in the wall" office in Garden
Grove]"


  *****


Now here are some tidbits that have surfaced from a little digging at
the CPUC. For those "non-flat rate" customers:

[Thrifty Telephone Exchange--8th Revised Cal. P.U.C. Sheet No. 9-T]

"Method of Applying Rates:

(3)    Call duration is computed by way of answer supervision.

(4)    Calls are chargeable, if unanswered, after a duration of
    forty-five (45) seconds.

[same sheet]

Unauthorized Usage

Any entity using Thrifty's facilities without securing proper
authorization either by:

(1) obtaining authorization by way of a presubscription agreement;
(2) dialing Thrifty's 10XXX FGD access Code; or
(3) obtaining an authorization code is subject to:

  (1) a $2,880.00 per day, per line surcharge in addition to the
      otherwise applicable rates under the "Equal Access Service"
      plan;
  (2) a $3,000.00 set-up fee;
  (3) a $200.00 per hour labor charge, and
  (4) payment of all attorney fees and costs incurred by Thrifty in
      collecting the applicable charges for unauthorized usage."

[end quote from P.U.C public documents]

What we have here is an incentive to allow hackers easy access to the
system. I am attempting to contact someone who is actually being
hounded by Thrifty Tel to find out where he got the codes, what type
of codes they are, etc. The word on the street is that Thrifty
actually posts the codes themselves to area BBSes so that there will
be fresh meat to threaten, sue, and ultimately collect big bucks from.
Thrifty's justification for those usary rates in the PUC filing is to
recover costs of investigation. But as you can plainly read, those
costs are covered separately under (4) above.

Thrifty has also been beating on Pac*Bell to "enforce" one of its own
tariffs. It apparently is not enough for Thrifty Tel to entrap people,
relieve them of their worldly wealth, and confiscate their computer
equipment. Thrifty would also like to see their local phone service
disconnected. This is the tariff they cite:

[Pacific Bell SCHEDULE CAL. P.U.C NO. A2 Revised Sheet 129]

"APPENDIX B

1. Any communications utility operating under the jurisdiction of this
Commission shall refuse service to a new applicant and shall disconnect
existing service to a customer upon receipt from any authorized
official of a law enforcement agency of a writing, signed by a
magistrate, as defined by Penal Code Sections 807 and 808, finding that
probable cause exists to believe that the use made or to be made of the
service is prohibited by law, or that the service is being or is to be
used as an instrumentality, directly or indirectly, to violate or to
assist in the violation of the law. Included in the magistrate's
writing shall be a finding that there is probable cause to believe not
only that the subject telephone facilities have been or are to be used
in the commission or facilitation of illegal acts, but that the
character of such acts is such that, absent immediate and summary
action on the premises, significant dangers to public health, safety,
or welfare will result."


[end quote from P.U.C public documents]

Apparently, Thrifty Tel believes that anyone using a "stolen" code to
make long distance calls over its network will result in significant
dangers to the public health, safety, or welfare.

I had an associate call Thrifty Tel to arrange service. He was told
that Thrifty carries ALL calls including intraLATA. Either they lie to
the PUC or they lie to prospective customers.

There are still a lot of loose ends to track down. Tuesday should be
very interesting.


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


[Moderator's Note: As requested before, I do hope you will transcribe
the radio show, and post some good parts of it here.   PAT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Collecting Call ID Info to PC or MAC
Date: 26 May 91 11:28:50 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> I am currently looking for a device that will allow my Macintosh
> and/or PC to retrieve caller ID info from our university's digital
> phone system.

> Does anyone out there know of a card or easily connectable device that
> will connect to my MAC (via serial port) or PC (via serial port) and
> let me do this?  Is it possible to make a device like this if one is
> not available.?

Please tell us what kind of digital phone system you're using.  Does
it currently deliver caller information (perhaps to display-type
telephone sets)?  If it is ISDN-based, then there are several ISDN
cards for PC and MAC available.  If it is analog, like the CLASS
Caller*ID service offered to single-line customers by telcos, there
are devices that can demodulate those messages and pass them to your
PC or MAC.  If your phone system uses its own proprietary signaling
system, such as AT&T's DCP (used by System 75, and System 85) then you
should contact your system manufacturer.  In the case of the AT&T
systems mentioned, they offer a product called, I think, "The PC-PBX
Connection" which will do what you 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: Michael Schuster <panix![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cheap 9600 bps Modem
Date: Sun, 26 May 91 12:06:03 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY


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

> As I understand it, V.32bis is still not an official protocol.  The
> CCITT people are still "considering" it and still have not made the
> proposed protocal official, although it is a foregone conclusion by
> most folks that it will soon become the next modem standard.

You are several months behind the times. It was issued as an official
CCITT recommendation in February, and had been "frozen" by the
technical committee since last fall. The only ones who are "considering"
V.32bis are companies like CompuCom who have never heard of standards. :-)


Mike Schuster                                      |    CIS: 70346,1745
NY Public Access UNIX:  ...cmcl2!panix!schuster    |    MCI Mail, GENIE:
The Portal (R) System:  [e-mail]    |           MSCHUSTER

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

From: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Forwarding Comes to the Netherlands
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Piet van Oostrum)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Date: Sun, 26 May 1991 14:29:46 GMT


This week the Dutch PTT Telecom announced the availability of call
forwarding starting at June 1. It is the beginning of a collection of
features to be announced in the near future (e.g. Call Waiting). In
fact they offered Call forwarding already on a limited basis for a big
charge.  The charge now is Dfl 1.95 (about $1) for each enabling of
the forwarding (i.e. when you forward your number to another number).
You can forward to any number in the country, except the 06-series
(which is the equivalent of 800 and 900 numbers in the USA). Per call
you will pay the charges from your number to the forwarded number
whereas the caller pays the charges from his/her number to yours.

You can have the feature blocked free of charge. It is only available
if you have a touch-tone phone. And of course it is not available if
you are on a mechanical exchange (I read in the paper that this is
still some 30% of the subscribers). It is not possible to forward to a
forwarded number.

The PTT Telecom has a monopoly here and they are rather conservative.
I guess that is the reason that we had to wait so long.


Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University,
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Telephone: [phone]   Uucp:   uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet
Telefax:   [phone]   Internet:  [e-mail]   (*`Pete')

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

Subject: Interactive Cable
From: ED HOPPER <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun 26 May 91 09:21:18 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575


Recently, an article in TELECOM Digest asked "Whatever happened to the
interactive cable system in Columbus, Ohio."

That system, known as Qube, was also installed here in Houston.  While
I can't speak about Columbus, I did have some contact with the Houston
system, now known as Warner Cable.  This was during my employ as a
software consultant for Columbine Systems of Golden Colorado which had
provided a broadcast traffic system for Warner.  (In other words, I am
not breaking any AT&T Rules here telling you about this!!:-))

Our system, which ran on an IBM System 36, shared the computer room
with the Qube equipment.  It was mostly Data General gear.  Warner was
in the process of phasing out the interactive aspects of Qube by the
time I saw it, but some of it's functions were still operational.
Warner still had a studio and control room for the production of
programs, although by early 1985, it was primarily being used for the
production of commercials to be inserted in the local minutes
available on CNN, ESPN, etc.

One thing that was still being offered was an early version of
pay-per-view movies.  This was a different system than they use now.
Then, one could order a movie from the choices available by pressing a
button on the convertor.

In the computer room, the DG equipment would spit out the viewing
choices of the subscribers on a regular basis, something like every
five minutes.  These were far better than ratings, these were actual
counts of what was being watched fed upstream by the convertors to the
cable head end.  I sat and watched the results for a while.  Since
they were by channel number and I didn't know the layout of the
system, they didn't make too much sense to me.  However, the
pay-per-view channels were easy to pick out.  They showed that even
early in the morning, there were a few people watching (and paying
for) movies.  I guess one could, if one cared to, track the viewing
habits of a subscriber.  (Wouldn't the privacy freaks have a stroke on
that one!)  Such tracking was not done, however.  What they did track
was gross numbers.

One novel use for Qube did occur in Columbus and was widely reported
at the time. A local Columbus adult movie theater was busted for
pornography.  The movie, something like Captain Throb and the Wild
Women of lost planet Spandex, had previously been shown in the "adult"
movie section of the Qube pay-per-view.  The theater owner's attorney
subpoeaned the Qube viewing records to demonstrate that the movie
didn't violate community standards based upon it's popularity with
Qube viewers.

Since then, Warner has decided that Qube was not a commercially viable
offering and has removed it from the Houston system.  Pay-per-view is
still offered on three channels.  Now, one dials up a voice response
system.  You enter your phone number and the last three digits of your
account number and then pick your movie from a menu.  It's not as
slick as the Qube methodology.  In fact, during the Foreman-Holyfield
fight (remember, George is a hometown boy) the dial up system took
over the customer service lines as well and still had a problem
handling the demand.

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 91 14:47:07 EDT
From: Rick Broadhead <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World


In volume 11, issue 397, I wrote:

> Are there any telephones on the market for a residential line that produce
> a double ring?  Or is such a feature restricted to PBX system phones?

The Moderator Noted:

> I don't know if you meant it the way it came out, but the telephone
> instrument has *nothing* to do with the ring you hear as the caller.

I do realize that the double ring a *caller* may hear has nothing to do with
the telephone being used.

To clarify what I was asking here, I'll rephrase the question.

What I meant was:

Are there any telephones on the market for a residential line that produce a
double ring *on the receiving end* ?  I was referring to Robert Oliver's
comment that the PBX system phone in his office produces a double ring when
the call originates from outside the building.  I was wondering if there are
phones that can be used on a residential line that will give a *double ring*
for incoming calls.  I am talking about the telephone ringer.

If anyone has any information, please let me know.

Sorry for the confusion.


Rick Broadhead   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #399
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id ab18229;
          27 May 91 3:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17020;
          27 May 91 1:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13990;
          27 May 91 0:52 CDT
Date:     Mon, 27 May 91 0:26:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #400
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 27 May 91 00:26:06 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 400

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A Memorial: The Eastland Disaster [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: A Memorial: The Eastland Disaster [Joe Carlson]
    Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings? [[e-mail]]
    Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings? [John R. Levine]
    Re: ONA Offers New Horizons for Telesleaze [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [John Higdon]
    Re: AT&T Announces New Technical Reference 800 Number [Steven S. Brack]
    Old Phone Museum Being Cranked Up [Milwaukee Journal via acct069@carroll1]
    900 Providers Know Where You Live [Boston Globe via John R. Levine]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: A Memorial: The Eastland Disaster
From: "Steven S. Brack" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 91 15:30:35 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])


        I have read several accts of the Eastland disaster, and there
were a few points raised in them that weren't mentioned in your post.

        The Eastland was fitted out to accomodate (at most) 1500
persons.  On that day, the load was exceeded by a factor of 2.  In
addition, the ship was loaded in violation of her license, with the
great majority of her passengers on the uppermost deck.  But, what
sparked the tragedy was a chain of small, but important incidents.

        The passengers crowded the pier side of the ship, unpalancing
it so much that the master of the Eastland ordered his chief engineer
to flood the "trim tanks" on the opposite side of the ship.  Acting
indepenently, the ship's purser (?) sent his people to ask passengers
to move to the other side of the ship.  This caused something of a
panic in the crowd, who moved en masse to the other side of the
Eastland's upper decks.  At this point, it is estimated that the
ship's center of gravity moved out of line with it's center of
bouyancy, and she started to heel.  At this point, their fate was
sealed.  The ship heeled over onto its side, resting on the river
bottom.

        When rescuers arrived, they were impeded in cutting into the
side of the Eastland by her master, who feared losing his job if he
let them damage the ship.  He (I believe) had to be carried bodily
away by the police.

        When I look at the conditions that made the Eastland tragedy
happen, I can't help but to think how much greater the catastrophe
could have been.  It is completely possible that the Eastland would
have made it out of the river mouth, but she would almost certainly
have capsized in the lake, with the near-certainty that all would have
died.

        The ship's operators were eventually brought up on charges of
criminal negligence (the Eastland's master had previously been
discharged from another company due to senility, and became completely
insane after learning of the tragic loss of life) in overloading the
Eastland.


Steve

PS:  Do you have any information on a switchroom fire in Chicago, c. 1920
     that claimed many lives due to the design of the building?  I
     believe that many of the victims were women, and that Bell made an
     attempt to "hush it up," but I've only heard rumors about this, and
     hence have no real facts.


Steven S. Brack                  |  [e-mail]
Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower     |  [e-mail]
The Ohio State University        |  [e-mail]
50 Curl Drive.                   |  [e-mail]
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112   USA  |  [e-mail]
[phone]            |  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for the addtional information on the
Eastland disaster. I pretty much worked from microfilm copies of the
{Chicago Tribune} in preparing my article ... and there was much, much
more which could have been included had space permitted.

I've not heard of any fire here around 1920, but there was a fire in
the River Grove, IL central office (then a manual exchange) about 1950
which did severe damage but caused no loss of life. In about 1935, a
major fire at the Chicago Union Stockyards came extremely close to
burning down the telephone exchange (then a manual exchange known as
'YARds' and today known as 312-927). All the operators on duty that
day chose to remain at their post until the last minute, to answer
calls from confused and frightened subscribers as well as relay
instructions from fire and police officials to the same subscribers.
In those days of no air conditioning, people worked with the windows
open, and when the smoke became so bad the operators were choking from
it the firemen insisted that they leave for their own safety. The fire
was contained before it reached the phone exhange.  PAT]

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

From: Joe Carlson <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 1991 17:15:17 -0700
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: A Memorial: The Eastland Disaster


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 396, Message 1 of 6

> Who wrote the song a few years ago with lyrics which said (in
> discussing old memories) 'those too painful to remember, we simply
> choose to forget ...' ?

"The way we were" - Barbara Streisand?

 ..{util20,obdient}!homer!marc    Marc Brumlik, Tailored Software, Inc.
                Wheaton, IL    Voice: 708 668 9947


[Moderator's Note: I think you are correct, and thank you.    PAT]

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

From: 99700000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings?
Date: 27 May 91 04:06:23 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Open Access Computing


I'm looking at a book copyright 1932 (Radio Physics Course, by
Ghirardi) that tells about talking movies among other things.  The
Vitaphone system developed by Bell Labs used approx 15-inch dia
records turning at 33-1/3 rpm.  Refers to Vol 7 No 3 issue of Bell
Laboratories Record for more details.  Must have been a gutsy way to
make movies, since the sound was recorded at the same time as the
filming and you couldn't edit the record.  Obviously the reason for
the large slow record is to make it last as long as a reel of film.

While this format didn't last long in the movies it did carry over to
radio broadcasting.  Up until the 1950s broadcast radio stations had
libraries of "transcriptions" on 15-inch 33-1/3 rpm disks.  These
contained all kinds of stuff: music, sound effects, historical
speeches, etc.  Also programs could be distributed in this way;
programs not considered important enough to rate real-time wire
network transmission.  Some stations had recording equipment so they
could record important events broadcasts on disks.

I presume the 33-1/3 speed was chosen for LP records because the radio
stations already had to have dual speed turntables to play the
transcriptions and 78 rpm records; it would be hard to introduce yet
another speed (until RCA and 45 RPM came along, but that's another
story).  The LP records did require a different stylus, as the
transcriptions used the same wide groove that 78 rpm records used.

The book says Bell Labs also developed the Movietone sound-on-film
system.

Oh, and my grandmother had a Western Electric sewing machine.


[e-mail]    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well for awhile there were also experiments with
records spinning at 16 7/8 rpm ... remember those? They were 'spoken
word' things; i.e. plays, dramatic readings, etc. I've got an oldie
here of Carl Sandburg reading his poems at 16 7/8 rpm. I guess they
gave up on those by 1950 or so. I've also got a four record set of
George Bernard Shaw's "Saint Joan" on 16 7/8 rpm, probably from 1950
or so. The label is RCA Victor; i.e. the dog listening to his master's
voice on the big horn.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 26 May 91 13:56:56 EDT (Sun)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


Western Electric had a long-standing interest in sound recordings.
During the 1930's they had a project to make ultra-hi-fi recordings
far beyond the then-standard 78 RPM records.  They recorded things
like Beethoven symphonies played by famous orchestras.  I've heard
transcriptions of a few and the sound is even by modern standards
excellent.  I'll see if I can dig up some references.


Regards,

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

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

From: Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ONA Offers New Horizons for Telesleaze
Date: 26 May 91 18:14:48 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


> It seems someone has a patent to inject advertising messages
> in the silent intervals between audible ringing signals.  Worse yet,
> the RBOCs seem to be all agog at this marvelous new thought about
> getting revenue out of otherwise "dead air time!"

I'd love to see this patent make money only by suing people who
infringe it, much like a certain company is doing with public-key
encryption.

This sounds like yet another scheme to jack up the rates for data
users.  Many modems will abort the call if they detect voice on the
line.  Ads will do wonders for call completion rates.  On the other
hand, it might fake out those blasted robot dialers that call and
deliver ads.

If you hear one of these on your line, call the telephone company and
complain about hearing someone else's conversation on your line.  Ask
if your conversations can be overheard as easily by someone else.
(Southwestern Bell seems to take audible crosstalk seriously, as
demonstrated during the first big rain after my second line was
installed.  It seems one side of my line got shorted to one side of
someone else's.  I could hear someone talking, even over dialtone.
They had someone checking on it very fast, in the middle of a
miserable thunderstorm.)  Then call the advertiser's 800 line (any 800
line they happen to have) and complain.  Also call the telephone
company business office and hold them responsible for the content of
the ads.  Try to get them to make good on the warranty.  It won't do
any good, but maybe the jump in customer-service calls will convince
them that ads are a bad idea.  One complaint for each non-complaint
call you make seems about right.


Gordon L. Burditt    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 91 17:37 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World


Rick Broadhead <[e-mail]> writes:

> Are there any telephones on the market for a residential line that produce a
> double ring *on the receiving end* ?  I was referring to Robert Oliver's
> comment that the PBX system phone in his office produces a double ring when
> the call originates from outside the building.  I was wondering if there are
> phones that can be used on a residential line that will give a *double ring*
> for incoming calls.  I am talking about the telephone ringer.

With some very limited exceptions (such as some cordless phones), all
phone INSTRUMENTS ring at the rate ringing current is applied. If the
CO (or PBX) sends a single ring cadence, the phone sounds with a
single ring. The telephone ringer is a very stupid device in that it
makes noise when powered (by ringing current) and is silent when it is
not.  The reason Robert Oliver's office phone rings the way it does is
because it is connected to the PBX, which can power the ringer with
any cadence it likes.

The phones in my home ring with a single ring for outside calls, a
double ring for inside calls, and a triple ring when called from the
front door box. What are my phones? They are Cortelco 2500 sets. How
can they behave in this manner? Because ringing current comes from my
Panasonic KX-T1232 and NOT from the telephone company.

If you really want your phones to ring with a cadence separate from the
one supplied by your central office, then you will have to invest in
some sort of phone system, be it a PBX, hybrid, or a key system.


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

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

Subject: AT&T Announces New Technical Reference 800 Number
From: "Steven S. Brack" <nstar!bluemoon![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 26 May 91 14:51:47 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])


[e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce) writes:

> The following is part of an AT&T letter dated May 6, 1991:

> Phone [phone]   Cornet 358-8500   Fax [phone]
                         ^^^^^^

        A quick, simple question: what is Cornet?


Steven S. Brack                  |  [e-mail]
Jacob E. Taylor Honors Tower     |  [e-mail]
The Ohio State University        |  [e-mail]
50 Curl Drive.                   |  [e-mail]
Columbus, Ohio 43210-1112   USA  |  [e-mail]
[phone]            |  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Cornet is the internal phone network of AT&T. Like
many large nationwide corporations, they have their own internal network.
I wonder what they pay for it and who they get it from?  :)   PAT]

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

From: Ron <uwm!carroll1.cc.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Old Phone Museum Being Cranked Up
Date: 26 May 91 20:33:27 GMT
Reply-To: Ron <uwm!carroll1.cc.edu![e-mail]>
Organization: Lightning Systems, Inc.


[taken from the Sunday {Milwaukee Journal} (5/26/91)]

Tomah
{Old Phone Museum Being Cranked Up}

    Calling all phone-a-philes: Some Wisconsin telephone companies
are stringing together a telephone museum in Tomah.

    It will be called the _Harris G. Allen Telecommunications
Historical Museum_ and is intended to provide a free public tour of
the last century of talking through wires.  Allen, who lived from 1900
to 1988, founded the Tomah-based North-West Telecommunications Co. and
is considered a pioneer in the industry.

    The 5,400-square-foot building for the museum is being donated
by Pacific Telecom Inc., a company in Vancouver, Wash., that owns both
North-West Telecommunications and Cencom Inc., which operates some
local phone companies in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa.


Ron                      | Lightning Systems, INC.
[e-mail]  | [phone]  60megs
carroll1![e-mail] | 14.4k HST/V.32bis

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

Subject: 900 Providers Know Where You Live
Date: Sun, 26 May 91 14:29:23 EDT
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


Today's copy of the {Boston Globe Magazine} has a feature article by
staff writer Nathan Cobb on 900 numbers.  It discusses their history
and some of the controversy about them.  The average 900 number,
something of a misnomer because there are a small number that get a
tremendous number of calls, gets 374 calls a week lasting 2.75 minutes
and costing $1.25 / minute.  The largest category is sports, about
15%, followed by sex at 5 to 10%.  Programs are commonly interactive,
i.e. the caller can select from a menu using touch-tone digits, and a
small but growing fraction have live people on the other end, ranging
from 1-900-BADGIRL to Tele-Lawyer.  Lotus Development has 900 support
lines.

It says that only 10% of US households have ever called a 900 number.
According to a study commisioned by Saatchi & Saatchi, a large ad
agency, people call either because they're bored or they are afraid of
the unknown, the latter group calling various information numbers
because they feel deficient not having the most up-to-the minute
information.  (I will omit any comparisons to people who spend 3 hours
a day reading net news, but I digress.)

At the end it reports that 900 numbers increasingly capture the
callers' numbers and translate them to addresses.  According to Sprint
Gateways, the US Sprint 900 department, they are able "to identify the
names and addresses of the nine closest neighbors of the original 900
caller.  With this information, additional qualified prospects can be
identified for database marketing efforts."

The author concludes: "I have seen the future and it's one in which
I'll pay for the privilege of becoming a sales lead."


Regards,

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #400
******************************