Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss401-450

Text File | 1991-06-13 | 942KB | 22,615 lines

Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07974;
          27 May 91 23:53 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12684;
          27 May 91 22:06 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25293;
          27 May 91 20:59 CDT
Date:     Mon, 27 May 91 20:45:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #401
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 27 May 91 20:44:56 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 401

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Technology Versus Money [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Access Charge Goes UP [John Higdon]
    Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [Larry Lippman]
    DTMF Decoder Chip Wanted [Steve Fenwick]
    Looking For Inexpensive Outside Wire [Steve Gaarder]
    Free Teletypes [Stanfield L. Smith]
    Telecom Export Controls [Marc Rotenberg]
    Re: Creative Loafing Editorial on CLASS Features [Kevin P. Kleinfelter]
    Re: 52x Area Codes [Carl Moore]
    Verbosity Correlation? [William M. Hawkins]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 26 May 91 22:13 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Technology Versus Money


        These pages often contain examples of technology limited,
thwarted or prostituted to the greed of the "money people."  The
technology of telecommunications has suffered perhaps more than most,
for beyond being a benefactor of human relations at greater distances
than most, it is usually benign to the public safety.

        Airplanes can crash; ships can sink.  Electrical power, gas,
water and sewers run amok can kill people in their own way.  But the
relatively harmless technology, telecomunications, can be stretched
and milked to its staggering and failing point, with little risk of
arousing pulic ire from visible damage when it fails.

        The result is that when its capital suppliers decide to stress
telecomm to failure, there's far less penalty than more generally
"dangerous" technologies.

        There are many stories to illustrate this point, but I'd like
to step over to the side of the stream, to bring you a quotation from
a book that tells of how the world generally viewed two its the major
characters of the 19th century, Napoleon Bonaparte, a killer emperor
who pleased people because his killing brought them money anyway, and
Michael Faraday, from whose discoveries we all benefit daily in untold
ways ... but have forgotten.  The words are so well told in the book,
"A History of Electrical Engineering," by Percy Dunsheath, a retired
President of the (British) Institution of Electrical Engineers and the
International Electrotechnical Commission, that it's best quoted
almost verbatim (with but a few insertions for clarity where
Dunsheath's text refers to previous chapters of his book, indicated by
parentheses):

<From Chapter XX, "English Social and Historical Background">

        "Within a few weeks of the young bookbinder's apprentice,
Faraday, making (his) historical notes of (Sir Humphrey) Davy's
lecture at the Royal Institution in the spring of 1812, Napoleoon
collected the Grand Army, a mighty host of soldiers from France and
many other countries, armed and provisioned for a massive onslaught on
Russia.  As the defenders retired they laid waste the country before
the advancing horde but Napoleon pressed on.  At Borodino, where
100,000 dead were left on the battlefield, the last major obstacle was
overcome and by the end of the summer Napoleon was in Moscow.  This,
however, proved to be a trap.  Notwithstanding all his blandishments
he failed to secure the co-operation of the Muscovites and, with the
winter approaching only retreat was possible.

Then followed one of the most tragic marches in history.  Without food
or shelter, the soldiers killed and ate their horses and died as they
slept, covered by snow.  Weapons and booty were abandoned and in the
middle of December less than 20,000 ragged emaciated stragglers
returned, all that remained of the 600,000 who had set out as a
disciplined army six months before.  During this same period Farady
had bound up his notes of the four lectures and submitted them to Davy
with a request to be found a post as an assistnat at the Royal
Institution.

As the stragglers from Moscow were re-entering France, Farady received
a letter from Davy making an appointment which led to (Faraday's) long
association with the Royal Institution during which he made so many
fundamental contributions to electrical engineering.  Napoleon and
Faraday!  What an interesting comparison and what an indictment of
man's ingratitude! Napoleon, the creator of misery and death for
hundreds of thousands, rests in solemn grandeur in Les Envalides (a
huge marble rotunda in Paris, where Napoleon's coffin lies surrounded
by the lesser heroes of France); Faraday, the great benefactor who, as
founder of electrical engineering, did so much for human progress,
lies in a modest grave at Highgate cemetery known to few." <end of
quote>

        Dunsheath's anecdote here shows that the larger world has
often and always accorded honors to the manipulator beyond those to
the benefactor.  Telecommunications (a true descendant of Faraday) is
no exception.

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 91 20:40 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Access Charge Goes UP


Remember the famous "access charge" that a great many people believe
has something to do with access?

"On April 2, 1991, Pacific Bell filed with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) for an increase in the "Network Access for Interstate
Calling" charge that appears on your business bill. At the same time,
we requested an increase in certain rates for special access services.

"If rates are approved, they will go into effect July 1, 1991.

"'Network Access for Interstate Calling' Charge

"The 'Network Access for Interstate Calling' charge enables us to
recover the cost Pacific Bell incurs in completing interstate calls.
For the following customers who have more than one line, we have
proposed an increase of about three percent, from $4.02 to $4.14 a
month per line, for this access charge:

*Multi-Line Business
*Customer-Owned Pay Telephone (COPT)
*Semi-Public Coin Telephones
*Centrex

"In the same filing we also requested an increase of about 28 percent
in installation rates, from $346.50 to $445.00, for voice grade
special access services."

Would it not be a dream come true to have a business in which you
could simply pull money out of your customers on a whim? Costs of
completing interstate calls? Obviously, Pac*Bell figures that its
customers were born yesterday.

By the way, if you are a 200 line Centrex customer, the "access"
increase amounts to a not-so-insignificant $24.00 per month. If you
have a 200 line PBX with 30 trunks, the increase is only $3.60 per
month. Centrex customers get screwed again.


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

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

Subject: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus
Date: 27 May 91 00:33:46 EDT (Mon)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> 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.

    Is it possible that you encountered a "line extender" for FAX
and/or modem use, which *immediately* trips the central office ringing
and supplies its own ringing signal?  Under these circumstances, you
may never get a chance to hear the CO ringback tone, with the
resultant ringback tone being solely the product of the subscriber's
line extender.

> [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]

    The above explanation about a line extender notwitstanding, it
*is* possible to hear a ringback tone modification cased by the
subscriber instrument.  In electromechanical CO's, such as SxS, XY and
some No. 1 XBAR (if any is still left), ringback tone is usually
supplied by capacitive coupling between the called subscriber line
while it is being rung and the calling party side of the connector or
intraoffice trunk.  Some older telephones having electronic ringers
may create audible signals on the telephone line due to the design of
the ringer oscillator circuit.  While such audible signals cannot
modify the cadence of the ringback signal, they can provide a decided
modification to its sound as heard by the calling party.

    I first noticed the above many years ago in an Ericophone
(remember those?) having a electronic tone ringer.


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] (Steve Fenwick)
Subject: DTMF Decoder Chip Wanted
Date: 26 May 91 20:46:49 GMT


Does anyone know where to buy an inexpensive DTMF decoder chip?
Preferable with easy interfacing capabilities.  I want to build one of
those turn-on-anything-from-anywhere gizmos.  Thanks....


Steve
CoSysop: pro-hindugods

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

Date: Mon, 27 May 91 02:17:36 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Looking For Inexpensive Outside Wire


A friend and I are planning to run some cable from my house to his, a
distance of about 1000 feet, and are looking for advice on where to
find suitable wire at minimum cost.  The plan is to go underground
right near the houses, and overhead through the trees in the
intervening woods.  We need at least two pairs carrying RS-422 data,
and an extra pair or two for some sort of voice link would be very
nice.  I have scrounged some underground phone cable and some drop
wire, but not enough yet.  One possible source of cheap wire is
military surplus WD-1 field telephone wire.  I've been told that it is
steel wire, or possibly a combination of copper and steel.  Does
anyone know which, and what kind of resistance per unit length the
stuff has?  Also, any gotchas about using wire intended for
underground use overhead?  Any other ideas?

Thanks,


Steve Gaarder   [e-mail]  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: For only a thousand feet, why not go underground
for the whole trip? It will be less conspicuous to vandals and others,
and avoid the problem of trees getting cut down and winter ice storms
pulling the wire down, etc.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon 27 May 91 18:29:41
From: "Stanfield L. Smith  " <[e-mail]>
Subject: Free Teletypes


ATTENTION Telephone equipment collectors/aficionados, HAM's,
          TDY support people and those involved with junior
          telephone groups.

In a past life, I bought, sold and refurbished all types of teletype
equipment.  As a result I have a collection of equipment and spare
parts that I am willing to donate to any person/group that can make
use of them.

The following is by no means a complete listing:

Model 15 teletypes - Newswire vintage, 5 level baudot, gears for any
standard speed.  Approximately 25 units with covers, very few tables.

Model 19 teletypes - Same as the 15, but on a larger table with a TD on the
side and tape punch on the keyboard.

Model 28RT - This unit is about 5 ft tall and the girth of a household
icebox.  It contains two complete and independent sets of automaticq tape
repeaters.  These units were used for message store and forward.

Model 32ASR - This is a 5 level baudot machine capable of 75 words per
minute.  Looks like a Model 33 but has a 3 row keyboard.

Model 33ASR and KSR - 110 baud ASCII machines.

Model 35ASR and KSR - 110-150 baud ASCII machines.  Intended for heavy duty
continuous use.  Have extra typing units for sprocket feed paper.

Miscellaneous - Support supplies, gears, motors - everything needed for
ongoing support of teletypes.

If you are interested in any or all of this, or know someone who is, please
contact me.


Stanfield L. Smith                [e-mail]   516-737-2238
Lake Ronkonkoma, LI, NY (50 miles east of NYC, near Islip Airport)

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

Date: Mon, 27 May 91 12:58:30 -0400
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telecom Export Controls


The {New York Times} reported on Saturday that the Committee for
Multilateral Export Controls ("Cocom") has decided to ease hi-tech
export control restrictions. According to Allan Wendt, the State
Department's senior representative for strategic technology policy,
"The new list will provide stronger controls on truly strategic items
while freeing from control those items that are are needed to
modernize the economies of the proscribed countries that are no longer
considered militarily critical." ("US and Allies Move to Ease Cold War
Limits on Exports," {New York Times}, May 25, 1991, at A1.)

The Times story does not indicate whether there were changes in the
restrictions on the export of encryption technology, such as DES.

According to the Times, "under the new rules agreed to late Thursday
in Paris after a year of often tense talks, restrictions will be
lifted on the export of almost all personal computers.  Controls will
remain on items like night-vision systems and supercomputers that are
considered essential to maintain the Wests' superiority in military
technology over the Soviet Union.  American computer and telecom-
munications equipment makers said that while they were generally
pleased with the liberalization, they felt that the changes did not go
far enough in two area, computers and telecommunications equipment.

[The revised list] is expected to result in a 70 percent drop in the
number of computer-export applications submitted to the commerce
department. [PCs up to 486 will be decontrolled, but RISC- based
machines will remain on the list]. The ability of US telecommunications
equipment makers to sell more advanced fiber-optic telephone equipment
to the Soviets will also be restricted under the new rules.  The
source for most of these concerns [upgrading Soviet telecommunications]
in the United States was the intelligence community, particularly the
National Security Agency. 'No one is trying to keep the Soviet Union
in the Stone Age,' Mr.  Wendt said.  'What the Soviet Union needs is
good old-fashioned telephones.'  Cocom officials vowed to strengthen
export control procedures on the smaller number of items that will be
restricted."


Marc Rotenberg
CPSR Washington Office

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

From: "Kevin P. Kleinfelter" <msa3b![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Creative Loafing Editorial on CLASS Features
Date: 27 May 91 19:19:57 GMT
Organization: Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA


> The right to privacy?  That's one option the phone company isn't
> offering at _any_ price.

Sure they do ... and at a bargain price!  No phone == $0. If privacy
is the essential element one desires, the mere ringing of the phone is
an intrusion. Unless one has a severe medical problem, the phone is
NONESSENTIAL, and is an intrusion by its very nature.

No, this is not the same as saying that you don't have to take a drug
test if you don't want the job. You DO need employment to live within
the civilized community.


Kevin Kleinfelter @ DBS, Inc [phone]   ...gatech!nanoVX!msa3b!kevin

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 91 16:34:48 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 52x Area Codes


52x "area code" did appear on 1982 tape from AT&T.  They definitely were
not dialable that way then.

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 91 23:25:09 CDT
From: "William M. Hawkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Verbosity Correlation?


It seems to me, as I thumb through the Digest, that submissions by
folks talking about Cellular Phones are mostly much longer than
others.  Is this because a limited number of people submit Cellular
articles, and many of them (but not a valid cross section of humanity)
are verbose?  Or is it because people who are so wrapped up in
communication that they carry a portable phone are also naturally
verbose?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #401
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10608;
          28 May 91 0:56 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08402;
          27 May 91 23:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12684;
          27 May 91 22:06 CDT
Date:     Mon, 27 May 91 21:27:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #402
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 27 May 91 21:26:36 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 402

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Calling US 800-Numbers From New Zealand [Claus Tondering]
    Re: International Calling to 800 Numbers [Philip Gladstone]
    Re: ONA Offers New Horizons for Telesleaze [John Higdon]
    Re: I Was Caught In a Big Halon Discharge [Macy Hallock]
    Re: 9's in Telephone Numbers [Tim Irvin]
    Re: Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan [Mike Berger]
    Re: DAA Help Needed [Jon Sreekanth]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Steve Pershing]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Jon Sreekanth]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Claus Tondering <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling US 800-Numbers From New Zealand
Organization: Dansk Data Elektronik A/S
Date: Mon, 27 May 1991 06:42:54 GMT


cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail] (Robert L. Oliver) writes:

> 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?

> [Moderator's Nore: 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]

I tried that a couple of years ago, but the USA Direct operator would
not connect me to an 800 number.


Claus Tondering
Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark
E-mail: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Philip Gladstone)
Subject: Re: International Calling to 800 Numbers
Organization: Data General, Development Lab Europe
Date: 27 May 91 17:57:59


> [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]

Around a year ago, I had to help an American friend who had her credit
cards stolen while visiting here. Happily she had a copy of her most
recent bill -- this listed the 800 number to call to report a loss.

No amount of calling AT&T via their direct dial number in the UK would
persuade them to connect us to an 800 number. They tried to be helpful
and called the 800 number on our behalf to try and find 'the real
number'. Unfortunately, it was late at night on a weekend and the
operators at the credit card company didn't seem too helpful -- the
AT&T operator was unable to get a real phone number out of them.

Eventually we started calling friends in the US and persuaded one of
them to call the 800 number.

By the end of this hassle, I'd have been happy to pay operator-
assisted transatlantic charges to get through!

Come on British Telecom, there is money to made here.


Philip Gladstone         Dev Lab Europe, Data General, Cambridge, UK


[Moderator's Note: Well, what I have heard lately is that if you are
willing to pay for a call to the IOC, they will put it through to that
point then it'll be dialed back out from there to the destination.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 27 May 91 01:26 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: ONA Offers New Horizons for Telesleaze


Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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.

Yes, indeed. Most sleazeTel LD companies use "software answer
supervision" for determining when to start the clock on billing. The
routines depend on voice detection to "guess" at supervision. If it
hears any SIT, then the call is considered failed and no billing is
done. On the other hand, if the asymetrical patterns of voice are
detected, the call is assumed to be complete and charging begins.
COCOTs also use this scheme.

Currently, there is a major problem dealing with unavailable cellular
phones. Most cellular providers do not use the SIT, but have a dry
announcement stating that the called phone is not available. Any
carrier not using hardware answer supervision will bill for the call.
This would also occur for every call that had commercial matter
between rings.

And imagine this: you reach for your ringing phone after only one ring
and you get a recording that says, "the person trying to reach you is
still listening to an important announcement. Please hold until you are
connected."


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

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 91 14:03 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Was Caught In a Big Halon Discharge
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


[ 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.

> I suspect that the test you witnessed was performed with a dummy
> substance in the tank rather than Halon.

This is true.  In a decent size computer room, a Halon 1301 dump can
cost $10k-30k.  For this reason, testing is done using another gas.
The tests I particpated in (one of the companies I own does fire alarm
work, and I hold a valid State of Ohio Fire Alarm Installer License)
used CO2.  I was told CO2 dispersed in a similar fashion as Halon and
cost far, far less.

All personnel were evacuated prior to the test.  The only people
remaining in the room had breathing gear on. (It looked like fire/mine
type assisted breathing apparatus to me) The discharge itself was
rather spectacular, and sure stirred up the air.  A slight mist/fog
could be seen.  The air temperature dropped several degrees, according
the the evironmental systems.  Frost formed on the manifold and pipes
above the tanks, and on the halon tanks themselves.  The sound was
impressive, too.

I'm told the actual change in the air mixture in the room is rather
rapid and when either halon or CO2 is used, should not be deadly.
However, the possiblility of accidental asphyxiation is possbile,
either by incomplete dispersal (the high discharge veolcity is
intended to even mix/disperse the gas) or for physical reasons (poor
health, etc>).  Accordingly, the correct procedure is to evacuate
without delay, and reenter only with assisted breathing apparatus
until the room's atmosphere is returned to normal.

Later, after I was off site, some idiot got to fooling around with the
room's fire alarm system and dumped the real halon.  The bill was
around $20k at this site (a major insurance company), and the idiot
tried to blame our fire alarm system.  We had to demonstrate the
system operated well within spec and also got written statements from
several other people in the computer to resolve the issue.  Sigh.  I
really didn't want to learn about Halon systems to the extent required
by the situation.

Note that the computer room involved was actually smaller than most
major central office ESS equipment rooms are.  I now notice that some
of the local telcos and carriers are installing Halon systems.  They
are also breaking up their offices into smaller areas and using
firestops and doors to compartmentalize their Halon systems and fire
risks.  Its about time.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr. N8OBG  216-725-4764 Home
[e-mail] [e-mail]
Note: [e-mail] is best reply path to me.   uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm
telling you]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 9's in Telephone Numbers
Date: Mon, 27 May 91 09:29:03 [phone]
From: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest V11 #393, John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> [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."

> 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.

That part I did understand, what I was complaining about is their
choice of default messages.  "being checked for trouble" implies that
this is a valid number but that the line is temporarily out-of-order.
A better message would be "this line is not in service", or the old
standby "this line has been disconnected, or is no longer in service".
Here there is no possibility of confusing this with a working line.


Tim


[Moderator's Note: We also have one here which says, 'the number you
dialed, XXX-XXXX <maynot> yet be connected. Please try your call again
later.'  The 'may' and 'not' are run together like one word.   PAT]

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

From: Mike Berger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 27 May 1991 14:48:48 GMT


[e-mail] (Christopher M Lott) writes:

> 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.

It only covers repairs on phones you rent from Bell Atlantic.
However, you do get a loaner while yours is in the shop (limited
time).

> 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
 ...

> 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?

If your toilet breaks, are you responsible for the plumbing bills?
You should not be responsible for problems with building services.
Whether the phone company is responsible or the landlord isn't your
concern.  YOU aren't responsible for it.

> 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.''


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


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell generally assumes responsibility up
to the point the wire comes in your apartment *in older buildings with
house pairs going back long before divestiture.*  In newer buildings,
they sometimes pass the house pairs off as the landlord's problem.  PAT]

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DAA Help Needed
Date: Mon, 27 May 1991 16:37:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Paul Sutter <sutter@apple.
com> writes:

> 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.

The way it was explained to me, for a "DC REN" of 1.0, the DC on-hook
impedance below 100V should be 25 Meg. Since a max of REN 5.0 is
permitted, the minimum DC impedance is 5 Meg.

I've seen the EIA spec, but it can't be mandatory, because I have a
Rat Shack gadget which has detailed specs, and lists its resistance as
10M on-hook, 300 ohm off-hook.

The only issue is whether you expect other parallel connected devices
(extension phones, etc) sharing the line with your device, in which
case you don't want to use up the REN 5.0 budget.


> 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?

The way I've done it is figure out the maximum "regular" voltage on
the phone line (48V + 1.4*150 ... FCC ring B has a max of 150V).
Varistors seem to have a broad range of breakdown voltage, not a crisp
zener like voltage, so I've ended up using a 360V nominal varistor.
The resistors should have enough wattage not to blow under the FCC
simulated lightning strike (25A of 10*560 uS surge at 800V). I
actually use a slow blow fuse in place of the resistors; that gives me
UL1459.


Regards,

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

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

Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
From: Steve Pershing <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 May 91 14:22:52 PDT
Organization: Questor - Free Internet/Usenet*Vancouver*BC::[phone]


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> 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.

Not to belabour the point, but there are tone-ringer chips from many
chip manufacturers which can be relatively easily configured to
produced whatever ringing cadence one wants, given a bit of electronic
knowledge.

Chips from Motorola and Mitel come to mind.  I think a simple circuit
consisting of a CMOS 555-type timer powered by a bridge rectifier
across the telephone line (and isolated by means of neon lamp) would
do the job.

The 555 could be used to trigger and/or power the Tone Ringer chip as
I think it can supply around 20ma current (if memory serves me correctly).


Steve Pershing, System Administrator

The QUESTOR Project: FREE Usenet News/Internet Mail; Sci, Med, AIDS, more :
Internet: [e-mail]     : POST: 1027 Davie Street,  Box 486 :
 Phones:  Voice/FAX:  [phone] :       Vancouver, British Columbia :
          Data/BBS:   [phone] :       Canada  V6E 4L2             :

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
Date: Mon, 27 May 1991 17:29:39 GMT


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

> 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?

> [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;
> ome temporary switch problem.   PAT]

You may have reached a fax switch, or some similar hack. These units
pick up the line on hearing a ring signal, and send out a "phantom
ringback", waiting to sense a fax or modem carrier tone. A lot of them
generate a pretty yucky ringback (= single stage filtered square
wave). Since the ring at the called end and the telephone company
ringback sent back to the caller are un-synchronized, and these boxes
pick up the line very fast, it's possible that the only "ringback" the
caller hears comes from terminal equipment, not telco ringback.

Though it's surprising that they should generate a non-standard
ringback, instead of the standard US ringback. At least one fax switch
I know of (CCI, Colorado ?) has an EPROM upgrade to generate different
countries' ringbacks.

But to get back to the main thread: is it "mandatory" for all US
exchanges to generate the familiar ringback ?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #402
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13308;
          28 May 91 2:01 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09829;
          28 May 91 0:18 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08402;
          27 May 91 23:12 CDT
Date:     Mon, 27 May 91 22:51:56 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #403
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 27 May 91 22:51:49 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 403

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Did Western Electric Also Make Sound Recordings? [Donald Kimberlin]
    Re: Did Western Electric Also Make Sound Recordings? [[e-mail]]
    Re: Why a Twist in Modular Cables? [Macy Hallock]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 May 91 18:05 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did Western Electric Also Make Sound Recordings?


        Responding to the Moderator, <[e-mail]> writes:

> I'm looking at ... (Radio Physics Course ... that tells about
> talking movies ... The Vitaphone system developed by Bell Labs
> used approx 15-inch diameter records turning at 33-1/3 rpm.  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.

        It sure was, and a gutsy way to show them, too.  While the
original Vitaphone-by-disk method was long gone by the time I came
along to work in movie theatres as a teenager, the Vitaphone disk
turntable was still there, mounted on the rear of the projector lamp
bases.  I was told the projectionist had to be a slip-cueing DJ,
playing the record for the current reel in as close to lip sync as
possible.

        Even though sound-on-film came along and killed disks in the
projection booth, the Vitaphone name lived through several techniques.
If you look carefully at the title screens of Warner Brothers Looney
Tunes, you'll see the Vitaphone name listed there.

        Haynes continues:

> While this format didn't last long in the movies it did carry over to
> radio broadcasting.  Up until the 1950's 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.

        At WTSP in St. Petersburg, FL we did all those things, right
up into the late 1950's.  We had two major "transcription libraries,"
The World Transcription Service and the Standard Transcription
Library.  Both were 33-1/3 rpm recordings on "16-inch" disks, as the
size was called. Western Electric's piece of this was evidenced on the
Standard transcriptions, which were "vertical cut," that is, the
needle action was vertical in the groove as opposed to lateral in
consumer records.  There were claims that "vertical cut" was
higher-fidelity than lateral cut.

        To play them back, we had "transcription heads" on the
turntables that could be switched to use either vertical-sensitive or
lateral-sensitive pickup windings.  (Yes, windings ... these were
BIG, clunky, long playback arms that while very well-balanced, weighed
a pound or so it seemed. To play a warped record, we'd set a line of
lead type from the <St. Petersburg Times> composing room on top of the
playback head!  Other stations had to use a 50 cent or dollar coin.)

        The standard transcriptions bore WECo's mark in the form of a
patent license notice for use of the vertical technique.

        Haynes continues:

> 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.

        Absolutely. Among the things WTSP's library contained was all
two thousand or so episodes of the "Lone Ranger."  Every weekday
evening at 7, I played the one scheduled on the log for that day.
And, tape recording was not yet all that trusted yet, so we "delayed"
many programs by cutting our own acetate disks off the network line,
holding them hours or days, and playing our locally-made "e.t." when
scheduled.  Perhaps the wildest form of this was delaying Sunday
baseball games until local blue laws permitted broadcasting a sporting
event.  There, we'd be recording the game in 15-minute segments, then
playing the disks back in sequence an hour or two into the game.

        Few people know that WECo was heavily into broadcasting
equipment.  Bell Labs, of course, did the basic design, but had been
into building a wide variety of radio equipment since very early days.
The entry of Bell interests into radio broadcasting with WEAF at New
York brought to radio, among other things, the "commercial
announcement," as AT&T fully expected radio broadcasting to be a
"message service" for sale, every bit as much as a letter, telegram,
or telephone "message."

        In a set of relations so complex as to defy sorting out, AT&T
and RCA both cooperated and competed in various forms of early radio.
These included Bell's use of RCA transmitters at Rocky Point for the
low-frequency New York-London SSB radio, numerous Bell Labs
experiments at Deal Beach, NJ, and experimental station 3XN at
Whippany, NJ.  3XN was reported in a 1928 book to use a Western
Electric 7-A transmitter with a capacity of 200 kilowatts, operated at
50 kilowatts, equipped with Western Electric-made water-coooled power
tubes.

        Another paragraph of the 1928 book said that WCAP in
Washington, DC had been recently closed due to "complicated legal
difficulties," but that it had been operated by the Chesapeake and
Potomac Telephone Company for three years.  This was likely part of
the action around that time in which AT&T withdrew from operating
radio broadcasting outlets.  WCAP's transmitter was said to have been
designed by a 'Mr. Colpitts of the Western Electric Company." (Radio
people certainly recognize the name Colpitts!)  WBAP at Fort Worth was
said to have a Western Electric transmitter, made with "two 250-watt
oscillators and two modulators of the same power" (500 Watts of
modulated oscillator? Egads!).

        In fact, well into the 1950s, WECo was a major player in the
supply of radio broadcasting equipment for both the studio and the
transmitter.  At WTSP, our three antenna towers had been supplied by
the Blaw-Knox Company, ordered through the Graybar Supply office in
Tampa, FL, in order to support our WECo-made FM antenna that was fed
from our WECo 405B FM transmitter, whioh was full of WECo tubes, from
the smallest to the largest, a 10 kilowatt VHF amplifier.  There were
numerous WECo AM transmitters and WECo 25-Type studio audio consoles
still in use by the late 1950s.  While RCA, Collins, GE, Westinghouse,
Federal and Gates all made broadcasting transmitters, it can fairly be
said that Western Electric was the standard of excellence in that era
of broadcasting -- top price, but admittedly most durable.

        It was an earlier consent decree agreed by AT&T that took WECo
out of the broadcasting supply business.  Up into the very late
1950's, WTSP was still buying odds and ends like WECo tubes and patch
cords from the Graybar office at Tampa (and we could buy WECo
telephones, too -- ostensibly for the purpose of "broadcasting order
wire use).

        But WEco was at sea, also.  An illustration from the 1928 book
shows a "Western Electric 50-Watt combination Radiotelegraph and
Telephone transmitter, Type T-1-A, enclosed in protecting cabinet on
board a 75-foot patrol boat of the U.S. Coast Guard." It is matched
with a Western Electric Type CGR-1-A superheterodyne receiver.  The
frequency range is described as 1700 to 2500 kilocycles. Also, a "new
type of calling apparatus," by the name "CGR-9 Transmitter attachment"
and "CGR-10 reciever attachment," made by Western Electric.  Any
worker with early mobile radios of the 1950s will recognize these
mechanical keyers and selectors as the same technology used 25 years
later by local Telcos for mobile phones.

        And WECo's early days seem to have included manufacture
overseas, too.  A 1928 description of the British radio behemoth,
GFEX, operating on 16 kilohertz (egads!) with an output of 540
kilowatts that produced 600 amps of RF current in a 1-ohm antenna that
was 2-3/4 miles long, was reported to use power tubes that were "all
Western Electric water-cooled, made at New Southgate, England. The
power unit consists of 18 valves, having each an output of 10
kilowatts ... "  Thus, to produce the 540 kilowatts output, three of
these `power units' were paralleled to add the 180 kilowatts output of
three together.  This beast produced an RF current of 700 amps in its
antenna.

        Back to recordings: John Levine <[e-mail]>
writes:

> 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.

        With its reason for interest in high-quality sound for radio
broadcasting and motion pictures, the art of recording sound on film
had produced the most noise-free recording medium of the era preceding
magnetic recording.  I have recall, but no documentary sources, of
WECo's engaging in mastering sound recordings on film; these may have
been part of the (at that time) superb sound quality of the Standard
Transcription Library.

One reason so far as consumer sound recording was concerned is
described by Roland Gelatt in his "The Fabulous Phonograph: 1877-1977"
(Macmillan, New York, 1977, 2nd ed.):

He says that by 1933, "... the record business in America was
practically extinct," referring to almost 70 years of virtually no
development beyond Edison's basic acoustic methods.  Apparently, the
record industry had not of its own accord adopted any of the advances
that electronics could bring.  Even so, my 1928 reference book shows a
phono pickup and states that, "Modern electric phonographs, usually
combination phonograph and radio broadcast receiver ..."

But, another limit had been set for WECo in a 1926 settlement between
RCA and AT&T that took AT&T out of radio broadcasting operations: WECo
was barred from competing with RCA in the manufacture of consumer
radio broadcast receivers; thus, a WECo-made consumer radio could not
contain a phonograph.  So, while it might seem that the Great
Depression was sounding a death knell for the record business, "The
Movies" were coming on strong.  Yet another director for WECo to stick
with its industrial products.  For all its various activities, Western
Electric of the period after 1930 or so seems to have been interested
only in commercial products and sales of its systems to industry.


        Meantime, Haynes concludes with:

> Oh, and my grandmother had a Western Electric sewing machine.

        It seems that around WW I days, Western Electric was into many
sorts of products.  I located one reference to early days of things
electrical that described an Edison product called an "electric pen."
It was a 4,000 rpm electric motor with a short crank connected to a
stylus used to punch many tiny holes in copying stencils. The
reference says, "The pen was widely advertised and when the Western
Electric Co. took it up large numbers were sold. At one time, more
than 60,000 were in use..."

        I also have vague recall of Western Electric having been
involved in a wide variety of products over its early years, but have
no good single history of the company.  Since it was of Cicero, IL
origin and was so important there for so long, perhaps there is some
Chicago-area history describing the full breadth of Western Electric's
ventures over time.

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

Subject: Re: Did Western Electric Also Make Sound Recordings?
Date: Mon, 27 May 91 10:32:42 PDT
From: [e-mail], [e-mail]


Re: 16-2/3 RPM recordings - I suspect they are still in use as
"talking books for the blind" though they may have been supplanted by
cassettes by now.  Your public librarian could probably tell you.  At
one time a blind person could get the loan of a player, from the
Library of Congress as I recall, and the materials for the blind were
mailable free or at very low rates.

There was also a project by I think it was Chrysler to produce an
automobile record player at that speed.  This was maybe mid-50s, long
before cassettes and eight-track cartridges.  And for some reason that
reminded me of yet another recording format.  I vaguely recall a
short-lived product from mid 60's that involved a disk record and
player that were supposed to be small enough to fit in your hip
pocket.  Or maybe it was just the records, and they were flexible so
if you sat on one that was OK.  Which is getting pretty far from
telecom.


[Moderator's Note: I've done volunteer work for ten years for the
Chicago Public Library producing programs for visually-handicapped
people. The 16 2/3 rpm records were gone *long* before I started.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 26 May 91 13:39 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why a Twist in Modular Cables?
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


>> 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.

> If the plugs are crimped on so the wires go straight through, and all
> adapters are wired that way, you will have no problems.

Not always true.  Phone people generally think in terms of all punch
on type jumper wiring up to the wall jack.  This is straight thru type
operation ... until the base cord to the instrument is reached.

Now, most telecom equipment is designed to take this type of wiring
scheme and reflects it in their documentation.  If the phone system is
using direct connections to its terminating blocks, then the system is
setup for one reversal ... the one in the base cord to the set.  If
the system uses RJ11 or RJ14 type connectors, it usually expects two
reversals (one at the system's connection to the building wiring and
one at the instrument base cord).

Use of intermediate patch panels has been a problem to many, including
my company.  We have tried using staight thru path cords on
intermediate panels with some success ... and try to use an oddball
length (read short) to help make them easy to tell from standard base
cords.

Our unofficial policy is: two and four conductor cords are always
standard reversal type base cords.  Six and eight conductor cords are
either, but straight thru cords are to be labeled "DATA" or "STRAIGHT"
or "PATCH" at both ends.  Most straight thru patch type cords are
three feet long here.  We are looking for a source of reasonably
priced cord stock in a distinctive color for use in making up straight
thru cords ... red or blue would be ideal ... we have a lead on
getting black, white and brown stock, but have not yet received
pricing.

Bear in mind that some electronic phones and data equipment can be
messed up by a reversal.

> 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.

This may be true on sites manned and operated by data people who are
not trained/acclimated to the telecom way of things.  Here, we find we
must live with both worlds.  Frankly, I would like to see us use DEC
type RJ connectors exclusively for data, but this is not really
practical ... much of the wiring we install is set up to be used
either way.

I have a high regard for AT&T's standards and many of the WE designs,
but I think they blew it on this one ... of course I think we all only
thought in terms of phone lines and tip/ring when modular phones first
came out in the 70's ... and WE though only in terms of its own
production efficiency.

I have spent many an evening working out RS-232 DB-25 to RJ-45 adaptor
wiring schemes with the operations guys ... I'd like to see how others
are setting up their RJ type wiring schemes, especially in multiuse
wiring schemes involving LAN, RS-232, balun and phone operations.  I
will happily publish a summary ... email me at [e-mail] ... fax
is +1 216.778.6239


Macy M. Hallock, Jr. N8OBG  216-725-4764 Home
[e-mail]    [e-mail]
Note: [e-mail] is best reply path to me.   uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why
I'm telling you]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #403
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17797;
          28 May 91 4:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00863;
          28 May 91 2:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13660;
          28 May 91 1:19 CDT
Date:     Tue, 28 May 91 0:26:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #404
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 28 May 91 00:26:12 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 404

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Future Shock in India [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    New Mexico Cell Questions [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    NY/Metro One Switch "Update" [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Potential Telesleaze Countermeasure [Jack Winslade]
    Thanks For Your Help [John Higdon]
    101 ESS <gag_me!> and Ringing Tones [Jack Winslade]
    BITNET in Wroclaw, Poland Aftermath [Richard Budd]
    Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings? [Dave Levenson]
    Ringing Tones, etc. [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Some Comments on History of AIOD [Dave Levenson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 May 91 01:23 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Future Shock in India


        India has long been a favorite of Western writers largely
because its society and culture displays nonstop contrasts to a
Western mind.  The recent funeral of Rajiv Ghandi is no exception, but
now telecommunications adds a new dimension.  The following AP
dispatch appeared in Sunday papers, 26 May 91:

             "ASTROLOGY VIA FAX: OLD AND NEW COLLIDES IN INDIA

        "NEW DELHI, India (AP) - The Shankaracharya of Sri Kanchi
Kamakoti Peetam, a Hindu holy man is heartsick.  He says Rajiv Ghandi
ignored a telefax he sent warning that astrological signs were all
wrong for Ghandi's campaign visit to southern India.

        "The Shankaracharya's story, related in <The Times of India>
was but one of the ways in which Ghandi's assassination and funeral
this week brought out the odd mixture of old and new in India.

        "Ghandi was slain Tuesday in what authorities believe waa a
suicide bombing using plastic explosives.  He was cremated Friday in
traditional Hindu ceremonies going back 50 centuries.

        "The ancient and the modern battle daily here, sometimes
refereed by a bloated beaurocracy and 19th century civility bequeathed
by the former British rulers. Rich and poor eye each other warily and
sometimes collide.

        "In the air-conditioned splendor of New Delhi's five-star
hotels, a glance out the window shows the poor taking refuge from the
100 degree-plus heat, dozing on wood-and-rope cots set under dusty
trees.

        "On Saturday, the day after Ghandi's funeral, newspapers
carried a story on police using bamboo clubs to drive away the unruly
masses outside the cremation grounds.  Another told of fires sweeping
through more than 400 huts in two poor villages near the capital.

        "Then there were the usual Saturday supplements directed at
the 100 million of India's 844 million who are middle-class.  Advice
was offered on how to mix a tequila sunrise.  An essay, full of winks,
wondered why public relations managers of major hotels are always
pretty women who swirl about in sumptuous saris.

        "In this jumble, it's not surprising that swashbuckling Indian
film hero Amitabh Bachchan, a friend of Ghandi's family, used a
walkie-talkie on Friday to help organize the 5,000-year-old Vedic
ritual for the former prime minister's cremation."

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

Date: 27-MAY-1991 22:42:16.92
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Mexico Cell Questions


Hi ... I'll be spending some time in New Mexico in about a week, and
after talking (extensively) to the A and B systems there, I still
could use a few answers.

-> For the "A" systems: Centel seems to operate out of Santa Fe. They
do NOT (according to them) have "Nationlink" (aka "Roam America, the
"A"'s version of Follow Me Roaming.)

    Metro Mobile, in Albuquerque, does have Nationlink. Metro
Mobile is DMXed to Centel, ie, you can drive from system to system and
still get paged and have your Custom Calling features work. Thus, if
one calls the Santa Fe roam port to reach a mobile customer, such a
mobile customer will be reachable in both the Santa Fe system and the
Albq. system. (This is true in other "real" DMX areas, like RI/Boston,
Jersey/Phil/Wilmington, NY/Northern NJ/CT/W.Mass, etc.)

    My question is: Let's say I go to Albuquerque, activate
Nationlink, and then spend most of my time in Santa Fe. Will I be able
to get calls in Santa Fe due to the DMX? My exeprience with other
systems tells me the answer is "Yes", yet I am wondering if anyone
else has actually tried this out.

-> As to the "B"s: Is there a "B" in Santa Fe? No one was sure about
this, and there was some suggestion made that a new system had been
set up but no info was available yet. Any word on this?

Guess that's about it ... It should be interesting to roam around there
and try out the systems. I'm just wondering how Metro Mobile/CT will
manage to mess up my bill this time. They can't pass off the blame to
someone else, since THEY service Albuquerque as well!

Thanks in advance for any info,


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

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

Date: 27-MAY-1991 22:58:46.70
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: NY/Metro One Switch "Update"


In case anyone uses Metro One in the NY/NJ area, I am told that on
June 14th, they plan to update their switching equipment to Ericson
switches.

When I asked Metro One/NY if they anticipated any outages, they
replied that calls may be blocked for a few moments evey now and then
after business hours when they are updating the system, but they don't
anticipate any major downtime problems for extended periods of time.

I recall that when they've had previous updates, there were outages of
a few minutes to about an hour or so, so I'm inclined to agree. Note
that DMXed customers from Cell One/South Jersey and Metro Mobile/CT
who are in the area (or who have callers use the NYC roam port, which
Metro doesn't like ...;) ) served by Merto One may also experience
problems receiving calls AND completing OUTBOUND calls.

The degree of service interruption tends to vary, so sometimes you can
dial out as long as you use the full number with area code (which you
don't have to use normally if you are calling to your home area),
whereas at other times, all outgoing calls are blocked. I've noticed
that DMXed roamers, ie, those from South Jersey, Connecticut, and
Western Mass are more frequently blocked than "other" roamers. I've
been told there is a correlation due to the DMX, but not one could
explain why. The furthest I've ever got was "Oh, it's just the way the
software works." Hmmm ....

Anyhow, just though I'd mention the update. I'm told that the new
switches are very dynamic, and have a great deal of new "roaming"
features. Anyone have any idea what this means? Nationlink?  Something
else?


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 May 91 18:40:46 CST
From: Jack Winslade <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Potential telesleaze countermeasure


In a recent article, DONALD E. KIMBERLIN writes:

>   (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?).

(An aside here.  Think of the controversy between per-line and
per-call sleazoid blocking. ;-)

Yes, and how about a magic box that detects the 'real' ringback signal
and blanks audio between the rings.  I can see a real market for
those.  I guess that THEY (the ubiquitous 'they') will then come up
with the technology to fool those boxes into passing the slime
through, but then a NEW IMPROVED box will have to be developed at
twice the price.

>  ... and so on. The mind boggles, once the nausea subsides.

I agree.


Good Day!       JSW

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

Date: Mon, 27 May 91 20:28 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Thanks For Your Help


I would like to thank all of those who have sent material on Thrifty
Tel via e-mail and FAX. It will be very useful in tomorrow's radio
discussion.

One thing has emerged as something worthwhile. There is an industry
publication known as "Fraud Alert" which is a rag that discusses
security and enforcement issues as pertain to the IEC business.

One further point that I wish to emphasize: In no way do I or any of
my associates condone or encourage fraudulent use of telecommunications
facilities. When one uses a service, he must expect to pay for it. I
believe this and I live it. But that does not mean that irrational and
uninformed terrorization of people in the name of telecom security is
to be tolerated. Particularly if that "enforcement" is simply a
vehicle to enhance the sagging profits of an otherwise marginal
business.


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 May 91 18:35:50 CST
From: Jack Winslade <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: 101 ESS <gag_me!> And Ringing Tones


Larry Lippman writes:

> 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.

GAAAAaack!  Don't remind me of that one.  Up till the mid '80s we had
a 101 at work.  It was slaved off of a 5 crossbar and was one of the
more ill-behaved of the <ahem> modern switching systems.  I know there
are all kinds of stories of funky step switches and EAX offices, but
this was right up there with them.  It supposedly had all of the
features such as transfer, forwarding, etc., but they never seemed to
work like the book said they should.

One thing that NOBODY could answer, including the two telephone types
who were 'stationed' on campus, was why the ringing tone was so
irregular.  When a call was completed, the first ring was always quite
long, sometimes as long as three or four seconds.  It then settled
down to a more or less one on, two off cadence.  (For electronics
types, it was almost as if the ring on/off was controlled by a 555
timer in the astable mode, where it took longer to charge on the first
cycle.  ;-)

During periods of high-volume calling, it would almost never gracefully
overflow into an all circuits busy condition.  Sometimes it would
appear to die -- no ring, no busy, no ATB, no nothing, and other times
it would sputter a bit and return dial tone.

It's no wonder to me why Ma Bell ash-canned these as soon as possible.


Good Day!        JSW

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

Date: Mon, 27 May 91 22:49:22 EDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: BITNET in Wroclaw, Poland Aftermath


A few months ago I asked TELECOM Digest readers for information about
BITNET in Wroclaw, Poland and how an engineering student there could
join the network.

Wojceich, the Wroclaw student, has obtained an EARN address from the
Technical University and tonight sent a message of appreciation for
all the advice on obtaining access to the network.

BTW, Poland now has two receiving nodes (Warsaw and Wroclaw) anchoring
a network serving eighteen universities throughout the country.  To
handle the demand, the University of Warsaw is installing an IBM 3090
mainframe donated by IBM through its Academic Initiative Program.


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

Please note new INTERNET address.

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings?
Date: 28 May 91 04:01:45 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> 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.

I saw a genuine Western Electric washing machine and dryer at an
antique show a couple of years ago!

The washer was electric, and contained neither a rotating drum nor a
rotating agitator.  It looked like a rectangular tank (with hot and
cold taps to allow the user to fill it) containing a washboard and a
brush.  An electric motor apparently moved the brush back and forth
accross the washboard, slightly below the water-level.  I think the
articles being washed were placed on the board and the brush was then
lowered into place before the motor was started.

The dryer was another machine placed next to the washer.  It
apparently used to dry the washed clothes by squeezing them between
rubber-coated rollers.  They apparently made wringers before they
started making ringers!

The washer and dryer were probably from the late 1800's and had the
old WeCo trademark with the lightning-bolt.  No mention of 'The Bell
System' or AT&T.


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 May 91 18:48:43 CST
From: Jack Winslade <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Ringing Tones, etc.


[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.  ...

And the Moderator Noted:

> One sounds one way, another some other way.  PAT]

It's not only that they SOUND different, equipment that listens for
the call progress tones BEHAVES differently as well.  One particular
prefix, 212-569 (this may have been upgraded in the last few months)
still uses the older 'city ring', which has a different (lower) pitch
but the same cadence as the modern 'standard' ringback tone.  When my
system used to dial a system on this office, it could not tell if
there was a valid ring, a busy, or if the call was accidentally
intercepted in Never Never Land.  For example, if it called and found
the system busy, it would not immediately abort and log a busy
attempt, but it would wait for a timeout and log a failed session.
Same for a ring with no answer.  A minor inconvenience, but somewhat
annoying.

It's that older tone that many of us (yes, showing my age, I know)
always learned as >>THE<< ringing tone when we first learned to use
the phone.  After I learned a bit about telephone hardware, I
discovered that this tone (and it's accompanying tone, the rude,
raucous busy tone -- a klaxon compared to the polite tweet-tweet of
today's busy tone) was found mostly on the old panel and #1 crossbar
systems, as well as some of the older #5 crossbars.  These tones were
generated by huge mechanical generators and used in the larger
metropolitan offices.

There was a discussion of ringing tones in a local conference a while
back (but I can't find it now) which discussed this.  It made mention
of a certain suburban Omaha office which until recently had a
vibrating reed tone generator.  It was remarked that it sounded like
the passing of gas.  ;-)


Good Day!        JSW

 msged 1.99S ZTC
 * Origin: [200:5010/2@metronet] Interuniverse Gateway  (200:5010/2)

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Comments on History of AIOD
Date: 28 May 91 03:33:06 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> I don't believe there was ever any non-WECo apparatus that provided
> an AIOD interface.

When I was in the interconnect business, selling Mitel SX-200 PBX
equipment, I used to notice references to AIOD in the documentation
for that product.  We never used the feature, or equipped a customer's
system to use it, so I have no first-hand experience with it, but the
SX-200 PBX, apparently, was AIOD-capable.  Anybody at Mitel care to
comment on this?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #404
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18292;
          28 May 91 4:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00863;
          28 May 91 2:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13660;
          28 May 91 1:19 CDT
Date:     Tue, 28 May 91 0:32:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  Special Mailing - Patent Office Request
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


I received this message from Mr.Riddle and decided to pass it along to
you as a special mailing rather than as an issue of the Digest because
of its length. If you are interested in responding, do so direct as
shown in the message.


PAT

  From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
  Subject: Computer-Related Patents: Request for Comments
  Date: Mon, 27 May 91 16:59:59 CDT


Patrick:

I know you closed the subject, but you might wish to reopen it just a
little.  Many of those who commented on the Hayes patent litigation
had firmly held beliefs that software patents, at least as currently
applied, were poor policy.  Additionally, most of the submissions were
intelligent and articulate, and the posters have an expertise bearing
on the subject.

The Patent and Trademark Office recently issued a Request for Public
Comments on this very subject.  If I could borrow your "bully pulpit"
for a moment, might I pass on their (very lengthy) request?

Thanks,

Mike


                         56 FR 22702-02

                             NOTICES

                     DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                   Patent and Trademark Office

 Request for Comments for the Advisory Commission on Patent Law
                             Reform

                     Thursday, May 16, 1991

 AGENCY: Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

 ACTION: Notice;  request for public comments.

 SUMMARY: The Advisory Commission on Patent Law Reform Commission
will be submitting a report to the Secretary of Commerce by August
1992 on the state of, and the need for, any reform in the United
States patent system.  To ensure that the Commission recommenda-
tions represent a true consensus of the American public and the
patent user community, public comments are invited on the issues
to be considered by the Commission.

 DATES: Written Comments must be submitted by July 15, 1991.

 ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to E.R. Kazenske, Executive
Assistant to the Commissioner, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
Box 15, Washington, DC 20231.

 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Jeff Kushan, Commission Special-
ist, or Paul Salmon, Commission Specialist;  U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office, Box 15, Washington, DC 20231.  Phone:  (703)
557-3071.

 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission requests public comments
on the issues set forth below.  Each issue should be individually
addressed. Submissions should be concise statements of position,
including supporting material where relevant, and should be limited
to the questions framing each issue.  All submissions must include
the name and/or professional affiliation of the contributor.  To
ensure full consideration by the Commission, the submissions should
be received by July 15, 1991.

 I. Protection of Computer Related Inventions

  The principal issue to be examined is whether the current U.S.
patent laws provide adequate and appropriate protection of novel
computer program-related inventions.  The relationship of patent
protection for computer program-related inventions to other forms
of intellectual property protection will also be considered.
  (a) What problems, if any, exist in the current framework of laws
which protect computer-related inventions
  (b) What changes, if any, should be made in the domestic and
international systems for protection of computer-related inventions

  (c) The Supreme Court has found that new and useful computer
program-related inventions are eligible for patent protection.
What rationale, if any, exists in law or policy for Congress to now
remove patent protection for this field of science and technology
  (d) What evidence exists, if any, that patents issued on new and
useful computer program-related inventions do or do not provide an
incentive to conduct research and development on new products, and
that such patents do or do not promote the development of new
technology
  (e) What conflict or overlap is created by the existence of a
patent for a new and useful computer program-related invention and
either (1) a copyright for original expression embodied in the
computer program fixed therein, or (2) a mask work in the inven-
tion;  and if any exists, is it harmful or helpful
  (f) Should Congress legislate the boundary for patents in the
computer program area, or is it preferable to permit the courts to
continue to define the outer boundary
  (g) Are the tests of patentability for computer program-related
inventions implemented by the USPTO in the notice published in the
Official Gazette on August 9, 1989, consistent with the patent
statute and/or court decisions If there are inconsistencies, what
are they
  (h) What concrete steps should be taken, if necessary, to revise
the PTO examination procedure for computer program-related
inventions in order to achieve high-quality issued patents,
particularly with respect to:
  1. Providing patent examiners with complete, up-to-date prior
art;
  2. Providing patent examiners with training in this field to
raise/maintain their expertise;
  3. Recognizing computer science as a "science" for the purpose
of qualification to take the PTO registration examination and
recruiting computer scientists as patent examiners;
  4. Providing an optimum system of classification to maximize the
searchability of inventions in this field;  and
  5. Taking steps to reduce the PTO pendency time for patent
applications in this field
  (i) What procedures, not currently available, should be consid-
ered to correct problems caused by improperly granted patents
(i.e., post grant oppositions, court nullification), and how would
these procedures particularly relate to computer program-related
inventions

 II. Federal Protection for Trade Secrets

  Trade Secret statutes now exist only at the state level, and are
not uniform in the states wherein they exist.
  The principal issue to be examined is whether Federal Statutory
protection should be enacted and if so, how it should relate to
state statutes
  (a) Is there a need for a Federal law on trade secrets What
problems have been caused by the absence of such a law What
problems would such a law create
  (b) If there is need for a Federal trade secrets law, on what
legal theories (i.e., tort, contract, etc.) should it be based How
should it relate to state laws and to what extent, if any, should
it preempt state laws
  (c) If there are specific areas of trade secrets that are
inadequately protected by present state laws or by their nature
cannot be adequately
 protected by state laws, would it be possible to enact Federal
laws in those areas only, leaving to state law what is currently
adequately protected Would such a bifurcated system create more
problems that it would solve

 III. Cost and Complexity of Patent Enforcement

  Although many patents are enforced through negotiation, resort
is frequently made to either litigation in the Federal district
courts or to arbitration or one of several other forms of alterna-
tive dispute resolution (ADR).
  Patent litigation is said to be complex, expensive, unpredictable
and heavily dependent on the ability of the judge to exert fair and
effective control. Arbitration and other forms of ADR would seem
to offer significant advantages in many types of dispute, but are
not frequently used.
  (a) Is the cost of patent enforcement too high If so, what can
be done within the existing Federal Rules to achieve determinations
of validity, infringement and damages more efficiently and
economically Which, if any, of the Federal Rules should be changed
to improve patent litigation, and how Would provisions in the Civil
Justice Reform Act of 1990 improve patent litigation
  (b) Is there a need for a "small claims" type of patent proceed-
ing in the Federal courts, with simplified procedures and limited
recovery If so, describe the characteristics such a proceeding
should have, e.g., how procedures would be simplified, what the
limits on recovery should be, etc.
  (c) Should the use of arbitration and other forms of ADR be
increased How What, if any, deterrents are there to using ADR and
how can they be overcome What additional forms of ADR should be
considered for patent disputes

 IV. Grounds for Holding Patents Unenforceable

  In the United States, a party charged with infringement of a
patent can raise an equitable defense of unenforceability which,
if sustained, may preclude exercise of the patent rights even
though the patent is valid and infringed. Historically, the defense
has usually been based on alleged misconduct occurring after the
patent is granted, e.g., restrictive conditions in patent licensing
agreements.
  In more recent years, conduct before the Patent and Trademark
Office has frequently been claimed to give rise to the defense,
e.g., misrepresentations or alleged failure to comply with the
standard for disclosing to the Office information in the patent
applicant's possession.  Such claims, some argue, are often
frivolous and unsupported.
  (a) What are the benefits and drawbacks of permitting an
unenforceability defense in patent litigation, based on alleged
misconduct either before or after patent grant
  (b) Should any change be made in the present Patent and Trademark
Office standard relating to the submission of prior art informa-
tion, recognizing the need of the Office to consider information
bearing on patentability before the patent issues
  (c) Are existing judicial procedures and standards for resolving
unenforceability defenses adequate If not, is legislation desirable
and, if so, what kind Discuss any other changes believed desirable.
  (d) Once inequitable conduct has been found, whether based on
conduct before
 or after grant, is unenforceability the appropriate remedy If not,
what other types of remedies might be applied and in what types of
situations

 V. Licensee Challenges to Patent Validity

  Since 1969, when the U.S. Supreme Court in Lear v. Adkins, 395
U.S. 653, abrogated the doctrine of licensee estoppel, the courts
have been dealing ad hoc with a variety of issues flowing from that
decision.  These include the right of the patent owner to terminate
the license agreement and sue for patent infringement, the right
of the licensee to recover royalties should the patent be declared
invalid, the extent to which the parties should be permitted to
contract in advance for the various eventualities, etc.
  It is asserted by some that this has created considerable
uncertainty.  Some would provide for all post-Lear eventualities
by statute.  Others would permit a licensor and licensee to bargain
for provisions necessary to protect their respective interests.
  (a) Is legislation desirable to clarify the results of the Lear
decision If so, what should it provide
  (b) Should any restraints, beyond the normal law of contracts,
be imposed on the rights of licensee and licensor to bargain for
the results of a potential challenge by the licensee of the
licensed patent's validity

 IV. First-to-File System

  In the United States patent system, when more than one patent
application is filed claiming the same invention, the patent is
awarded to the applicant who establishes the earliest acts of
invention in the United States and who has not thereafter sup-
pressed, abandoned or concealed his invention ("first-to-invent"
system).  In international treaty negotiations aimed at more
uniform patent laws throughout the world, particularly the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) patent harmonization
proceedings, the United States is being urged to adopt a different
procedure, almost universally used in other countries, under which
we would award the patent to the first applicant to file a patent
application for the invention ("first-to-file" system).  The
principal issue presented is whether the United States should
change from a first-to- invent procedure to a first-to-file
procedure (1) only as part of a comprehensive treaty to harmonize
all of the world's patent systems, (2) without regard to a
harmonization treaty, or (3) not at all.  The following questions
are designed to help frame this issue:
  (a) What benefits do United States patent holders and the public
realize from the first-to-invent procedure What detriments are
there, particularly those that might not be addressed by further
simplification of the procedure to determine priority of inventor-
ship
  (b) What benefits are United States patent holders and the public
expected to realize from a first-to-file procedure What deteriments
should be expected
  (c) What benefits are United States patent holders and the public
expected to realize from a harmonization treaty What detriments
should be expected
  (d) If the United States retains the first-to-invent procedure,
a partial step toward harmonization could be a change permitting
applicants to establish dates of invention by reference to
knowledge, or sue, or other activity in foreign
 countries in addition to such activities in the United States.
Should such an expansion of admissible evidence of inventorship be
adopted (1) only as part of a comprehensive treaty to harmonize all
of the world's patent systems, (2) without regard to a harmoniza-
tion treaty, or (3) not at all Should such an expansion of
admissible evidence of inventorship be adopted (1) only in respect
to foreign countries that provide for practicable and effective
judicial discovery of foreign inventorship activity, (2) only on
a limited basis reflecting credibility of the foreign evidence, or
(3) without regard to the legal procedures available in foreign
countries
  (e) If the United States adopts a first-to-file procedure, should
it condition this adoption on a grace period during which activi-
ties of the inventor or derived through the inventor will not be
a bar to patentability by the inventor Should the oath and its
attendant sanctions be strengthened in respect to the requirement
of originality
  (f) If the United States adopts a first-to-file procedure, would
it be desirable to codify the rights, if any, of a prior user of
the invention If so, should such a user have (1) no defense or
rights in respect to the subsequent patent, (2) a personal
exemption to continue existing commercial use, or (3) some other
right Should the prior user rights, if any, extend to one not an
actual user, but who has made effective and serious preparations
for such use Should it matter if the prior user had elected to
practice the invention as a trade secret Should any prior user
right be transferrable to someone else Should any such right extend
only to use in the United States (a feature in other patent
systems) Should any prior user right extend to such users who were
not originators of the invention
  (g) Would a first-to-file patent procedure run afoul of the
reference to "inventors" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the
Constitution

 VII. Automatic Publication of Applications

  In the United States patent system, patent applications are held
in confidence by the Patent and Trademark Office and not published
until a patent is granted.  Patent rights begin on the date of
grant.  In international treaty negotiations aimed at more uniform
patent laws throughout the world, it has been proposed that patent
applications be published and confer provisional protection
commencing on the date of publication.  The Japanese and European
patent systems provide for publication of patent applications 18
months after their effective filing dates and feature provisional
protection, generally a right to compensation from infringers with
actual notice.  The principal issue is whether United States patent
applications should be published before grant of a patent (1) only
as part of a comprehensive system to harmonize all of the world's
patent system, (2) without regard to a harmonization treaty, or (3)
not at all.  The following questions are designed to help frame
this issue:
  (a) What benefit do United States patent holders and the public
realize from keeping patent applications confidential until a
patent is granted What are the detriments
  (b) What benefits are United States patent holders and the public
expected to realize from a procedure requiring automatic publica-
tion of patent applications What are the detriments
  (c) Should U.S. patent applications be published by some fixed
time measured
 from their U.S. or foreign priority filing dates Does the need for
a pre-grant publication differ depending upon whether patent terms
are measured from filing date or issue date
  (d) If pre-grant publication becomes part of the U.S. patent
system, is there a need for provisional protection starting from
the date of publication Does the need for provisional protection
depend upon how the term of the patent is measured
  (e) If provisional protection is appropriate, what should it
include

 VIII. Patent Term

  In the United States patent system the term of a patent is 17
years from the date when the patent is granted.  Many other
countries provide a 20-year term for their patents from the date
when the application for the patent was filed. The appropriate term
for a patent is under consideration in negotiations aimed at more
uniform patent laws throughout the world, as well as in the
negotiations on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
(TRIPs) in the current General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) Round.  The principal issue is whether the United States
should measure the life of a patent from the date when the
application for it was filed (1) only as part of comprehensive
treaties to harmonize all of the world's patent systems, (2)
without regard to harmonization treaties, or (3) not at all.  The
following questions are designed to help frame this issue.
  (a) What benefits do United States patent holders and the public
realize from measuring the life of a patent from its date of grant
What detriments are there
  (b) What benefits are United States patent holders and the public
expected to realize from a procedure that would measure the life
of a patent from its filing date What would the detriments be
  (c) If the term of a United States patent is to be measured from
the filing date, should the term be extended to compensate for
delays due to (1) secrecy orders, (2) marketing delays due to FDA
or EPA regulatory procedures, (3) NASA or DOE ownership proceed-
ings, (4) appeals, or (5) any other delays outside of the control
of the patent applicant
  (d) Should a United States patent application be permitted to
rely upon the date of more than one foreign-filed application for
priority, and, if so, should the term of the United States patent
be measured from the earliest priority date (recognizing that a
modification of the Paris Convention probably would be necessary
for adoption of any procedure to measure the life of a patent from
any foreign priority date)
  (e) If the term of a United States patent is to be measured from
a filing date, should that date be (1) the earliest United States
filing upon which priority is based, (2) the earliest filing upon
which priority is based, be it foreign or United States filing
date, or (3) the filing date of the application on which the patent
is granted
  (f) If the United States adopts a patent term based upon a filing
date, should that term be 20 years If not, how long should the term
be

 IX. Deferred Examination

  United States patent laws permit an applicant to petition for a
deferral of
 the examination process only for a short period, and then only for
"good and sufficient cause." Deferred examination at the option of
the applicant is a feature of several foreign patent systems.
  (a) What would be the benefits of a procedure whereby a patent
application is not examined in due course, but instead, the
applicant is given the option, for a period of years, to request
that the application be examined What would be the detriments
  (b) If optional deferred examination were adopted, what necessary
or desirable companion changes (such as mandatory publication of
applications) should be made, if any, in the United States patent
law or procedures Should a third party have the right to request
examination
  (c) If optional deferred examination were adopted, should a
patent application be deemed abandoned if the applicant fails to
request examination within a fixed time after filing Should the
applicant be permitted thereafter to re-file an application for the
same invention
  (d) Should the applicant have the option, in lieu of requesting
formal examination, to obtain a lower-cost patent of shortened term
and reduced enforcement rights

 X. In re Hilmer

  Under the interpretation of United States patent law in the case
of In re Hilmer (and other cases), a United States patent has a
patent-defeating effect (becomes a "reference") as of the earliest
filing date in the United States to which it is entitled, but not
the earliest foreign filing date to which it is entitled.  In other
patent systems, patents or applications are effective as references
as of their earliest filing date, be it domestic or foreign.
  (a) If the effective date of a United States patent as a
reference should be based on a foreign application filing date,
should that foreign priority date be the effective date for
anticipation purposes only and not for obviousness purposes so that
the Hilmer rule is partially retained in that the United States
patents with a foreign priority date are effective only as a
reference for obviousness purposes as of the filing date in the
United States
  (b) Is there rationale for abolishing the Hilmer rule totally so
that foreign- origin United States patents will be effective as
references for all purposes as of their foreign priority filing
dates
  (c) What changes in procedure, if any, should the Patent and
Trademark Office adopt to ensure adequate consideration of the
disclosures in foreign-origin United States patents in the
examination of United States patent applications
  (d) Should bilateral reciprocity be applied when deciding whether
or not a United States patent is entitled to an earlier foreign
filing priority date in a particular country for reference purposes

 XI. Reexamination

  The reexamination statute permits any person to file, with the
requisite fee, a request for the reexamination of a patent in view
of prior art limited to prior patents and printed publications.
Issues of inequitable conduct, public use and sale, and the like,
may not be addressed in reexamination.  If the USPTO determines
that the request raises "a substantial new question of
 patentability," the patent is reexamined under the same procedures
applicable to the examination of new applications and concludes
with the issuance of a reexamination certificate.  The reexamina-
tion process is basically ex parte in nature, with very limited
participation by a third party requestor.  Since the present system
of reexamination was established by Congress in 1980, there have
been numerous proposals to modify reexamination to increase the
degree of participation of the requestor and/or to enlarge the
scope of reexamination.
  (a) Do you believe the present reexamination system is working
effectively If not, identify each deficiency that you believe
exists in the system.
  (b) Do you believe that the present reexamination system should
be modified to permit complete inter partes participation by a
protestor at all phases of the reexamination proceeding If so,
explain why.  If not, explain why.
  (c) If your answer to question (b) is "no," to what extent, if
any, should third parties be allowed greater participation than at
present in reexamination proceedings
  (d) Would you be in favor of modifying the present reexamination
system to permit or require one or more of the following:
  (1) Permitting a reexamination petitioner other than the patentee
to comment on any claims in their finally allowed form, so as to
provide the examiner with the petitioner's views prior to a final
decision as to whether to issue a reexamination certificate
  (2) Permitting a reexamination petitioner to appeal both to the
PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and to the Federal
Circuit from any final decision favorable to a patentee in a
reexamination proceeding
  (3) Conditioning the appeal noted in subparagraph (2) on the
petitioner's agreement to forego litigating in any other forum any
issue raised or which could have been raised on appeal
  (4) Precluding an accused infringer from relying as a defense on
any prior art of printed publication unless that prior art or
printed publication has been previously considered by the PTO
either during the original prosecution of a patent or in a reissue
or reexamination proceeding involving that patent
  (5) Precluding a party or its privies, against whom a judgment
of invalidity of a patent claim or claims has been entered, from
seeking or maintaining reexamination of that claim or claims
  (6) Requiring that claims of a reexamined application be
construed under the same standards as those claims would be
construed in a district court infringement proceeding
  (e) Should the scope of issues considered by the examiner during
reexamination be broadened If so, how (e.g., by permitting
consideration of public use or on sale bars, section 112 issues,
inequitable conduct, etc.)
  (f) In what other ways, if any, should reexamination proceedings
be changed

 XII. Assignee Filing of Applications

  The United States currently requires the actual inventor or
inventors to file patent applications, subject to a few limited
exceptions such as death, unavailability, or insanity.  Each
application must be accompanied by an oath from the actual inventor
which states that the applicant believes he was the first to invent
the claimed invention.  Nearly all foreign patent systems permit
the owner of an invention (whether the actual inventor or the
assignee)
 to file the patent application without an oath signed by the
inventor.
  (a) Should the United States allow filing of patent applications
by assignees
  (b) What benefits and drawbacks would occur by allowing filing
of patent applications by assignees
  (c) What contours should an assignee filing proposal have,
including possible safeguards for inventors and the public

 XIII. PTO Funding and Fee Structure

  The Patent and Trademark Office historically recovered its costs
through a combination of fees and funding from general tax
revenues.  The major patent fees are filing fees, and issue and
maintenance fees in a two-tier system with lower rates for small
entities.  These fees have undergone substantial increases recently
as Congress and the Administration have changed from a policy under
which applicants and patent owners paid only a portion of these
costs to one under which they pay full costs.
  (a) What impact, if any, will a system in which PTO costs are
almost entirely user-fee funded have on (1) U.S. inventors
generally, (2) on small entities, including independent inventors,
and (3) the public
  (b) What realistic and practical alternatives can you suggest,
other than user-fee funding, for funding PTO operations
  (c) Congress historically has provided fiscal oversight for the
PTO. Will this attention by Congress continue at the same level in
the absence of a significant allocation of taxpayer funds and, if
not, what other fiscal oversight is appropriate
  (d) Should the more public-oriented functions of the PTO, e.g.,
public search room operations, be funded by user fees, or should
such operations be supported by appropriated funds
  (e) Would it be desirable to increase the average application
pendency time in the PTO to a level above 18 months if such
increase permitted a significant reduction in PTO fees
  (f) What are the advantages and disadvantages of retaining a
two-tier fee structure
  (g) Should large entities subsidize small entities in a two-tier
structure, or should public funds be used to supplement small
entity fees
  (h) As part of a two-tier fee structure, what would the pros and
cons be of (1) redefining a small entity to include fewer than 500
employees, (2) providing a tax credit (e.g., 50%) in lieu of part
or all of the 50% subsidy for small entities, (3) denying 50%
subsidy benefits, on a need basis, to small entities who receive
a defined minimum (e.g., $200,000) in technology transfer fees
during the preceding year, and (4) imposing a flat (e.g., 10%)
across-the- board fee increase if this permitted the continuance
of the current small entity reduced fee structure
  (i) A major current cost of the PTO is that of automating the
search files and system.  How should this cost be recovered, if not
through fees
  (j) Is there a mechanism in the Government for long-term
investments, such as computer equipment, to be capitalized and paid
off over their useful life Would it be possible and desirable to
have such investments paid for by a bond over a period of years
(e.g., 20 years) instead of by user fees) Should the current
relation among filing, issue and maintenance fees be changed and,
if so, how
 Are there other fee strategies which will better balance the need
to recover costs and the need to keep the patent system accessible
to inventors
  (k) Should the current relation among filing, issue and mainte-
nance fees be changed and, if so, how Are there other fee strate-
gies which will better balance the need to recover costs and the
need to keep the patent system accessible to inventors
  (l) In discussions of patent harmonization, the question of
pre-issuance publication of U.S. patents has been raised.  Given
the possible reluctance of Congress to fund the costs of such
publication from general revenues, would you support such publica-
tion if its cost were totally user-funded
  Dated:  May 8, 1991.

 Harry F. Manbeck, Jr.,

 Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks.

 56 FR 22702-02











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10105;
          29 May 91 1:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12728;
          28 May 91 23:45 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05518;
          28 May 91 22:38 CDT
Date:     Tue, 28 May 91 22:35:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #405
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 28 May 91 22:35:48 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 405

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings? [Chuck Bennett]
    Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings? [Scott Dorsey]
    Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings? [Jack Powers]
    Re: A Very Simple ISDN Question [R. Kevin Oberman]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Tony Harminc]
    Re: Viewer-Controlled Cable TV [Ralph W. Hyre]
    Re: Cheap 9600 bps Modem [Toby Nixon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 May 91 08:42 EST
From: "Chuck Bennett [phone]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings?


"Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]> writes:

>         At WTSP in St. Petersburg, FL we did all those things, right
> up into the late 1950's.  We had two major "transcription libraries,"
> The World Transcription Service and the Standard Transcription
> Library.  Both were 33-1/3 rpm recordings on "16-inch" disks, as the
> size was called. Western Electric's piece of this was evidenced on the
> Standard transcriptions, which were "vertical cut," that is, the
> needle action was vertical in the groove as opposed to lateral in
> consumer records.  There were claims that "vertical cut" was
> higher-fidelity than lateral cut.

>         To play them back, we had "transcription heads" on the
> turntables that could be switched to use either vertical-sensitive or
> lateral-sensitive pickup windings.  (Yes, windings ... these were
> BIG, clunky, long playback arms that while very well-balanced, weighed
> a pound or so it seemed. To play a warped record, we'd set a line of
> lead type from the <St. Petersburg Times> composing room on top of the
> playback head!  Other stations had to use a 50 cent or dollar coin.)

The "verticle cut" transcription was of higher fidelity for various
reasons.  One was that very little equalization was applied (as I
recall there were only two or three curves where as lateral had two
families and about three or four members in each family), another was
that the disks themselves were virtually impervious to the rough
treatment that was typical at a radio station (a radial scratch or
abrasion was not picked up by the vertical, "hill-and-dale", tracking
cartridge).

The tonearm was the WEco 5A. Typically in black crinkle finish it had
a five pound lead counter-weight.  The cartridge was the WEco 9A also
in black crinkle or natural satin finish and weighed in a 1 pound!
The cartridge had a four pin, male connector that mated with the 5A
arm and a thumb screw on top that secured it to the arm.  These were
the (I believe) very first "moving coil" cartridges which are so much
in vogue in highend audio circles today.  The stylus was
removable/replacable and was a 3 mil spherical diamond on a short
vertical shank.

My dad did some of the design, engineering and testing of these
devices as well as WEco's line of speakers.  There is a picture of him
in the anechoic chamber at Bell Labs in either Murray Hill or
Whippany, NJ.


Chuck Bennett                      INTERNET: [e-mail]
Medical Sciences Teaching Labs     BITNET:   uchuck@unc
CB# 7520  University of NC         PHONE:    [phone](w)
Chapel Hill, NC  27599-7520

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

Date: Tue, 28 May 91 08:55:45 EDT
From: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings?
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center


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

> 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?

   The late forties.  They still licensed their "light valve"
technology for many years to the film industry.  A number of theatres
in this area are still using old WE soundheads.

> 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.

33 rpm was originally used for transcription disks in the 1930's, and
was quite common for professional use.  The transcription disks would
use 2.7 mil styli or so, like the 78 rpm recordings.  Microgroove 33 rpm
records didn't come out until 1949 or so.

WE made a number of demo recordings, as well as some live recordings
at the 1939 World's Fair which were distributed to radio stations.  I
am told that they did some recordings at later fairs but have never
seen any.

> 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.

Don't knock 1949 magnetic tape media.  I have a pair of 1950 Ampex
machines that are in daily use at WCWM, and sound a hell of a lot
better than any cassette deck made.  Wire recording, granted, is
pretty poor overall, primarily because of the lack of AC bias.

> 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?

They are probably promo recordings, but WE made a lot of promos in
those days.  From time to time you'll even find Vitaphone disks, which
are just standard 16-inch transcription disks, wide groove, start in
center records that are intended for synchronization to a film.
Transcription recording started in the early thirties and every
station in the thirties through the fifties had a 16" turntable to
play transcriptions with, so a lot of the promo records and stuff
designed for radio distribution only was made at 33 rpm.  Make sure
you use the right stylus to play these back; modern microgroove styli
will destroy wide groove records very quickly.


scott


[Moderator's Note: WECo did recordings at the Century of Progess Fair
in Chicago in 1933-34 also according to the late Virgil Fox in a
commentary he added to one of his records. Speaking of whom, you are
absolutely correct -- one hundred percent -- about the quality of the
old records and tapes. A recording in my collection of Fox dates from
1946 at Columbia University: it takes the cake! It is superb, and you
could never tell its age by listening to it. The giveaway is the heavy
disk, and the old-fashioned way RCA Victor printed their labels.  It
was a 78 rpm and RCA copied it onto 33 rpm three years later.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 28 May 91 15:15:12 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings?


I know that Western Electric produced equipment to play phonograph
records; I have seen turntables they built.

Around 1960, I worked as a projectionist in an old theater that had a
Western Electric sound system.  This included (massive cast iron)
bases for the 35mm projectors and carbon arc lamps, the optical "sound
head" assemblies, takeup reel assemblies, all the electronics, and the
loudspeakers.  The bases had mounting holes and mechanical drive for
the turntables, which I found in a back room in a fit of exploration.
That's right, an early form of sound movies used sound on records, and
this place was equipped (originally) for both kinds of production!  I
don't know the speed used, but one record would have had to hold 22
minutes of sound to match the duration of a 2,000 foot reel of 35mm
film.  I seem to recall that the turntables were larger than 12
inches.

The installation dated from around 1930.  DC power was originally
supplied by a battery rack that was charged during non-operating
hours; this had been replaced by a motor generator set.  The amplifer
was capable of five (count'em!) watts.  The speakers were conical
horns with field coils; the small one in the projection room was still
in use, but the immense horn still hanging from the stage ceiling
behind the screen was no longer used (an Altec "Voice Of The Theater"
unit had taken its place).

The electronics was housed in black metal cabinets with Bakelite
panels, and every important circuit had a meter on it (including the
filament current to the sound head lamps). Audio level controls were
of the multi-tap attenuator variety, with the wiper sweeping over a
circle of metal buttons right on the panel.

Everything was built like the proverbial brick outhouse, and the only
real problems I had were with the (also massive) motors.  I always
wondered where their maintenance man found those old fashioned tubes
with different sized pins ... but I never had one burn out in the
several years I worked there.


Jack Powers [e-mail] [e-mail]
Opinions, if any, are mine, if anyone's.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: A Very Simple ISDN Question
Date: 28 May 91 16:36:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jonathan M. Zweig) writes:

> [e-mail] writes:

> 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.

I have become aware of such things, and I'm sure they work for many
applications, but when AT&T bid on our phone system, they promised
such a capability.  They failed to deliver and, I assume, paid a
penalty for failing to meet contractual obligations.

64 KHz is 64 KHz, (but not really 64,000 digitizations per second).
But that does NOT mean that plugging in a TrailBlazer will just work.
In fact, Trailblazers don't work on some multiplexed analog lines. I
am nowhere nearly expert enough on the details of V.32 or PEP to say
what difficulty might be encountered, but AT&T told us that "it is not
possible". And paid for the opportunity to say it.

That does NOT make it right. In fact, it's probably wrong. But it does
imply that it is not trivial. And they made it clear that an analog
connection to handle answering machines was a lot easier, though not
as trivial as it sounds.  Things like ring voltage and lack of
feedback to the ISDN side of the circuit make it trickier than it
seems at first.


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.

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

Date: Tue, 28 May 91 13:21:34 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World


"Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]> writes:

> 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?

The CO doesn't produce the ringing tone in the case of Direct In Dial
to a PBX.  The PBX produces all the call progress tones, unless for
some reason the CO can't reach the PBX trunk (PBX is down, trunks are
all busy, etc.)

I often hear the double ring when calling PBXs in North America.  It
does seem curious that the double ring was assigned to the external
rather than the internal calls, though.


Tony Harminc

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

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Viewer-Controlled Cable TV
Date: 28 May 91 17:35:36 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> Jeff Carroll <carroll@ssc-vax.
boeing.com> writes:

> whatever happened to the interactive cable/videotex service that
> was pioneered in the 70's in Columbus, OH ?

The QUBE system was nuked when Warner Cable got into some financial
trouble in the early 80's and the decided to not throw away any more
money on it.  (They also relinquished their Pittsburgh franchise to
TCI around the same time -- I don't know how they could have lost money
there -- almost EVERYBODY 'needs' cable TV in Pittsburgh due to wierd
reception characteristics.)

There weren't very many applications for it. I recall there being a
game show that allowed the viewing audience to win prizes.  QUBE sites
in Columbus, Cincinnati, and someplace in Texas (Dallas, I think) were
linked for the game.  The other application was to choose pay-per-view
movies.  We never had a videotex application in Cincinnati.

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cheap 9600 bps Modem
Date: 28 May 91 17:19:39 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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.

CCITT V.17 and V.32bis were both unanimously adopted by the CCITT on
February 22, 1991.  They are presently being prepared for publication
at this time, but since there were no changes made to the "ballot
version" released last November most manufacturers have had copies of
the "final text" for a long time.

> 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! :).

Well, but ISDN is 64000bps raw synchronous throughput, and with V.42bis
on top of V.120 you'll see effective throughput of over 250,000bps.

> Forval already makes a V.32bis V.42bis modem (also with MNP5) that
> sells for about $1000.  I want one! :)

There are several other companies already shipping V.32bis modems,
including Digicom, Penril, Codex, Prometheus, and US Robotics, and
many that have announced the intention to do so (like Hayes).  Most of
these are under $1,000 (Penril and Codex a bit more, which is to be
expected).


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #405
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12411;
          29 May 91 2:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06743;
          29 May 91 0:51 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12728;
          28 May 91 23:45 CDT
Date:     Tue, 28 May 91 23:37:53 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #406
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 28 May 91 23:37:45 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 406

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Free Teletypes [Dan Jacobson]
    Re: Analysis and Comment: 'Booby Trap' Toll Exchanges [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: International Calling to 800 Numbers [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan [Christopher Lott]
    Re: ONA Offers New Horizons for Telesleaze [John R. Levine]
    The Case of the Missing Signature Line Solved [Robert L. Oliver]
    Re: C&P Telephone "Anti-Slam" Flag and Amazing Service [Robert L. Oliver]
    Re: C&P Telephone "Anti-Slam" Flag and Amazing Service [wts1]
    Re: Are Telco Profits Too Large? [Adam J. Ashby]
    Re: Are Telco Profits Too Large? [Guy J. Sherr]
    Re: Calling US 800-Numbers From New Zealand [Ehud Gavron]
    AT&T's Cornet [Jack Dominey]
    EDIF/VHDL CAE Surveys Wanted [Latvala Ari]
    Legal Ad for New England Tel ISDN Hearings [John R. Covert]
    1-900-NO-CHIEF [Paul S. Sawyer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Free Teletypes
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA
Date: Tue, 28 May 1991 12:08:13 GMT


On 28 May 91 01:29:41 GMT, [e-mail] (Stanfield L. Smith) said:

> Model 15 teletypes - Newswire vintage, 5 level baudot, gears for any

By the way, is it true that some "Newsradio" stations nowadays just
pipe in teletype clicking to make their newsroom more newsy sounding?
E.g., WBBM-AM in Chicago has this sound.

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

From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Analysis and Comment: 'Booby Trap' Toll Exchanges
Date: 28 May 91 14:01:33 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Side note: When I used MCI to dial a 212-394-**** number I recieved
the following message, aparently from the 394 exchange:

"You have reached a non-working number in the 394 exchange. There is
no charge for this call."

MCI would not complete a call to a 976 number.


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: Tue, 28 May 91 07:21:59 PDT
From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Calling to 800 Numbers
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]> the Moderator Noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Well, what I have heard lately is that if you are
> willing to pay for a call to the IOC, they will put it through to that
> point then it'll be dialed back out from there to the destination.  PAT]

But only to AT&T 800 numbers.  If it's another carrier's you're out of
luck.  Or use CCCS.  They will connect you to any 800 number they can
call from New Jersey.  I have posted on these folks before.


Jim Gottlieb
E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
V-Mail: [phone]   Fax: [phone]   Voice: 824-5454

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

Date: Tue, 28 May 91 12:21:05 -0400
From: Christopher Lott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Atlantic's Guardian Plan


I double-checked the policy for this rip-off insurance, and found that
the policy goes into force at the company's discretion but not any
later than 30 days after you request it.  So I guess you could be
insured within minutes, if the rep is willing, or you could wait quite
a while.


chris

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

Subject: Re: ONA Offers New Horizons for Telesleaze
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 28 May 91 10:41:44 EDT (Tue)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>        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 read about this several years ago when it first came out.  It turns
out that most of the technology is involved in injecting the
advertisements at the caller's end, even though the ring is generated
at the callee's end.

The thought was that for a discount on the monthly service rate, a
subscriber would consent to be subjected to ads.  It seems to have
occured to them that just sticking ads into rings heard by random
callers would generate considerable ill will for the advertisers.  For
that matter, I don't know why companies with DID PBXes don't put their
own ads into the ring sound now -- it wouldn't be technically hard.
(Attention marketeers: Patent pending, don't try it. :-)

I don't know why it's suddenly coming back now, except perhaps that
the last of the old Bell System managers who thought of the phone
company as a service are retiring, and the new ones have less shame.

Regards,


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

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

From: "Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: The Case of the Missing Signature Line Solved
Organization: Rabbit Software Corp.
Date: 28 May 91 23:19:22 GMT


cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail] (Robert L. Oliver) writes:

> 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]

Our news software truncates signatures longer than four lines.  And my
signature was exactly four lines, BUT it started with the
pseudo-standard "--" <signature follows> line, which our news software
counted as a full line.  Thus, it thought I had a five line signature
and killed my city/state line.  I've reformatted things a bit ... Hope
this is better.


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

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

From: "Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: C&P Telephone "Anti-Slam" Flag and Amazing Service
Organization: Rabbit Software Corp.
Date: 28 May 91 22:18:04 GMT


[e-mail] (Bob Stratton) writes:

> 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??

I've received excellent service from Bell of PA, my local Bell
Atlantic division.  I had a recent complaint about an AOS and they
were quite helpful.  I wish I had the same service from my local
Electric / Gas company (Philadelphia Electric Company).  Now that Bell
has given up the task, PECO now gives me reason to contact the PUC.
If you're in PECO territory, beware: anyone can intentionally or
accidentally call in and have all your service shut off and PECO will
NOT require written verification or anything.  ZAM no electric or gas.
Happened to me while I was on vacation.  And rather than being
apologetic, all the management and claims adjusters are obnoxious.
The customer service reps were nice, though.

But I digress.  Not all the RBOCs have cleaned up their customer
service.  Comparison: At the convention center in Washington, D.C.,
C&P had realized that the original number of payphones was
insufficient, and had set up pods of auxilliary phones to address the
problem.  At the World Congress convention center in Atlanta for
Comdex Spring '91, Georgia Bell had NOT done any such thing.  People
lined up waiting for payphones the entire week.  So it's definitely an
individual RBOC improvement in customer service on Bell Atlantic's
part.


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

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

From: wts1 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: C&P Telephone "Anti-Slam" Flag and Amazing Service
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies - Burlington, NC
Date: Tue, 28 May 1991 15:28:00 GMT


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

> 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??

> 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*

Well, if anyone wants to start collecting data points for improved
RBOC service, I had a problem (5/17)that the operator said the
business office would gladly handle and to call the business office
tomorrow morning.  When I reminded the operator that tomorrow was a
Saturday (5/18), she said "the business office is now open on
Saturday.  Thank you for using Southern Bell, and have a pleasant
day Mr. Sykes."

I called Saturday AM, and sure enough, the office was open!  Anyone
know if this is just Southern Bell in NC, all of BellSouth, or other
RBOCs also?  First Class!


William T. Sykes  AT&T Federal Systems   att!cbnewsb!wts1
Advanced Technologies Burlington, NC UUCP: att!burl!wts


[Moderator's Note: The sisters all pretty much do things the same way
at about the same time. Illinois Bell started having Saturday business
office hours also, plus evening hours once or twice a week.   PAT]

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

From: "Adam J. Ashby" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Telco Profits Too Large?
Date: 28 May 91 16:01:20 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Division


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

> 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.

A couple of points to mention here ...

1) I somewhat doubt the validity of your figures - especially as I
remember not long ago everyone was aghast at BT making one million
pounds a day - or one third of one billion pounds.

2) Is that a 'British' billion (1x10E12) or an 'American' billion
(1x10E9)??

3) Describing it as excessive is very subjective - it wouldn't seem so
excessive if you were a shareholder, would it??


Adam Ashby  ...!uunet!motcid!ashbya  [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 28 May 91 19:07 GMT
From: "Guy J. Sherr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Telco Profits Too Large?


Patrick,

You may wish to remind some of us that English notation given as a
billion is actually a number with 12 zeroes, and not 9.  3000 billion
pounds sterling would therefore be 3,000,000,000,000,000 pounds
sterling written out, and I believe worth approximately 4.5
quadrillion US dollars (apologies to those following the exchange
rate).  This number seems to be inaccurate.  It is more than 50 years
of the United States's GNP.

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

From: Ehud Gavron <sunquest!alpha![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling US 800-Numbers From New Zealand
Date: 28 May 91 18:00:27 GMT
Reply-To: sunquest!alpha![e-mail]
Organization: Sunquest VMS Internals, Tucson AZ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Claus Tondering)
writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: 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]

> I tried that a couple of years ago, but the USA Direct operator would
> not connect me to an 800 number.

A friend tried to reach my (US Sprint provided) personal 800 number
from Saudi Arabia.  She was informed that toll-free calls were not
possible.


Ehud Gavron   (EG76)  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue May 28 15:41:29 EDT 1991
Subject: AT&T's Cornet


In V11#400, Steven S. Brack <nstar!bluemoon![e-mail].
edu> asks:

>> 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?

Pat responded that Cornet is AT&T's internal phone system.

Pat's partially correct.  About three years ago, I recall seeing a
company bulletin saying Cornet was being phased out in favor of an
internal Software Defined Network.

Cornet was limited to certain parts of the company (Bell Labs and
former Western Electric locations?).  In six years with AT&T, I've
never directly encountered it, although I saw some references.  If
memory serves, Cornet was a tandem network.  Much of the traffic was
carried over dedicated lines running from switch to switch.  It did
provide seven-digit dialing anywhere in the country.

Assuming I'm right, then AT&T Long Lines would have issued billing for
the dedicated lines connecting the switches, WECo handled the
equipment leasing, and millions of ratepayer dollars paid for the
internal accounting!


Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA
V: [phone]      AT&T Mail: !dominey

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

From: Latvala Ari <[e-mail]>
Subject: EDIF/VHDL CAE Surveys Wanted
Organization: Tampere University of Technology
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 09:13:13 GMT


Dear reader,

Please email identification/publication info, if you know of recent
survey (executed during last two years), concentrating to topics
listed hereunder, from point of view of the industrial / academic user /
R & D or project designer.

Also commercial surveys are of interest.

Please inform also your rating grade of referred survey:

Topics:    1.    Interfacing of EDA (electronic design automation) CAD/CAE -
        tools
    2.    Frameworks
    3.    EDIF and VHDL in daily use of industrial design
        projects. Robustness, future open system needs.
    4.    Design data flows in multiple sub-vendor, multiple
        customer EDA-service industry

Motivation:

We are executing this kind of a survey among industrial users in
Finland, during next 6 months and are appreciating any reference
survey information. We can negotiate from the mutual share of results.

Thanks in advance.


Ari Latvala  ( [e-mail])
Research Institute for Information Technology
TUT - Tampere University of Technology, POB 527, SF-33101 TAMPERE, FINLAND
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone], Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 27 May 91 23:06:31 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  28-May-1991 0145" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Legal Ad for New England Tel ISDN Hearings


The legal ad for D.P.U. 91-63 has been issued, announcing a public
hearing on NET's ISDN offering to be held on Thursday, June 13, 1991
at 10:00 A.M.  in the Leverett Saltonstall Building, 100 Cambridge
Street, Boston.

NET proposes to offer ISDN Basic Service (voice and packet data over a
single access line) as an add-on to one party residence and business
main telephone exchange service and INTELLIPATH Digital Centrex
Service. The filing also includes optional services including call
management functions and display of call-related information.

N.E.T. intended for the tariff to become effective on April 8th, 1991;
the DPU intends to "investigate the reasonableness of the Company's
proposal" and has suspended the tariff effective date until October
8th to allow time for hearings and investigation.


john

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

From: "Paul S. Sawyer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1-900-NO-CHIEF
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 22:54:33 GMT


News item:

The fire chief of Louden, New Hampshire resigned recently, after the
town received a telephone bill for over $1,000 in 900- calls.  It is
said he made 84 calls to a "sex line" over a period of five hours.


Paul S. Sawyer             {uunet,attmail}!unhtel!paul    [e-mail]
UNH CIS - - Telecommunications and Network Services      VOX: [phone]
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523                        FAX: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #406
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16482;
          29 May 91 4:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10062;
          29 May 91 3:01 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14884;
          29 May 91 1:52 CDT
Date:     Wed, 29 May 91 0:48:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #407
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 29 May 91 00:48:51 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 407

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Something Sounds Fishy: $700 Credit For AT&T Employees? [Rick Farris]
    Bell of PA Toll Information [Scott D. Green]
    A Visitor Observes Phone Service in the UK [Alex Beylin]
    New PIN For My AT&T Card? [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Cellular One Dialing Procedures [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    Strange Phone/Laptop Interference Problem [Bill Rubin]
    Re: Old Phone Museum Being Cranked Up [Bud Couch]
    Employment Opportunity: Telecommunications Position [Don Zarlengo]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rick Farris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Something Sounds Fishy: $700 Credit For AT&T Employees?
Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 06:47:56 GMT


Do all AT&T employees receive $700 credit on their phone bills each
month?

A local modem hobbyist is raising quite a stir by bragging about the
$700 credit he receives each month as a "part-time computer security
consultant" for AT&T.

Because the only security for MS-DOS machines (the only computer
*he's* ever seen) is physical security (maybe that's it; he's bolting
computers to desktops ...), a group of us were wondering why he would
be entitled to such a large credit for part-time work.

On the other hand, a stipend and a large phone-bill credit would be
just right for a paid informant; one that searches out pirate and
phreak BBSs and reports on them.

So is a $700 credit reasonable for part-time work?  If so, geez, what
kind of credit do full-timers get?


Rick Farris  RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014  voice [phone]
[e-mail]     ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris      serenity bbs 259-7757


[Moderator's Note: He may get that sort of allowance for being a
snitch -- a 'part time computer security consultant' -- each month,
since after all, he has to spend a lot of time on line long distance
spying on sysops and users -- if that is what he does -- but I don't
think that is a usual benefit for AT&T employees. What I've heard is
that they receive either all or a portion of their long distance
service for free; but I doubt that it runs $700 per month for most
employees! But still, if he is tattling on naughty users and sysops,
why would he say anything about it at all and blow his cover?  Has
anyone confirmed this? Is he just running off at the mouth?  There are
a lot of people who *wish* they could be ... uh hum! 'computer
security consultants', you know. It might be just fanciful thinking on
his part. Tell him you'll believe it when you see his AT&T bill with
an adjustment like this on it.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 28 May 91 12:41 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell of PA Toll Information


Some of you may have heard of Bell of PA's plan to eliminate the
dialing of 1+xxx-xxxx for calls within the 215 area.  This will
become mandatory by Jan. 1, 1992 (I think), and is currently optional.

Anyway, WRT no longer knowing whether our call will be local or toll,
Bell has responded!  Announced today (5-28) on "Bell of PA's Inside
Line" is the Toll Information Line.  By dialling 800-734-5910, one may
learn whether one exchange is local or toll to another exchange within
215.  [Sorry, I don't know if this number is available outside of  215.]

Very simply, the system prompts the caller for the originating
exchange (it does *not* assume [or does not ANI] the exchange you
happen to be calling from at the time) and the destination exchange.
It then reports "local" or "toll," (no rate information, though) and,
if "toll," explains that the info is only valid for POTS, and if you
subscribe to any extended calling plans, etc. to check your phone
book.

It also allows you to continue tapping in originating and destination
exchanges, explains that your switchable pulse-tone phone needs to be
in the tone position, and if your phone is rotary only to call "0."

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

Date: Tue, 28 May 91 13:01 EDT
From: Alex Beylin <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Visitor Observes Phone Service in the UK


Having just come back from a vacation in England, I thought I'd share
some of my observations with Telecom readers.  Please note that all
information is based on personal experience and informal surveys and
may be widely off-base.

First and foremost - BT is replacing traditional red telephone booth
with modern looking glass enclosures.  I called the BT operator in
Coventry and was transfered to a person responsible for sales of
telephone boxes.  Unforunately, he told me that there is a very long
waiting list to buy them.  He also indicated that only one in every
three or four units are sold and the rest are thrown away due to
damage.

Now, if someone on the net with better BT connections then I could
find out where they throw them away, I don't think painting and
replacing some of the glass pannels would be that big of a job.  I
have some connections in Midlands to help ship a few of those to US.
Could we arrange a group buy of those with BT?

Also while I was there, BT released their profit statements and all
hell broke loose in the papers.  The common opinion seems to be that
BT makes more money then they should.

On the home front, majority of people I met still have BT as their one
and only carrier.  One of my friends just added Mercury to his
business phone and observed 35+% drop in LD charges.  He had to
replace all his phones as the standard BT phone was not compatible
with Mercury (no tones?).  His current phone is made by Southern Bell.
He has to dial an access number to get to the Mercury network.

The state of pay phone confusion is unbelivable.  BT phone cards are
widely available but work only in BT phones.  Mercury phone cards are
also available, but work only in Mercury phones.  In London most BT
and Mercury pay phones will not accept coins - I was forced to carry
both cards.  Some BT phones do accept coins and even give change,
contrary to the sign on the phone.

None of the home phones I used (8-10) had tone dialing - pulse only.

Well, enough rambling.  As I said, all this is just personal
observations and may not resemble truth in any way.


Alex Beylin, Systems Specialist | [phone]
[e-mail]           | Chrysler Corp. MIS
sharkey!cfctech!alexb           | Distributed Systems Group

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

Date: 28-MAY-1991 16:00:34.60
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: New PIN for my AT&T Card?


I just got this in the mail from AT&T:

Dear Mr. Douglas Reuben,

In a few weeks, you will be receiving a new AT&T Calling Card to
replace the AT&T Calling Card you now carry.

When it arrives, you'll notice that your new card looks different. It
even has a DIFFERENT ACCOUNT NUMBER FROM YOUR CURRENT AT&T CARD.
(Emphasis added).  In order to comply with government requirements,
AT&T is no longer sharing card numbers with your local telephone
company. Now, AT&T is issuing new card numbers that are exclusive to
AT&T.

Your new AT&T Calling Card will continue to provide all the advantages
you've grown to expect from AT&T.

[Stuff about verifying the present account you have with AT&T]

[They list a number for "changes to your account" as 800-447-2000.

So does this mean that we will all need to know at least *two* PIN
numbers now?

And how is everyone supposed to know that "If it's a local call use my
BOC card, while if it's an inter-LATA call use my AT&T card"? How many
people actually can tell in advance what is a intra- compared to an
inter-LATA call?

Example: You are in Greenwich, CT. You want to call NYC. Who gets the call?
         NYTel or AT&T?

       You then want to call to Poughkeepsie, also in New York State. Who
         gets it?

     Finally, you want to call Fisher's Island, in area code 516 for
     Long Island, NY?

    (Ans.: NYTel, AT&T, AT&T.)

Now I don't consider my friends, parents, and relatives to be all that
ignorant on how to use a telephone, but I just can't see how THIS is
going to be explained to them by AT&T and/or the BOCs.  AT&T and the
BOCs sure didn't do a good job when it came to warning people about
AOSs until quite late in the game; I am wondering how much more
confusion this nonsense will cause.

Note that if I use MCI or Sprint, which have similar calling card
setups (via an 800 or 950 number), I can usually make INTRA and INTER
LATA calls on the same card, and even on the same call. (The charges
may be higher for INTRA LATA calls than what the BOC/GTE/local
companies charge, however).  This works quite infrequently with AT&T's
system, ie, rarely can you "sequence" (make multiple calls) from INTER
LATA to INTRA LATA.

In the event than any AT&T Calling Card people area reading this, all
I can say is that this is quite disappointing. I assume His Honor
managed to have something to do with this ("government" = Green, J.,
right? ;) ), but unless AT&T starts allowing local (INTRA) LATA calls
to be completed on its card, I think I may just get ITT or MetroMedia
or someone with free 950 access, where I can use the same card for
both INTRA and INTER LATA calls. (No big deal to AT&T I'm sure, but a
lot less trouble for me!)


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


[Moderator's Note: Did they specifically say you could NOT make local
calls on the card or would NOT be able to use the local telco's card
to make calls on the AT&T network?     PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 28 May 91 18:27:30 PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular One Dialing Procedures


Folks,

I am trying to convince Cellular One here in the Bay Area that they
need to start accepting "canonical numbers" from cellular phones in
order to be in compliance with generally accepted industry standards.
(I've heard that there is even an IEA recommendation for this.) If you
can help me put forward my case I'd be grateful.

By "canonical numbers" I mean 10 digit numbers of the form:

(Area Code) prefix-number, e.g., [phone].

Dialling such a number should *always* work, even if you are in your
"home" area code, i.e. in 415 in this case.

When I first got my phone about three years ago, everything worked
just fine, canonical numbers could be stored in memory and "dialled"
(sent to the MTSO by means of the S(p)END button), regardless of
whether the call was for within 415 or not.  When Pac*Bell introduced
1+ dialling for long distance calls, Cellular One decided in their
infinite wisdom to follow suit, and changed the dialling procedure
accordingly. So, now you have to dial 1 202 555-1212 or whatever. They
forgot (or so it seems) to enforce it for "local" calls, so until
recently you could still call a 415 number using canonical style
dialing: 415-xxx-yyyy.  Then recently, they discovered this "hole" and
now you can *only* dial "local" calls using seven digits: xxx-yyyy.

While I can sort of understand their idea that "it should work just
like a regular phone" the trouble is that you cannot store numbers in
memory any more and use the phone while travelling.  I am trying to
get them to accept canonical dialling *AS WELL AS* their current silly
scheme, but so far I have not had much luck finding anyone who even
understands what I am talking about. Some of the answers I have
received so far include:

"All our calls are routed through Pac*Bell, so we have to follow
Pac*Bell's dialling procedures!"

"We do not have any plans to market the dialling procedure you
requested at this time."

"All of our switches are programmed from Toronto, thus you can't
talk to the guy in charge of switch programming."

Since cellular systems employ pre-origination dialling, i.e., the
entire number is sent to the switch before any connection is made,
then it is clearly a small matter of programming to make this work
correctly, or is it not?


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability
Report Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View,
CA 94040, Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Email: [e-mail] Direct: [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 00:24:01 EDT
From: Bill Rubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Strange Phone/Laptop Interference Problem


I was at my in-law's this past week, and ran into a strange problem.
Maybe someone out there can help diagnose it for me.  First, my setup.
I have a Toshiba laptop, with the Toshiba brand internal modem.  The
machine works on batteries, so the only time I generally use it when
it's plugged in is when I've run down my battery and haven't have a
chance to recharge it.  I was trying to use the laptop in a room where
the phone and answering machine were connected using a line splitter
at the wall jack, and the splitter didn't fit the jack very well, so
it was sticking out and easy to pull out of the wall accidentally.
There wasn't even any need for the splitter, since the answering
machine had a phone out jack, and I was using that for my laptop
connection.

Anyway, I was using the laptop with no problem under battery power,
but as soon as I plugged the computer into the AC, I started getting
wierd stuff out of the modem - and it sounded like it was picking up a
radio station!  I tried a couple of different outlets, turning on and
off the answering machine, but the only thing that could make the
modem work was to unplug the machine from the AC, either at the
laptop, or the outlet.  Oh yes, when this was occurring, I was unable
to dial using the regular phone as well, it got the same interference.

So, my question is, what was going on?  Is it possible that the very
poor fit of the phone splitter was allowing phone signals to be jammed
by whatever was coming out of the laptop?  But if so, why should it
only occur when I was using the AC?  Any suggestions are appreciated.


Bill  [e-mail]

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Old Phone Museum Being Cranked Up
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 04:07:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Ron <uwm!carroll1.cc.edu!
[e-mail]> writes:

>    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.

Pacific Telecom also bought out the old RCA Alascom system, and is
"The Phone Company" in Alaska.


Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox  If my employer only knew..    standard BS applies

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

From: Don Zarlengo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Employment Opportunity: Telecommunications Position
Date: 29 May 91 01:09:16 GMT
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA


May 22, 1991
Sterling Software
Permanent Position on the East Coast

Telecommunications Network Management
Specialist

The position will operate under minimal direction, and will design,
implement, manage and maintain complex nationwide multi-media
telecommunication systems.  The candidate must be fully capable in the
use of advanced telecommunications modeling and design techniques.
They must also be fully capable of making design trade-off decisions
which result in fully interoperable networks consisting of supporting
multiple communication protocols.  They will provide technical
guidance pertaining to all phases of telecommunications technology,
including transmission media, protocols and performance, and the
availability agents of large complex networks.  They candidate must
have one or two years of experience with Netview or with some other
equivalent software.

The position will provide guidance to diverse groups working on large
projects on an agency-wide scale.  They will analyze industry trends
and apply these trends to the development of value added network
solutions.  They will become a recognized authority of network
technology.

They should have at least ten years telecommunication experience.  A
bachelor's degree in a related field and an advanced degree preferred.


Contact:    Dr. Don Zarlengo
        Sterling Software
        1121 San Antonio Road
        Palo Alto, CA 94303
        415 964-9900
        415 969-3821 fax

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #407
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16556;
          29 May 91 4:40 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10062;
          29 May 91 3:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14884;
          29 May 91 1:53 CDT
Date:     Wed, 29 May 91 1:46:02 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  New Telecom Archives Mail Server; Index to Archives
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


I am pleased to announce a new mail service is available for use with
the Telecom Archives. It is just in the beginning stages, and will
have more and more of our files on line as time goes on. My
understanding is this service is *only* for the Telecom Archives at
this time.

Furthermore, this service is intended for NON-INTERNET sites who would
otherwise not have access via ftp. If you can use ftp lcs.mit.edu,
then you are strongly encouraged to continue doing so. The program
described below was written by Doug Davis so that our many readers on
the commercial mail services, Fido, and similar sites (Portal and
Chinet for example) can also participate.

FIRST, here is a help file, prepared by Doug Davis:

   From: "Doug Davis at letni.lonestar.org" <[e-mail]>
   Subject: Help File
   Date: 27-May-91 23:14:40 CST (Mon)


This mail server is pretty simple minded, commands are sent as a
single line in the body of the message.  The ``Subject:'' (if any)
will be returned as the subject line from the mail off of this site.
This way you can keep track of your own requests.

The following commands are available. Pretend the parser is stupid and
spell and space them exactly as they are listed here.  Anything else
in in the body of the message will be quietly ignored.

Path:<space>{rfc-976/internet/@) return address for yourself}

   The parameter of this command should be internet style
   notation for your username.  If your machine is not locateable
   on the internet via an MX record or gethostbyname() don't bother
   trying this, since the returning mail will undoubtably be lost.

Command:<space>[sub-command]<space>{parameters/filenames}

   Currently the only supported subcommand right now is "send" with the
   parameters being the filenames separated via spaces to be sent via
   return mail to you.

For example, to get the index file, send the server a message with the
line below in the body of the message.

Command: send index

This will cause the index of available files to be sent back to you.
Also, this is a system V site (hey it was cheap) so you will have to
request the file via it's short time.  Some later version of the
server software will work with the longer names. Oh, yeah, in the
above, <space> means the space-bar, i.e. a character with the value of
0x20 hex. Not the word <space> itself.

Mailing addresses:

  [e-mail]:      The mail server itself

  [e-mail]:       Returning mail to
                                                   you will come from this
                                                   address.  Mail sent
                                                   TO this address will be
                                                   silently ignored.

  [e-mail]:                         My address.


Other notes, There is a 500k (per-day) limit on messages leaving the
server. If the backlog has exceeded this you will be sent a short note
saying your request is acknowledged and how many requests are in the
queue before yours.

Also presently the back issues of the Digest are being reformatted and
are not presently available, my hope is to finish them by the first
part of June.


doug
(Mon May 27 1991)

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

Pat again:

What Doug means is the back issues of the Digest are not yet available
*via this service*.  If using ftp, then of course you can get the back
issues or any other desired files.  When this project is finished, I
believe it will be set up so that individual back issues can be
pulled, at least for the most recent volumes created here at
Northwestern. (We may have some problems with lack of standardization
from the JSol days ... time will tell how those old issues work out.)

                           --------

Next, I have attached here the current index to the archives, for the
benefit of ftp users. *This is not the same index as Doug will give
you if you use his new program*.  Same articles, but use his index to
order via his service.  Below is the main directory, and the sub-
directory devoted to telecom.security.issues.  I have not included
here the sub-directories on Minitel, Tymnet or a couple other things.
The back issues of the Digest are in sub-directories by year and
volume number.  Again, I stress this is the ftp version ... Doug does
not yet have any back issues of the Digest on line.

We are running TWO archives right now in parallel: the one at MIT
which has always been there for users with ftp-ability, and the new
one at Doug's site which is gradually being constructed, although
quite a bit is available now.

Bitnet people may continue to use '[e-mail]' if they wish,
or they may use this new service. Internet people can use it if they
want to see how it works, but please don't abuse it: keep the load
down for the benefit of the folks who *must* use this system.

Now here is the main directory for the Telecom Archives at lcs.mit.edu:

(Up to date as of 5-27-91. The 'telecom-recent' file changes daily,
since this is where the most recent issues of the Digest are stored
until a group of 50 is collected. We break these at the fiftieth and
hundredth issues.)

total 3458
drwxrwxr-x 12 telecom  telecom      5632 May 26 14:26 ./
drwxrwxr-x 24 root     wheel        1024 May 26 01:02 ../
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Mar  2 23:40 1981-86.volumes.1-5/
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Mar  2 23:14 1987.volumes.6-7/
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Mar  2 23:07 1988.volume.8/
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Mar  2 22:54 1989.volume.9/
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Mar  2 22:51 1990.volume.10/
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 May 12 23:17 1991.volume.11/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       663 Jan 27 20:28 READ.ME.FIRST
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     25799 Sep 12  1990 abernathy.internet.story
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     68508 Mar 14 03:38 aos-new.fcc.proposals
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     68224 Nov 20  1990 aos-rules.procedures
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     60505 Feb 24 23:51 apple.data.pcs.petition
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     18238 Nov  9  1990 area.214-903.split
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     35017 Mar  2 21:24 areacode.guide
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9397 Mar  2 21:26 areacode.program.in.c
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     20826 Mar  3 00:09 areacode.script-c.moore
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21264 Apr 14  1990 areacode.script-dupuy
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9078 Mar  2 21:29 areacode.script-revised
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       474 Feb 11  1990 att.service.outage.1-90
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     18937 Aug  1  1989 auto.coin.collection
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      4788 Jun 10  1990 books.about.phones
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21702 Nov 20  1990 braux.bill.call.blocking
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     10019 Jan 27 18:53 calendar.of.events.1991
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     61504 Jul 30  1990 caller-id-legal-decision
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      4569 Apr 14 21:03 caller-id-specs.bellcore
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     39449 Dec 14 21:20 cellular.carrier.codes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16188 Mar 14 03:22 cellular.fraud.abernathy
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2755 Mar 14 03:34 cellular.fraud.prevention
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     17016 Aug  5  1990 cellular.phones-iridium
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     24455 Feb  6 02:08 cellular.program-motorola
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     15141 Aug  1  1989 cellular.sieve
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       298 May 31  1990 cellular.west.germany
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16292 Mar 18  1990 class.ss7.features
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15023 Sep 30  1990 cocot-in-violation-label
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     38981 Oct 12  1990 cocot.complaint.sticker
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     70477 Sep  5  1990 computer.bbs.and.the.law
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     23944 Aug  1  1989 computer.state
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      9150 Jan 31  1990 country.code.list
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11370 Feb  9  1990 country.codes.revised
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11267 Feb 25  1990 cpid-ani.developments
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       436 Mar 16 16:54 deaf.communicate.on.tdd
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15877 Sep  1  1990 dial.tone.monopoly
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     28296 Sep 29  1990 dialup.access.in.uk
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     39319 Aug  1  1989 docket.87-215
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16367 Sep  1  1990 e-series.recommendations
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      3422 Jan 20  1990 early.digital.ESS
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     62602 Aug  1  1989 ecpa.1986
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     97987 Aug  4  1990 ecpa.1986.federal.laws
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     39956 Jul 14  1990 elec.frontier.foundation
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      5922 Feb 22 18:54 email.middle-east.troops
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     20660 Sep  5  1990 email.privacy
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8504 Jan 27  1990 enterprise-funny-numbers
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     19836 Nov 20  1990 fax.products.for.pc
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     33239 Aug  1  1989 fcc.policy
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     19378 Aug  1  1989 fcc.threat
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       484 Jan 14  1990 fcc.vrs.aos-ruling
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      9052 Aug  1  1989 find.pair
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     47203 Aug  1  1989 fire.in.chgo.5-88
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1998 Jan 27  1990 fire.in.st-louis.1-90
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       377 Jan 27  1990 fires.elsewhere.in.past
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1247 Feb 10  1990 first.issue.cover
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14105 Nov 24  1990 genie.star-service
-rw-r--r--  1 map      telecom    102788 May 23 11:19 glossary.acronyms
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     43101 Jan 27 18:54 glossary.isdn.terms-kluge
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     42188 Jan 14  1990 glossary.phrack.acronyms
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     67113 Jan 14  1990 glossary.txt
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     68804 Feb  2  1990 hi.perf.computing.net
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2337 Jan 27  1990 history.of.digest
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     32625 Mar 29  1990 how.numbers.are.assigned
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15302 Jan 20 16:21 how.to.post.msgs.here
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1616 Nov 20  1990 index-canada.npa.files
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       411 Nov 20  1990 index-minitel.files
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom         0 May 26 14:26 index-telecom.archives
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1326 Jan 20 18:33 index-telecom.security
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       343 Jan 20 18:47 index-tymnet.info
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       936 Mar  3 00:06 intro.to.archives
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12896 Nov 20  1990 isdn.pc.adapter-hayes
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      4816 Aug  1  1989 lauren.song
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom       801 Aug  1  1989 ldisc.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      2271 Aug  1  1989 ldnotes.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     13675 Aug  1  1989 ldrates.txt
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12260 Jan 20  1990 london.ac.script
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12069 Mar  5  1990 london.codes.script
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15604 Aug  1  1989 mass.lines
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom       463 Aug  1  1989 measured-service
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Nov 20  1990 minitel.info/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     36641 Aug  1  1989 mnp.protocol
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2450 Jan 20  1990 modems.and.call-waiting
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      7597 Feb 10  1990 named.exchanges
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16590 Oct 21  1990 net.mail.guide
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      3014 Jan 27  1990 newuser.letter
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     32815 Mar 25  1990 nine.hundred.service
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     45105 Mar  2 22:14 npa.800-carriers.assigned
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     13779 Sep 19  1990 npa.800.prefixes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     45109 Mar  2 21:28 npa.800.revised
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     33440 May 12  1990 npa.809.prefixes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15488 Nov 20  1990 npa.900-carriers.assigned
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15099 Mar  8 06:42 npa.900.how.assigned
dr-xr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Feb  2 01:41 npa.exchange.list-canada/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16534 Feb 11  1990 nsa.original.charter-1952
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9886 Jan 23  1990 occ.10xxx.access.codes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      6847 Mar  2 21:28 occ.10xxx.list.updated
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8593 May  5  1990 occ.10xxx.notes.updates
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14354 Aug 12  1990 octothorpe.gets.its.name
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8504 Jan 27  1990 old.fashioned.coinphones
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      2756 Jan 27  1990 old.hello.msg
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     70153 Aug  1  1989 pc.pursuit
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      5492 Aug  1  1989 pearl.harbor.phones
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     38772 Aug  1  1989 pizza.auto.nmbr.id
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14189 May  6 02:39 radio-phone.interfere.1
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11696 May  6 02:40 radio-phone.interfere.2
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8452 May  6 02:40 radio-phone.interfere.3
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     17950 Jan 14  1990 rotenberg.privacy.speech
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9764 Jan 20  1990 starline.features
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     46738 Jan 18  1990 starlink.vrs.pcp
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    103069 Apr 26  1990 sysops.libel.liability
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      3857 Aug  1  1989 tat-8.fiber.optic
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     27533 Feb  9  1990 telco.name.list.formatted
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     31487 Jan 28  1990 telco.name.listing
-rw-rw-r--  1 ptownson telecom    827380 May 26 14:24 telecom-recent
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Mar 14 03:32 telecom.security.issues/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21831 Jan 20 14:32 telsat-canada-report
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     11752 Aug  1  1989 telstar.txt
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Dec 10 02:49 tymnet.information/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     26614 May 29  1990 unitel-canada.ld.service
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       116 Oct 22  1990 white.pages
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     37947 Aug  1  1989 wire-it-yourself
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      4101 Aug  1  1989 wiring.diagram
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     24541 Aug  1  1989 zum.debate


And here is the sub-directory 'telecom.security.issues':

total 608
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Dec  2 21:19 ./
drwxrwxr-x  6 telecom  telecom      5120 Jan 20 18:30 ../
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     13343 Feb 25  1990 computer.fraud.abuse.act
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     27395 Jun 23  1990 craig.neidorf.indictment
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9354 Jul 30 02:18 craig.not.guilty
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     67190 Jun 23  1990 crime.and.puzzlement
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     62602 Aug 12 14:29 ecpa.1986
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     97987 Aug 12 14:32 ecpa.1986.federal.laws
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21918 Dec  2 21:20 illinois.computer.laws
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     28935 May 19  1990 jolnet-2600.magazine.art
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     30751 Mar  7  1990 jolnet-attctc.crackers
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     43365 Jan 28  1990 kevin.polsen
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     35612 Apr  1  1990 legion.of.doom
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     20703 Aug 12 16:16 len.rose.indictment
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     67099 Nov  4 01:11 telecom.usa.call.block-1
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     31995 Nov 20 10:34 telecom.usa.call.block-2
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     10833 Nov 20 10:23 telecom.usa.call.block-3
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14821 Sep 12 19:19 war.on.computer.crime

People using Doug's new service will probably find the same file names
as above in the index there ... but use his index to check exact
spellings and any little differences there may be.

Have fun!  Do catch up on back issues you have missed as well as any
special files you may have not seen before .... and remember to check
Doug's index regularly since it will be getting larger as he gets his
files completely on line.

And why not send a note of thanks to Doug also, for his work over the
holiday weekend in getting this up and running for telecom readers.
 From all of us Doug, thanks!


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator












Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08487;
          30 May 91 5:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03104;
          30 May 91 3:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08019;
          30 May 91 2:31 CDT
Date:     Thu, 30 May 91 1:31:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #408
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 May 91 01:30:55 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 408

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    John Higdon on KFI in Los Angeles [Steve W. York]
    Rebecca Bigeley and Thrifty Tel [John Higdon]
    Incoming lines from Telco [Robert M. Hamer]
    AT&T Long Distance Employee Concession [Edward Hopper]
    Caller ID Blocking Advertised [Tim Irvin]
    Fax Memory [Kath Mullholand]
    The Definitive ANAC Guide [Leryo Malbito]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: John Higdon on KFI in Los Angeles
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 23:42:14 PDT


[MODERATOR'S NOTE:  LATE BULLETIN!  THE REPEAT OF THE SHOW SCHEDULED
FOR THURSDAY AT 3 AM PACIFIC TIME HAS BEEN PRE-EMPTED DUE TO THE NEW
ARREST OF RODNEY KING. JOHN HIGDON ADVISED ME BY PHONE WEDNESDAY NIGHT
THE SHOW IS NOW RESCHEDULED FOR <FRIDAY> AT 3 AM P.S.T.    PAT]

When I read a few days ago that John Higdon was going to be on KFI in
Los Angeles on Tuesday, it piqued my interest.  I do a a show on KFI.
So why not meet the scrouge of net.  Seemed like a good idea at the
time.

Anyway, I called the show's producer and got his answering machine
(twice).  Left a message on the second call, and drove over to
the studio.  During the drive, I wondered how I would know who he
was.  I shouldn't have worried.

I put my ID card in the reader to open the front door and went in and
waved at the guard.  Then up a flight of steps and waved at the
receptionist who buzzed me through the next door.  Then up another
flight of stairs to the studios.  I looked down the hall and saw the
light on in the producer's office and figured that was a good place to
start.

I never got there.  As I was walking, I glanced down a side utility
hall.  There, between two bathrooms was a man sitting on the floor,
hunched over a milk crate.  There was a laptop on the milkcrate and a
wire running across the floor into an old frame room full of abandoned
66 punch blocks and 1A2 equipment.

This obviously was HIGDON.  He ignored me as I walked over to
introduce myself.  Eventually, he signed off and we met.

Not exactly like meeting a prophet.  But I wouldn't know what that's
like anyway.  His show went well, though one caller reffered to him as
an idiot.  That was his favorite call, at least he kept talking about
it later.  I'll let him tell you about the show.  Afterwards, John,
Joe, Tony, and I amused each other for a few hours telling and
enjoying stories.

For anyone who wants to hear the show, it will be repeated Thursday at
3AM.  KFI is 640 AM, 50,000 watts clear channel.  Should be audible by
at least the Western third of the country.  Fire up the cassette deck
and get a copy for your kids.


Steve York

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 15:49 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Rebecca Bigeley and Thrifty Tel


The best way to describe Thrifty Tel is that it is a struggling
reseller. The best way to describe Rebecca Bigeley is that she is a
woman with a cause and a gigantic ego. Yesterday's experience talking
with her was, at best, confusing.

Her company is an attractive hacker nuisance. It has no ANI delivery
on the 950 access, it has short authorization codes, etc. The emphasis
is on "catching" the phreaks rather than stopping them. I asked her
point blank off the air if she would be happy if all phreaking
activity stopped tomorrow and her answer was in effect, "we want to
send a message to these criminals."

Her excuse for using FGB (with no FGD turnaround) was that it would
cost her (and by extension her customers) money for upgrading. "Why
should my customers pay for what these criminals are doing? The
'hackers' themselves (or their parents) should bear the cost." Just
before a break, I pointed out that FGB was obsolete in any case and
that FGD would provide additional protections against hacking. On the
air, she kept insisting that this would not be the case and even at
one point accused me of not knowing enough about the technical
matters.

During one of the breaks, the producer of the show asked that we keep
the "jargon" to a minimum. Ms. Bigeley responded, "These guys are
technicians -- that's just the way they talk. I, on the other hand,
understand that this is not a technical matter, but a moral and
ethical one." I have to hand it to her -- she is no dummy. She played
her part very well.

Those who heard the show will note that after all of her insistence
that FGD would not help her and that FGB was perfectly reasonable for
her company to use, despite its hacker invitations; she did not
challenge my rather pointed pre-break condemnation of FGB. Maybe I am
giving her more credit than she deserves, but I suspect that she knew
what my next statement would have been if pressed on the issue.  The
only reason resellers cling to FGB technology, phreaker holes and all,
is to allow intraLATA bypass in violation of tariff.  Thrifty Tel does
this as does a large number of other providers.  Everyone in the
business knows this.

When I explained (off mike) that FGD presubscription with no casual
calling (or even with it) would end her phreaker problems, her answer
was the issue of "cost -- to her and her customers". This is the tone
she maintained throughout.

There were some strange callers. One suggested that all information
everywhere should be free for the asking (taking). His (unsupportable)
justification for hacking and phreaking illegally was somewhat off the
wall. Another gentleman, who described himself as a "security systems"
designer referred to my associate and myself as "idiots" because we
were suggesting that Thrifty Tel might pay more attention to locking
the door rather than running after the thieves. "There is nothing that
is completely secure." Maybe not, but at a certain point most phreaks
will give up on something that is not worth the effort. I asked him if
he would put a computer on a phone line open to the world without a
password. "Of course not, but that has nothing to do with it."

One caller even brought up the (now discredited) flap about Prodigy as
a platform to declare that all corporations were evil and that they
should all be ripped off.

Unfortunately, I think those at the station got more out of this in
our post-mortem afterwards than came across on the air. We summed up
at the end of the broadcast with the same words meaning different
things. I suggested that lawmakers and the public needed to become
better informed in the matters of computers and telecommunications
technology so that the mystique that drives irrational prosecutions of
people could be brought under control. Ms. Bigeley also advocated more
education. More education of law enforcement personel so that they
would be fired up to go after these "thugs and criminals" that are
ripping off honest little businesses such as hers, and by extension,
her customers.

Her moral crusade tone created an atmosphere that caused any reason to
be introduced into the discussion to appear as being "soft on criminal
activity". To her it was very simple: if these people don't want their
lives ruined then they should not tamper with her (very vulnerable)
system.


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


[Moderator's Note: Remember, the re-broadcast will be <Friday>, 3 AM
due to pre-emption because of Rodney King's latest arrest.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 08:44 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Incoming Lines From Telco


Last Thursday my wife and I closed on a townhouse in Princeton, NJ.
We moved in last Friday, although I'm back here in humid Virginia
until the end of June.

I inspected the phone connections and discovered the following:

I can't find a network interface.  Coming in from outside into the
basement is a line with what looks like perhaps 10 or 15 twisted
pairs.  One of the pairs is connected to one of the old-fashioned
terminals (with four screw-type poles) to which all of our in-house
wiring is connected.

(The inhouse wiring is a combination of what looks like standard quad
phone wire and what looks like three-pair or four-pair twisted pair.
Only one pair is in use.  Red/green on the quad for tap/ring.  Go
figure.)

I have an uncomfortable suspician that all these pairs coming into the
basement go to other people's phone lines, and that in their
basements, my pair is included among those terminated in their
basements.  I have heard of such arrangements for apartments, but
would they have done it for townhouses?  (There are about eight units
in our building.)

If that is indeed true, is there any way I might persuade the local
telco to make some other arrangement so that my pairs aren't available
for others to tap into; to make phone calls on, etc?

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed May 29 09:41:23 CDT 1991
Subject: AT&T Long Distance Employee Concession


At present, full time management employees (at least lower ranking
management employees like me) have the following deal on AT&T long
distance within the USA:

First $35.00 per month of calls - 100% discount (i.e., free). Next
$65.00 worth of calls - 50% discount.

Non-management employees do not get such a good deal.  I recall
something like $5 free and and 50% off on the next $25 or $35.  Back
in the old Bell days, the late Mountain Bell gave me free local
service, free features (custom calling, touch tone) plus a smaller
long distance discount ($15 free).

This process is known internally as a "concession".  "Concession"
billing was also used by the BOCs for "offical" (i.e., internal)
service.  I remember pulling up the service records and bill on the
Mountain Bell Centrex in El Paso, TX (before the barbarians at SW Bell
took over).  The bill was $0.00.  This was for a three thousand line
switch with massive amounts of 1A2 key equipment.

In addition, by producing a valid ID badge at a phone center store one
gets the "employee price" for telephone sets, answering machines, etc.
Last week for example, I bought one of the digital answering machines
for under $100.  Regular price is $139.99.  Sometimes sale prices at
department/electronics stores on AT&T merchandise is better than this
discount, sometimes not.

Finally, various computers have been offered for sale.  Sometimes
these are good deals, sometimes not.  The last deal was on a 6386/SX
although I do not recall prices.


Ed Hopper    AT&T Computer Systems (for now)

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

Subject: Caller ID Blocking Advertised
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 29 May 91 13:18:04 [phone]
From: [e-mail]


The following 1/4 page ad appeared yesterday, May 28, 1991, in the
{Valley News}, (Lebanon, NH-White River Junction, VT, and surrounding
area):


+-----------------+  White River Junction Area Customers  +------------------+
|                                         |
|                                                                            |
|                             I m p o r t a n t                              |
|                                n o t i c e                                 |
|                       a b o u t   C a l l e r   I D                        |
|                              B l o c k i n g.                              |
|        [note:  This part took up 1/2 the ad.  Large, bold letters]         |
|                                                                            |
|  New England Telephone is offering   response to this concern, New England |
| White River Junction Area customers  Telephone is now offering Per-Call    |
| a new generation of call management  Blocking, a free method of "blocking" |
| services.  These new services are    the transmission of your telephone    |
| call Phonesmart(SM) and are designed  number to the Caller ID unit.        |
| to offer you increased convenience,   {How to use Per-Call Blocking}. Since|
| control and security.                your line is already equipped for Per-|
|  One of the new Phonesmart services  Call Blocking, all you have to do is  |
| is Caller ID. Caller ID enables a    dial 1176 on a rotary phone or push   |
| subscriber to see the telephone num- *67 on a Touch-Tone phone equipped with
| ber of a caller before picking up    Touch-Tone service before dialing the |
| the phone. When a phone call comes   call you want blocked.                |
| in, the caller's telephone number      If you have further questions or    |
| shows up on a small display device   require assistance, just call your Ser-
| connected to the subscriber's phone. vice Representative at the telephone  |
|  However, in certain instances, some number listed on the New England      |
| people don't want their number iden- Telephone Itemization of Account      |
| tified by the person they're         page of your bill.                    |
| calling.  In                                                               |
|                                                                            |
| [The next lines were in {very} small print]                                |
|  These are services (products) whose prices are not regulated.  Comparable |
|  services may be available in a more fully regulated form. [yea right, from|
|  whom?]  Ask your local business office for a comparison with those        |
|  services, and then decide whether you prefer these service offerings.     |
|                                                                            |
|         {BELL LOGO}  N e w   E n g l a n d   T e l e p h o n e             |
|                      A  NYNEX  Company                                     |
|                                                                            |

Note:  All [] comments, and misspellings are mine.  The formatting is a close
as possible given a mono-spaced font.

I wonder what these comparable services are....

I like how "In response to this concern, NET in now offering PCB....",
makes them seem so understanding to customers' privacy concerns, when
I am sure they must of fought tooth-and-nail to keep Blocking out all
together.


Tim Irvin

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 14:28:38 EDT
From: KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fax Memory


Has anyone out there heard of a fax machine with partitioned memory?
What is needed is for callers calling in to dial the seven-digit fax
number, followed by an eighth digit that identifies a "mailbox" which
then stores the fax until the fax owner goes to the fax machine and
asks for all of the faxes stored in mailbox 'x'.

I can see how this could be done with multiple faxes each with its own
(huge) memory, but what they are looking for is a single machine that
will do this.  Storage needs are upwards of 100 pages of closely typed
copy.

Please reply directly to me -- [e-mail] -- and I will
summarize the answers for the Digest.


Kath Mullholand        Durham, NH

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 16:38:24 -0400
From: Leryo Malbito <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Definitive ANAC Guide


"The Definitive ANAC Guide"

(Compiled by Emmanuel Goldstein, so all credit goes to him. Typed in
by me, all typos mine.)

If it doesn't work, try prefacing it with a 1.  It still might not
work, as this is a somewhat old list (Summer 90), so please let me
know (NOT Pat!)  whether they all work or not.  Some of them seem
doubtful, as I would try the ones with nnx 970 frm payphones ...
wouldn't want any of you to get burned ... and also the ones that are
211 seem somewhat questionable also, as (in 212) that is the Credit
Operator.  Any that DO work will work from anywhere for free, payphones,
etc.  I am assuming (I think correctly) that xxx.xxxx means any string
of seven digits, and you all can get back to me on that too.
experiment!


205 908.222.2222
212 958
213 114
213 1223
213 61056
214 970.xxxx
215 410.xxxx
217 200.xxx.xxxx
217 290
305 200.222.2222
309 200.xxx.xxxx
309 290
312 1.200.5863
312 200.xxx.xxxx
312 290
313 200.222.2222
317 310.222.2222
317 743.1218
401 222.2222
403 908.222.2222
404 940.xxx.xxxx
407 200.222.2222
408 300.xxx.xxxx
408 760
409 970.xxxx
414 330.2234
415 200.555.1212
415 211.2111
415 2222
415 640
415 760
415 760.2878
415 7600
415 7600.2222
502 997.555.1212
509 560
512 200.222.2222
512 970.xxxx
516 968
517 200.222.2222
518 997
518 998
602 593.0809
602 593.6017
602 593.7451
604 1116
604 1211
604 211
612 511
615 830
616 200.222.2222
617 200.xxx.xxxx
617 220.2622
618 200.xxx.xxxx
713 970.xxxx
714 211.2121
716 511
718 958
806 970.xxxx
812 410.555.1212
815 200.xxx.xxxx
815 290
817 211
906 200.222.2222
914 1.990.1111
914 99
914 990
914 990.1111
915 970.xxxx
919 711


[Moderator's Note: I just now tried the one for 312, and it did not
work. Maybe others will have luck with theirs.     PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #408
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10450;
          30 May 91 7:02 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21143;
          30 May 91 5:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03104;
          30 May 91 3:55 CDT
Date:     Thu, 30 May 91 3:08:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #409
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 May 91 03:07:24 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 409

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Neil Rickert]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [S. M. Krieger]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Henry Mensch]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Bud Couch]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Steve Gaarder]
    Re: Some Comments on History of AIOD [Macy Hallock]
    Re: DTMF Decoder Chip Wanted [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: Are Telco Profits Too Large? [Bryan Montgomery]
    Re: Are Telco Profits Too Large? [Martin Baines]
    Re: A Visitor Observes Phone Service in the UK [Martin Baines]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Neil Rickert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 12:13:44 GMT


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

> I just got this in the mail from AT&T:

> In a few weeks, you will be receiving a new AT&T Calling Card to
> replace the AT&T Calling Card you now carry.

> When it arrives, you'll notice that your new card looks different. It
> even has a DIFFERENT ACCOUNT NUMBER FROM YOUR CURRENT AT&T CARD.
> (Emphasis added).  In order to comply with government requirements,
> AT&T is no longer sharing card numbers with your local telephone
> company. Now, AT&T is issuing new card numbers that are exclusive to
> AT&T.

 This sounds like a good move to me.

 Time to describe a personal experience.  This happened perhaps seven
years ago.  A calling card (along with other cards, etc) were stolen.
We notified AT&T who promptly issued a new card.  A few weeks later
when we had need to use the AT&T card, it didn't work.

 After much complaining, the explanation turned out to be that our
original card had been issued by means of a request to Illinois Bell.
The replacement was issued by AT&T.  But because the original was
ordered through Illinois Bell, it could only be cancelled by Illinois
Bell.  AT&T didn't think to do this when they issued the replacement.
We didn't think to do so either, since the card said AT&T.

 I consider the separation a distinct improvement which can only serve
to reduce this kind of confusion in the future.

 Note, that since the AT&T notice promises the same service, one
presumes that local calls anywhere in the country should still be
chargeable to the AT&T card.


Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science   <[e-mail]>
Northern Illinois Univ.
DeKalb, IL 60115                    [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 10:39:03 EDT
From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Organization: Summit NJ


Douglas Scott Reuben writes:

> I just got this in the mail from AT&T:

> In a few weeks, you will be receiving a new AT&T Calling Card to
> replace the AT&T Calling Card you now carry.

> When it arrives, you'll notice that your new card looks different. It
> even has a DIFFERENT ACCOUNT NUMBER FROM YOUR CURRENT AT&T CARD.

> So does this mean that we will all need to know at least *two* PIN
> numbers now?

I already have my new AT&T Calling Card.  Here is my understanding of
it (DISCLAIMER: based entirely on the literature I got about it).

It is more than a new PIN; it's a 14 digit number totally unrelated to
the phone number.  This number will be accepted by the local phone
companies for intra-LATA calls, but it will not be accepted by other
long distance carriers.  (I believe the Calling Card number on the
Universal Card works the same way.)

This new calling card number (although I haven't tried it yet) will
also be linked to the Reach Out America plan (which in my case, I pay
$2.00 a month extra for no surcharge on Calling Card calls after
10:00pm and all day Saturday and Sunday until 5:00pm).

 From other literature I got (as well as phone call I made to AT&T
confirming it), the new AT&T Calling Cards would not be sent to
Universal Card holders, as they (we?) already have an AT&T Calling
Card Card number.  But Universal Card holders who are also Reach Out
America customers (like me) can request the AT&T Calling Card so that
an AT&T Calling Card number can be linked to the home phone number
(the Universal Card number can't) for ROA discounts.


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

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

From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 91 11:24:37 -0700
Subject: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


> [Moderator's Note: Did they specifically say you could NOT make local
> calls on the card or would NOT be able to use the local telco's card
> to make calls on the AT&T network?     PAT]

Hmm ... I just got a new Pac*Bell calling card and a new-style AT&T
calling card ... the Pac*Bell card accompanying literature emphatically
states that I can use my Pac*Bell card to make "long distance"
(presumably out-of-state) calls and it should be good "almost
anywhere."

I'm not sure I want to test it that vigorously, tho.


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

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 03:49:32 GMT


In a recent post, our illustrious Moderator wrote:

> [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]

Most C.O. switches built in the last ten years *deliberately* divorce
the ringback tone heard by the calling party from the acrual ringing
sound at the called party's phone. This has been done to cut down on
revenue "leakage" due to ringing code schemes: "Well, when we get to
Aunt Gertie's house, we'll call and leave it ring three times."
Modern switches, in general, return ringback both slower and
asynchronously from the actual ringing in order to foul up those
schemes.  "Why did you answer? It only rang twice." "Twice? It started
on the fourth ring here!"


Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox    If my employer only knew    standard BS applies

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 02:16:02 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World


Until about five or so years ago, a large, probably crossbar New
England Tel office in Newton, Mass.  (617-964) had a double ring as
the normal cadence.  This was the sound of both the actual ringer and
of the ringback.  The first time I called a friend there after they
replaced the switch I heard a standard ringback and hung up, thinking
I'd misdialed.


Steve Gaarder  [e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 28 May 91 21:12 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Some Comments on History of AIOD
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


> When I was in the interconnect business, selling Mitel SX-200 PBX
> equipment, I used to notice references to AIOD in the documentation
> for that product.

The Mitel SX-200 and SX-100 and SX-2000 have AIOD capability.  This is
still available, but nobody uses it ... it's basically an obsolete
protocol.  It was included in the products because telcos wouldn't buy
a PBX that could not support AIOD. It was used mainly for Centrex CU
type services.

I'm told there are some telcos with an AIOD tarriff still on the
books.  Not so here.

Most of the modern CO's are the same way ... they can do AIOD due to
telco specs, but never install or implement the feature.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr. N8OBG  216-725-4764 Home
[e-mail] [e-mail]
Note: [e-mail] is best reply path to me.   uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm
telling you]

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 00:35:49 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF Decoder Chip Wanted


> Does anyone know where to buy an inexpensive DTMF decoder chip?
> Preferable with easy interfacing capabilities.  I want to build one of
> those turn-on-anything-from-anywhere gizmos.  Thanks....

I don't know of a single chip implementation of a DTMF decoder.  Since
nobody seemed to come up with anything, I will give you my solution:
eight tone decoders in parallel (ECG part# 832).  Each decoder handles
a separate frequency, and the outputs are combined with NAND gates to
obtain the number.  The ECG tech manual includes an example of this
implementation.  If you can't obtain a copy of the data sheet on this
chip, let me know and I can mail you a copy.

Hope this helps.


Pat Turner    KB4GRZ    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 14:56:11 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Are Telco Profits Too Large?


Hello again,

Someone is awake and noticed my mistake. I should have said 3000
million, well 3050 million (97/sec) pounds! Approximately 5500 million
US Dollars per annum. Incidentally the title had been 'moderated from
profits ... to excessive profits -- and I agree!

BTW I hadn't realised the difference in 'billion' but million means
1,000,000! Thanks for pointing it out. You learn something every day!

As far as it being excessive, isn't that why 'Ma Bell' was split up
and de-regulation etc? Currently there is one other choice for
non-local (incidentally ALL calls are timed), Mercury, they complain
(justifiably?) that BT charge too much for local links. Hopefully with
the governments new legislation there will be possibilities for change
with British Rail, Water Boards (canals), as LD carriers but all still
relying on BT for local links. Perhaps if we get modern technology
like cable there will be opurtunities for other 'local' links.

I'd be interested to hear any comments from others with experience of
BT, et al.

For all the moans and groans of the US system, it still seems to be
light years ahead of ours, from my limited experience anyway. Does
this make matters better (or worse?)


Cheers,

Bryan M.

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

From: Martin Baines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Telco Profits Too Large?
Date: 29 May 91 10:00:02 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems Ltd


In article <[e-mail]>, motcid![e-mail]
(Adam J. Ashby) writes:

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

>> 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.

> A couple of points to mention here ...

> 1) I somewhat doubt the validity of your figures - especially as I
> remember not long ago everyone was aghast at BT making one million
> pounds a day - or one third of one billion pounds.

You may doubt them, but they are true! Mind you (according to BT
adverts) they reinvest #88 per minute of that.

> 2) Is that a 'British' billion (1x10E12) or an 'American' billion
> (1x10E9)??

Unfortunately for the English language, since Nigel Lawson started
using the American Billion for reporting the budget in the early '80s
the American Billion has taken over here when refering to money.

A sad day: what was wrong with the (correct) term milliad?

> 3) Describing it as excessive is very subjective - it wouldn't seem so
> excessive if you were a shareholder, would it??

As a share holder I quite agree. Unfortuanately there are still some
solicalist mined individuals in the UK who believe all profit is evil
and privatisation was the work of the devil! Of course these are the
same people no doubt who would like to go back to the '70s when the
old GPO took 18 months to install my parents phone line *and*
succeeded in lossing money on a monopoly service and hence needed tax
money (top rate 98% !!!) to make up the difference.


"You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment"

Martin Baines, Sales Support Manager,
Sun Microsystems Ltd, 306 Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4WG, UK
Phone                                 Email
UK:            0223 420421            JANET:     [e-mail]
International: [phone]         Other UK:  [e-mail]
                                      Internet:  [e-mail]

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

From: Martin Baines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Visitor Observes Phone Service in the UK
Date: 29 May 91 10:25:20 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems Ltd


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Alex
Beylin) writes:

[preabmle and questions re red phone boxes deleted]

> Also while I was there, BT released their profit statements and all
> hell broke loose in the papers.  The common opinion seems to be that
> BT makes more money then they should.

See my prior posting today!

> On the home front, majority of people I met still have BT as their one
> and only carrier.  One of my friends just added Mercury to his
> business phone and observed 35+% drop in LD charges.  He had to
> replace all his phones as the standard BT phone was not compatible
> with Mercury (no tones?).  His current phone is made by Southern Bell.
> He has to dial an access number to get to the Mercury network.

Depends where you live and when you got your phone as to whether it is
Mercury compatible. If you live in an exchange that is digital (50% of
exchanges, 75% of the population) then all you need to get Mercury is
a tone phone. If you get a *new* phone from BT it may/may not be tone:
it seems to depend what they have in stock (any comments?).

If you live on a pulse exchange, to get Mercury you need a phone that
can change from pulse to tone in the middle of dialing: the pulses to
get to Mercury, then tones for your PIN and the number.

A number of commercially sold phones have a "Mercury" button: this
basically dials Mercury for you and (depending on model) may dial the
PIN as well. This is just a convienience but often not understood by
phone salesmen.

> The state of pay phone confusion is unbelivable.  BT phone cards are
> widely available but work only in BT phones.  Mercury phone cards are
> also available, but work only in Mercury phones.  In London most BT
> and Mercury pay phones will not accept coins - I was forced to carry
> both cards.  Some BT phones do accept coins and even give change,
> contrary to the sign on the phone.

The signs on BT phones say that they only give change out of the coins
you put in, not that they don't give change. E.g. If I put in a single
#1 coin and only make a 10p call, I get no change; but if I put in 10
* 10p coins and make the same call, I get 90p back.  As for PhoneCard
verses coin availability: depends where you are. In most cases I can
think of, BT usually puts at least one coin phone in every cluster of
phones. I cannot think of *any* coin operated Mercury phone (although
I am told they exist!), all the ones I have come across take
MercuryCards (tm) *and* credit cards.

I would love to see a common standard for pre-paid cards, but I would
hate to be the person who worked out how to cross charge between
phone companies for their use. An exercise for Oftel in their spare
time perhaps?

|> None of the home phones I used (8-10) had tone dialing - pulse only.

This is basically customer lazyness: most people don't know the
difference so don't bother to get tones. You can walk into any store
selling phones these days and get a tone phone for same price as a
pulse phone.  There is no added charge from BT for using tones. If you
live in an area that Mercury can do direct connect (lucky you!) tones
are mandatory.


"You might say that, but I couldn't possibly comment"

Martin Baines, Sales Support Manager,
Sun Microsystems Ltd, 306 Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 4WG, UK
Phone                                 Email
UK:            0223 420421            JANET:     [e-mail]
International: [phone]         Other UK:  [e-mail]
                                      Internet:  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #409
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28708;
          31 May 91 3:48 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20431;
          31 May 91 2:13 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11357;
          31 May 91 1:03 CDT
Date:     Fri, 31 May 91 0:32:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #410
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 31 May 91 00:31:56 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 410

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Talking Books For the Blind [Martin McCormick]
    Re: Did Western Electric Also Make Sound Recordings? [Bill Vermillion]
    Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings? [George Horwath]
    Re: AT&T's Cornet [William T. Sykes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 14:48:58 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Talking Books For the Blind


Part I

     In the discussion of Western Electric sound recordings, the
subject of Talking Books for the blind was mentioned.  Having been a
user of the service for almost 35 years and having worked at the
Oklahoma Library for the Blind and Physically Handicapped in one of my
past lives, I would like to describe the details of how the system
worked and how it works now.

     The Talking Book is administered by the Library of Congress.  It
began in 1939 and, even then, was quite innovative.  The Talking Book
records were 12-inch platters recorded at 33-and-1/3 RPM in the
micro-groove format, just like modern albums.  In the late 50's, the
Library of Congress, ever interested in data compression, switched
from 33-and-1/3 to 16-and-2/3RPM records.  The voice quality of these
disks was still excellent, but it only took half as many disks for any
given Talking Book.

     The 1960's were a time of great technological change for Talking
Books, just like many other things.  The speed of the disks dropped to
8-and-1/3RPM where it is today, and the Library of Congress began
using the new audio cassette tape format for some Talking Book issues.

     The disks, themselves, also underwent quite a slimming process
from those first 33-and-1/3 RPM albums.  Some time after the
introduction of 16-and-2/3 RPM disks, the 12-inch diameter was changed
to a 10-inch size.  Also, in the late 60's, the Library of Congress
introduced flexible disks.  Most of you have seen these limber records
as supplements to magazines and other such freebees.  The first ones
were, as I recall, terrible because the turntables of the 50's and
60's Talking Book players were covered with mats that didn't
adequately support the flexible disks.  Also, both shippers and users
of the flexible disks had to get used to the fact that they weren't as
forgiving of high heat, heavy feet, etc as rigid phonograph records.

     Today, the flexible disks are 8-inch black disks which at
8-and-1/3 RPM have about one hour of playing time per side.  Since it
is still cheaper to press large quantities of flexible disks than to
produce a large quantity of tapes, the disks are still used for
materials such as best-seller books and widely read magazines.
Material with a more limited circulation such as specialty magazines
are recorded on audio cassettes; I'll say more on this later.  Some
magazines, such as {Newsweek} are recorded on both formats.

     As the flexible disk and tape formats have matured, there have
been some nifty innovations to make the materials easier to use.
There is an audible system for indexing chapter headings or the
beginnings of magazine articles which though very simple in concept,
is pure genius.  A low tone of about 50 to 100HZ is recorded for a
second or two along with the reader's voice at the beginning of the
important section.  It is much like the 50 HZ slide synchronization
tones used to trip the advance mechanism on 35MM film strip
projectors.  Under normal conditions, you don't hear the tone but if
the disk or tape is played at several times the speed, the tone will
be heard as a beep.  This system works really well on tape-recorded
material.

     For special reference materials such as cookbooks and
dictionaries, there is a really neat system called Voice Indexing.  It
is done by superimposing a word or two onto a prerecorded tape at a
much higher speed than the original recording.  During fast-forward,
the normal speech sounds like monkey chatter.  The page or chapter
index tones sound like occasional beeps, and the voice indexing
information sound like a normal human voice telling you the name of
the next section.

     When a Voice Indexed recording is played at normal speed, the
Voice Index creates a sound like rolling thunder in the background.
Those who look for hidden Satanic messages in rock music would have a
field day with this technology, but I digress.

     Finally, while the cassette tapes used in the Talking Book
program are the exact same tapes and cartridges used the world over
for sound recordings, these days they would not be at home in a
standard stereo or mono tape player.  Just as with the disks, the
Library of Congress has tried to fit more and more information into a
smaller space.  The early 70's saw a change from 1-and-7/8 ips tape
speed to 15/16 ips speed.  This is half the speed used for an ordinary
cassette tape recording.

     The next big increase in efficiency occurred in the mid 70's when
the four-track cassette was introduced.

     Today's Library of Congress Talking Books are recorded on either
8-inch flexible disks or 15/16 ips four-track cassettes.

     The Talking Book disk player, called a Talking Book Machine,
looks like an average sized classroom phonograph.  The lid can be
removed so as to set the speaker somewhere else, but it usually works
fine right on the machine.  The controls are very basic and
utilitarian, namely power, speed, volume and tone.  They are marked in
both raised large print and Braille.

     The tape players, about the dimensions of a large book, have a
speed selector so as to be able to play 15/16 ips tapes or the normal
1-and-7/8 ips speeds.  Their transport mechanisms have controls which
would be familiar to anybody who has ever seen a cassette tape
recorder.  The buttons are molded with large raised international
symbols such as < for rewind and > for fast-forward.

     In the second part, I will talk more about the Talking Books,
themselves and what it is like to use them.


Part II

The Talking Book program of the Library of Congress is one of those
government programs which works.  It has, over the past 52 years grown
and matured technologically, but it still performs it's original
function of bringing otherwise inaccessible materials to people who
are blind or otherwise physically handicapped so as not to be able to
read a printed book.

     The Library of Congress distributes Talking Books and players to
a network of regional distribution libraries in all 50 states.  Any
American citizen who is legally defined as blind or print handicapped
can borrow a Talking Book disk player and a special four-track tape
player free of charge.  The actual Talking Book records and tapes are
also loaned free of charge.  A patron of the service need only ask his
or her regional lending library for a certain title and it is sent if
available.

     Every couple of months, the Talking Books Publishing division of
the Library of Congress distributes a catalog of the latest new books
they have put on disk or tape.  They also give listings of recorded
materials which are produced by private organizations.  While not all
of these privately produced materials are free, they provide another
source of recorded information.

     Talking Book disk players and tape machines break, from time to
time and their repair is free to the user.  In many parts of the
country, the Telephone Pioneers, an organization of AT&T employees,
donates their time and technical expertise to repairing these
machines.  While I really know very little about the Telephone
Pioneers, their handiwork is always very impressive and should qualify
for a few articles in comp.dcom.telecom.

     The quality of the production of Talking Books is purely
professional.  The readers are actors, actresses, and even radio and
television announcers.  They are often paid for their work, but
sometimes donate their time.  Full-length books are recorded with
scrupulous adherence to accuracy.  Weekly magazines such as
"Newsweek," and "U.S. News and World Report," are produced in
recording marathons in which the content of the magazine is split up
among several readers and then edited into one recording.  Again,
every effort is made to insure that the readers are accurate.

     A few of the books such as Alistair Cooke's book about the
founding of the United States are actually read by their authors.

     Since virtually all of the books which are turned into Talking
Books are copywrited, the Library of Congress or any other
organization which wants to transcribe a book onto an audio tape must
get permission from the publisher.  Such permission is usually granted
as long as the information in the book or article is not modified in
any way.

     What kinds of books are on Talking Book?  The selection committee
at the Library of Congress uses the "New York Times Best Seller List"
as one of the criteria for deciding which books to transcribe.  The
list of recorded Talking Book titles is a cross-section of the kinds
of books that all Americans read.

     The Talking Book program and the support provided by such groups
as the Telephone Pioneers is a good example of human ingenuity and
good intentions forming a truly useful service.


Martin McCormick     Amateur Radio WB5AGZ    Oklahoma State University
Computer Center      Data Communications Group    Stillwater, OK

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

From: Bill Vermillion <bilver![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did Western Electric Also Make Sound Recordings?
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Wed, 29 May 91 03:01:49 GMT


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

> He says that by 1933, "... the record business in America was
> practically extinct," referring to almost 70 years of virtually no
> development beyond Edison's basic acoustic methods.  Apparently, the
> record industry had not of its own accord adopted any of the advances
> that electronics could bring.  Even so, my 1928 reference book shows a
> phono pickup and states that, "Modern electric phonographs, usually
> combination phonograph and radio broadcast receiver ..."

Some of the companies made the changeover to electric, but the budget
companies stuck with accoustic, as there were no royalties to pay, and
therefore they could get to market cheaper.

> So, while it might seem that the Great Depression was sounding a
> death knell for the record business, "The Movies" were coming on
> strong.

The other thing that was killing records, in conjunction with the
great depression, was that new-fangled toy, radio.

In the 1927-1929 era there were three records that were million
sellers.   My Blue Heaven - Gene Austin, Prisoners Song - Vernon
Dahlhard, and I forgot the third one.

Then in the depression era a good selling record was 50,000 copies.
Next million seller didn't come along until 1942, Elton Britt -
THere's a Star Spangled Banner Waving Somewhere.  The first patriotic
hit of that era.

A good reference book for record industry is "From Tin Foil To Stereo
 - The Evolution of the Phonograph" by Read and Welch.

The first edition was printed in 1959.  I have the second edition
printed in 1976.  Highly recommended if you can find one anywhere.
It was published by Sams.


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

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

From: George Horwath <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings?
Date: 29 May 91 12:56:41 GMT
Reply-To: motcid!uunet.uu.net!motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


> 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
                   ^^^^^^^^^^
Pat, I think we have a slight perspective problem here on the time
line as far as the history of phonograph records goes. I've got some
in my collection that date back to 1920 and I thought they were NOT
that old since they were pressed with recordings on *both* sides.  :)
Yes, I do have a CD player!!  :)

The following is what I recall after having looked into the history of
records about fifteen years ago. I don't have any references in front
of me, so this is all from memory (which is poor, I admit).

The round record (as opposed to the Edison cylinder) was invented by
Emile Berliner who formed the Victor Talking Machine Company to market
it and the record player used to reproduce the sound. (The "correct"
term for this record player, BTW, is the gramophone. The phonograph is
the name of the Edison invention.)

The Victor Talking Machine Company was bought up by RCA and it was RCA
Victor that marketed electrical recording (late 20's) and later
marketed electrical playback (early 30's). By "electrical recording",
I mean direct to disk. This also refers to the consumer market -- I
didn't look at the "pro" market (i.e. transcriptions for radio/movies
on 12+" disks). Did WE have a hand in the development or was it RCA?
Good question.

A much earlier "Bell" connection was due to one of good ol' Alexander's
relatives (cousin?). He took Edison's invention and improved it and
finally marketed it as the graphophone. This was the device that
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
[Moderator's Note: Did you mean 'gramaphone'?  PAT]

actually used wax cylinders, instead of foil, as Edison had done.
Needless to say, lawsuits followed and Bell won - his method was
termed "engraving" (i.e. material, wax, is removed in the process)
while Edison used "embossing".

> 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

The following will help in dating your recording. The Atlantic City
organ, with a 400HP wind plant and over 30,000 pipes, is the largest
pipe organ in the world. (Unfortunately, not the largest *playing*
pipe organ - it is in a sad state of disrepair. That title belongs to
the instrument in the chapel at West Point.) It was designed by
Senator Emerson Richards and built by the Midmer-Losh company of Long
Island with the contract awarded in early 1929. Built during the Great
Depression, it was about 50% complete by May, 1930 and still not
finished by April, 1932.

Edwin Henry Lemare (1865-1934) was an English organist who moved to
the USA. He was quite a virtuoso and, at one time, was the highest
paid organist in the world. At various times, he was the municipal
organist of San Francisco; Portland, Maine; and Chattanooga, TN.

I guess this would place the recording between 1932 - 1934.


Motorola C.I.D.
I speak for myself, not my employer
uunet!motcid!horwath


[Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for the detailed accounting of
LeMare and Atlantic City. Unfortunatly, its not just the organ which
is in a sad state of disrepair. All of Atlantic City -- the famed
boardwalk area in particular -- has become a slum, and a crime and
drug-infested one at that. Sad, sad, sad ...  A contact at the New
York Public Library (they have all LeMare's papers in the Special
Collections Department) researched this for me today and called back
to say his best estimate -- based on reading some stuff in the files
 -- was the recording had originally been made at the dedication of
the instrument in the fall, 1932.  If you think a telephone central
office has complex wiring and relays, you should try looking inside
the console at Atlantic City, or upstairs in the pipe chambers!  PAT]

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

From: wts1 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Announces New Technical Reference 800 Number
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies - Burlington, NC
Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 20:37:39 GMT


> [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]

Cornet is being/was(?) phased out of existance.  It was old, archaic,
and cost like heck to the user.  It is/was replaced with AT&T's SDN
(Software Defined Network?), a much cheaper way too go. (Why not use
yourself what you are selling to the customer?).

I hope to God that I have not revealed any proprietary information
that AT&T uses telephones just like everyone else:-)


William T. Sykes  AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies  Burlington, NC
UUCP: att!burl!wts  att!cbnewsb!wts1

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #410
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11093;
          31 May 91 10:37 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ag27609; 31 May 91 9:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27475;
          31 May 91 3:26 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20431;
          31 May 91 2:13 CDT
Date:     Fri, 31 May 91 1:08:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #411
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 31 May 91 01:08:15 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 411

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Something Sounds Fishy: $700 Credit For AT&T Employees? [Jack Dominey]
    Re: Something Sounds Fishy: $700 Credit For AT&T Employees? [Mike Eastman]
    Re: Something Sounds Fishy: $700 Credit For AT&T Employees? [J. Ackermann]
    Re: Something Sounds Fishy: $700 Credit For AT&T Employees? [Brian Kohn]
    Re: Old Phone Museum Being Cranked Up [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: AT&T's Cornet [Michael F. Eastman]
    Re: New AT&T Calling Card PIN [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Free Teletypes [Robert L. Oliver]
    Re: Free Teletypes [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Cheap 9600 bps Modem [Patrick Hoepfner]
    Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security [Alex Beylin]
    Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security [George Goble]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed May 29 10:13:41 EDT 1991
Subject: Re: Something Sounds Fishy: $700 Credit For AT&T Employees?


In V11#407, Rick Farris <[e-mail]> asks:

> Do all AT&T employees receive $700 credit on their phone bills
> each month?

> A local modem hobbyist is raising quite a stir by bragging about the
> $700 credit he receives each month as a "part-time computer security
> consultant" for AT&T.

> So is a $700 credit reasonable for part-time work?  If so, geez, what
> kind of credit do full-timers get?

It just so happens that today I was filling out my AT&T Form U1241,
"InterLATA Toll Discount Plan and Business Reimbursement Approval
Request".  I certainly won't get back anything like $700!

The most I can be reimbursed for personal calls is just under $70. And
they'll pay for any business calls I make (assuming my boss approves!).
They *won't* pay for overseas personal calls.  The money comes back to
me on my paycheck.

Now I don't know anything about "part-time computer security consultants".
He could be working for our Security organization, and who knows how
they might reimburse him.  There could be some funky credit arrangement.
But I would be quite surprised if he were getting credited one penny
more than his actual calling.

If Mr. Farris' acquaintance is working for AT&T as a snitch, then he's
being pretty stupid bragging about it.  Perhaps someone who knows this
guy should offer to call AT&T Security and let them know about his
claims.  I'd like to hear what develops.


Jack Dominey, AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker GA
V: [phone] AT&T Mail: !dominey
Not empowered to speak officially for AT&T.

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 17:17:37 EDT
From: Michael F Eastman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Something Sounds Fishy: $700 Credit For AT&T Employees?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rick
Farris) writes:

> Do all AT&T employees receive $700 credit on their phone bills each
> month?

Unequivocally NO. For management employees if you spend a MAX of
$100/month on long distance (AT&T, of course) you get $75 reimbursed.
Non-mangement (bargaining unit/union) employees are a little different,
but you get the idea.


Mike Eastman    att!ihlpy!mfe    [phone]
AT&T Bell Laboratories  Rm. 4F-328  Naperville, IL 60566

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

From: John Ackermann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Something Sounds Fishy: $700 Credit For AT&T Employees?
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 30 May 1991 12:30:22 GMT


Since I don't work for AT&T (yet...) I don't have first-hand information
about this, but I've heard that AT&T management types get a credit of
something like $30.00 of free long distance per month, and some
discount on the balance.


John R. Ackermann, Jr.        Law Department, NCR Corporation, Dayton, Ohio
[phone]              [e-mail]
Packet Radio: ag9v@n8acv      tcp/ip: [e-mail] [44.70.12.34]

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

Date: Thu, 30 May 91 14:03:31 EDT
From: Brian Charles Kohn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Something Sounds Fishy: $700 Credit For AT&T Employees?
Reply-To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center


[Since this is information related to a fringe benefit, and regards
only me and my own personal finances, I assume that it's okay to
discuss.  God help me if it's not.]

> Do all AT&T employees receive $700 credit on their phone bills each
> month?

No.

> A local modem hobbyist is raising quite a stir by bragging about the
> $700 credit he receives each month as a "part-time computer security
> consultant" for AT&T.

I'd assume that his work requires him to make at least $635 in phone
calls on company business on his home phone each month.  The company,
as most companies, reimburses me for any expenses I personally incur
in the course of doing company business.

> [Moderator's Note: What I've heard is that they receive either
> all or a portion of their long distance service for free;

No.  I get the first $35 reimbursed, and then a portion of the next
$65; I'm a second level manager.  I think that's the most generous of
the reimbursement programs ... friends of mine who are occupational
folk get less.

Local phone company people have a better deal (IMHO) ... I think they
get they monthly service fees covered ... and occupational folk there
get about half of their fees covered.


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: Old Phone Museum Being Cranked Up
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 91 19:35:11 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


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

> Pacific Telecom also bought out the old RCA Alascom system, and is
> "The Phone Company" in Alaska.

One of the biggest, if I remember right. (and if I don't, Floyd will
be happy to correct me :-)

A couple years ago, Anchorage's mayor wanted to sell the local phone
company, and there turned out to be only one bidder ... Pacific
Telecom.  There was quite a rucus, and the issue was forced to a
ballot, where it lost the required margin (60%) but won the popular
margin at just over 50%.  One of the biggest points made by the
opposition was that Pacific Telecom would own some 80% of the state's
phone business, if it were to buy the Anchorage Telephone Utility.  I
used to have a list of the companies owned, but it's fallen into that
tame black hole I use for a filing cabinet.


Roy M. Silvernail   [e-mail]
cybrspc![e-mail]   [e-mail](maybe!)

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 17:09:16 EDT
From: Michael F Eastman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Cornet
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> In V11#400, Steven S. Brack <nstar!bluemoon![e-mail].
> edu> asks:

> >> 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?

> Pat responded that Cornet is AT&T's internal phone system.

> Pat's partially correct.  About three years ago, I recall seeing a
> company bulletin saying Cornet was being phased out in favor of an
> internal Software Defined Network.

> Cornet was limited to certain parts of the company (Bell Labs and
> former Western Electric locations?).  In six years with AT&T, I've
> never directly encountered it, although I saw some references.  If
> memory serves, Cornet was a tandem network.  Much of the traffic was
> carried over dedicated lines running from switch to switch.  It did
> provide seven-digit dialing anywhere in the country.

Cornet (CORporate NETwork) is indeed being phased out (if not almost
all gone). It was used extensively at Bell Labs and Western Electric.
CORNET was provided using a network of 1ESS Switches, and then
replaced recently by 5ESS Switches. (This same service is/was sold to
many large and medium-sized businesses.) This service was replaced by
SDN.  SDN provides for ten-digit dialing whether using private network
facilities or more expensive public facilities.

This means the user (employee dialing the phone) need not worry about
that.  The service provider (AT&T-NSD) takes care of this for the
customer (Bell Labs) without each user having to understand any of
this.  Also, it eliminates the need to remember TWO phone numbers.


Mike Eastman    att!ihlpy!mfe    [phone]
AT&T Bell Laboratories  Rm. 4F-328  Naperville, IL 60566

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

Date: 29-MAY-1991 16:57:02.09
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New AT&T Calling Card PIN


I just got off the phone with AT&T.

I spoke to a helpful (as usual) AT&T representative who explained how
the "new" AT&T cards work.

She said that they were issuing new cards without your phone number,
ie, a la Sprint/MCI/ et. al. Very much like the AT&T Universal
*Calling Card* number, like in the format of: 507 001 5555 1234.

The AT&T rep said that AT&T was doing this for a few reasons, mainly
fraud, AOSs, and the possibility that in the future, the Fed will no
longer "allow" AT&T cards to "handle" local calls (via the BOCs, GTEs,
etc.), nor AT&T (and one would assume Sprint and MCI's 0+, ahem ...
"services" ...) to handle BOC Card Long Distance calls.

So basically, AT&T answered my question - everything will be staying
pretty much the same - you can go on using your BOC card for AT&T and
local calls.  But you will get a new AT&T card that does not have your
phone number on it at all. You don't have to use this (yet), and you
can still go on using your BOC card if you have some special AT&T
plan, such as their "Reach Out" Calling Card plan or some special WATS
calling card, etc. (You may want to check this yourself to be SURE ...)

When I asked why I should even bother trying to remember the new AT&T
card when my old BOC card works fine, she said "Hmmm ... I don't really
know ...", so that's as good a reason as any I've heard for ignoring
this most recent and annoying divestiture-related change.

The AT&T representative also asked me if I knew about the "10288"
access code, since I use my calling card a lot. I told her I did, and
she mentioned that I should be able to use this code on a lot more
private pay phones now. (COCOTs) Seems like AT&T is really pushing the
use of their code ... they've never mentioned that before.


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

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

From: "Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Free Teletypes
Organization: Rabbit Software Corp.
Date: 29 May 91 20:58:33 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> By the way, is it true that some "Newsradio" stations nowadays just
> pipe in teletype clicking to make their newsroom more newsy sounding?
> E.g., WBBM-AM in Chicago has this sound.

Absolutely.  KYW 1060 AM in Philadelphia (three call letters, and a K east
of the Mississippi!) is all news all the time, which translates to
constant teletype clunking, and if you listen carefully, you can hear
where the loop of tape starts over!


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

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Free Teletypes
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 12:15:34 GMT


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

> On 28 May 91 01:29:41 GMT, [e-mail] (Stanfield L. Smith) said:

>> Model 15 teletypes - Newswire vintage, 5 level baudot, gears for any

> By the way, is it true that some "Newsradio" stations nowadays just
> pipe in teletype clicking to make their newsroom more newsy sounding?
> E.g., WBBM-AM in Chicago has this sound.

It was usually "canned" sound.  Nobody would really want to work
around that racket.  The tty machines in well designed places were in
rooms with sound proofing, and nobody had to listen to them.  (At
least that is the way it was in the middle 60's when I worked around
that kinda stuff.  Maybe earlier than that it was real.)


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.


[Moderator's Note: In the old days of Western Union public telegraph
offices, the clerks and 'telegraphers' had to hear that noise all day
long from several machines behind the counter where they served the
public who came in to send messages.    PAT]

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

From: Patrick Hoepfner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cheap 9600 bps Modem
Date: 30 May 91 03:43:29 GMT
Organization: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center


There will soon be a quite a bunch of modems that do V.32bis, V.42bis,
and MNP 5 (For old times sake).  The US Robotics variety (Courier
V.32bis) is selling for around $600!

There is also a V.32bis, V.42bis, MNP5 and send/receive Fax modem from
Prometheus selling for around $700!

Get 'em while their hot!


Pat  --> [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 13:29 EDT
From: Alex Beylin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security
Organization: Chrysler Corp., Center Line, MI


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

> 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...

They usually do the same when I try to carry a portable computer on
board.  One of the security people always takes me to the side table
and asks to see the computer work.  Once the lights come on, they let
me go.

I've always wondered what they do with laptops that require AC power
to operate.  Is there a three-prong AC plug at the security station?


Alex Beylin     [e-mail]

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

From: George Goble <pur-ee![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 27 May 91 13:29:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> bernhold@red8 (David E.
Bernholdt) writes:

> 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 have never had any hassles carrying on a portable Motorola 8000 cell
phone.  I was usually using it at the gate prior to boarding, and when
boarding starting, I always powered it off.  A couple of times the
attendent started to approach me, and I said I know about the FAA rule
and would keep the phone powered off ... no problems.

I also have a portable terminal I built in an aluminum "zero"
equipment case.  It has a Zenith Z-181 laptop, a Telebit 'Blazer+
modem and nineteen Radio Shaft "D" size high capacity Nicad cells.  It
also has power regulators, and all the associated wiring.  It connects
to my cell phone and can be used to "dial up" in MNP mode.

This thing looks like one hell of a bomb on the X-ray.  I usually tell
the X-ray operator to "expect an eyefull" before he runs it ... and
have gotten many odd looks.  One of them didn't even want to open it,
but asked me for the battery count!  Only once or twice did anyone
want it turned on (that seemed to start at Lockerbee time).

Once, I was in line at the X-ray at Ft Lauderdale, and got a call
about a dead system at Purdue (using Follow-me roaming, during its
second week of operation). I set up the terminal on the floor about
six feet from the X-ray, dialed up, rebooted the system, etc.  When I
was done, there was quite a crowd of guards, etc, looking on, and they
were "amazed" that I had fixed some other system at Purdue.


ghg

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #411
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11100;
          31 May 91 10:37 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ah27609; 31 May 91 9:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27475;
          31 May 91 3:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac20431;
          31 May 91 2:14 CDT
Date:     Fri, 31 May 91 1:55:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #412
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 31 May 91 01:55:07 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 412

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Alexander Graham Bell Movie on AMC Friday Night [Tim Irvin]
    Re: Why Are *Telephone Keypads* Built Upside Down [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: Free Teletypes [Dan Jacobson]
    Re: International 800 Access [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: Cellular One Dialing Procedures [John Higdon]
    Re: Motorola PC-500 Problems [Skip LaSaker via Ron Heiby]
    Re: One City With Two Area Codes [Scott Barman]
    Re: 1-900-NO-CHIEF [Tarl Neustaedter]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Tom Gray]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Clive Feather]
    Re: New PIN For My AT&T Card? [David E. Sheafer]
    Re: The Definitive ANAC Guide [Tony Harminc]
    Re: Fax Memory [John C. Fowler]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Alexander Graham Bell Movie on AMC
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 30 May 91 19:28:46 [phone]
From: [e-mail]


For those of you who get American Movie Classics on cable, tonight
(Friday, May 31) at 9:00 pm EDT they are showing:

The Story of Alexander Graham Bell (Biography, 1939) *** A fact-based
account of the life of the Scottish educator-inventor who developed
and perfected the telephone during the 1870s.  Don Ameche (2:00) B/W.

The above is from OnSat Magazine.  Since, I don't subscribe to AMC (or
any subscription channels), I guess I'll have to find someone with
cable who will let me watch it ;).


Tim Irvin

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

From: Jeremy Grodberg <lia![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Are *Telephone Keypads* Built Upside Down
Reply-To: Jeremy Grodberg <lia!![e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 91 21:53:05 GMT


The real question is why are *Adding Machine* keypads built upside
down?  Since we read left-to-right and top-to-bottom, and count
low-to-high, the telephone keypad would be the obvious choice for
layout.


Jeremy Grodberg  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Free Teletypes
Date: Wed, 29 May 91 20:39:00 GMT


I have painstakingly put together a summary of e-mail replies to
article <[e-mail]> wherein I wrote:

> By the way, is it true that some "Newsradio" stations nowadays just
> pipe in teletype clicking to make their newsroom more newsy sounding?
> E.g., WBBM-AM in Chicago has this sound.

>>>>> On Wed, 29 May 91 08:24:28 EDT, Scott Dorsey
>>>>> <[e-mail]> said:

Scott>    Yup.  In the Tidewater area, WZCL has a tape cartridge with
Scott> the teletype sounds, while WCCO uses a synthesizer called the
Scott> "Eventide Harmonizer" to generate the background noise.  The
Scott> Harmonizer is a much nicer device, because it can also simulate
Scott> a bandlimited channel with static and helicopter noises for the
Scott> traffic report.

Scott>    God, how I hate commercial radio.

>>>>> On Wed, 29 May 91 06:06 CDT, [e-mail] (Joe Lynn) said:

Joe> WBBM-AM's "teletype" sound is a tape.  They've been using
Joe> that effect for years.

>>>>> On Wed, 29 May 91 09:00:25 CDT, [e-mail] (Samuel W. Ho) said:

Samuel> Hey, WUFI Newsradio here in Champaign-Urbana pipes in -
Samuel> dot matrix printer chatter.  A Technological Advance.

>>>>> On 29 May 91 10:11:22 EDT (Wed), [e-mail]
>>>>> (John R. Levine) said:

John> Sure is.  These days only the teensiest of radio stations would
John> have anything as klunky as a real Teletype.  More typically the
John> newswire goes straight into the word-processing computer.

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

Subject: RE: International 800 Access
Date: Wed, 29 May 91 18:50:48 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


For what it's worth: Two years ago, I was in Australia and was unable
to use USA Direct to reach a domestic US 800 number. However, several
months ago, I was in the UK and had no problems with USA Direct.

The AT&T operator placed the call with no questions asked. Billing was
as the Moderator described. I paid for the international leg, the
callee paid for the domestic portion. It caught me off gaurd when the
bill arrived, as the international portion showed up as some place in
Pennsylvania.

Dialing that number reached an AT&T recording explaining the billing
was for an internationally placed 800 call - a nice touch!


Ken

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 18:19 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Cellular One Dialing Procedures


"Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]> writes:

> I am trying to convince Cellular One here in the Bay Area that they
> need to start accepting "canonical numbers" from cellular phones in
> order to be in compliance with generally accepted industry standards.

When I read your post, I reached over to my GTE Mobilnet-served
handheld and dialed '408 723-1395'. It worked just fine from my 408
mobile number.

> but so far I have not had much luck finding anyone who even
> understands what I am talking about. Some of the answers I have
> received so far include:

> "All our calls are routed through Pac*Bell, so we have to follow
> Pac*Bell's dialling procedures!"

Since Pacific Telesis is a major owner of Cellular One, this could be
somewhat truthful. Interestingly enough, however, GTE seems to have no
problem providing the dialing scheme you describe, even though its
calls are "routed through Pac*Bell" just like Cellular One's.

> "We do not have any plans to market the dialling procedure you
> requested at this time."

So it is a matter of marketing? Is everything "marketing driven" these
days? Does it have to be salable to exist?

> "All of our switches are programmed from Toronto, thus you can't
> talk to the guy in charge of switch programming."

That's a good one. I guess if the programmers are actually in Toronto,
there are no telephone circuits there so it would be impossible to
talk to them. On the other hand, GTE's switches are programmed from
Houston and I have talked to programmers for that company.

> Since cellular systems employ pre-origination dialling, i.e., the
> entire number is sent to the switch before any connection is made,
> then it is clearly a small matter of programming to make this work
> correctly, or is it not?

Obviously, since GTE seems to have no trouble. Your post has served as
a great example as to why I left Cellular One for GTE Mobilnet. GTE
hides its Houston base very well and comes off as a local operation
that is actually interested and concerned about customer satisfaction
with every aspect of the service. When I have had concerns and
questions, not only did I speak to people who gave me concise and
correct information, but in many cases there were follow up calls and
local numbers were given to me in case I had additional comments or
questions.

Frankly, I think it might be worth your while to switch.


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

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

From: Ron Heiby <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Motorola PC-500 Problems (was DiamondTel 99X Weakness)
Date: 24 May 91 15:58:35 GMT
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL


The following is being posted on behalf of someone without direct net
access.  Ron.


Saw your message about your PC-500.  You refer to a *dealer*
dissatisfaction issue.  Motorola loves its customers and your
satisfaction is our number one goal.  Publishing dissatisfaction with
us rather than the dealer is counter-productive.  You provide enough
information to infer that the phone was NOT NEW.  If used, warranty is
NOT transferrable.  Regardless, I would like to speak with you and
resolve to your satisfaction.  If your Oki was NEW and your PC-500 was
NOT NEW, I say "No Fair."  We stand behind our products and customers
 -- period!

Our quality program is second to none.  Our customers are our number
one priority.


Skip LaSaker   National Sales Manager
Motorola Cellular Group  708-576-8851

                                 --

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

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 14:21:20 EDT
From: Scott Barman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One City With Two Area Codes
Organization: National Broadcasting Company, Inc., New York


In article <[e-mail]>:

> 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.

It was announced not too long ago that the Bronx will be changed to
718 so that Manhattan will be the only borough with the 212 area code.
Also, NY Tel also announced that a new area code (918, I think) will
be used for cellular phones and beepers in New York City (with the
possibility of bleed over into Long Island).  I don't remember when
this was announced nor do I remember when this was to take effect (I
think 1/93).

This should throw these databases off quite a bit!!  :-)


scott barman    [e-mail]
(This does not represent any opinions of NBC or affiliates)

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

From: Tarl Neustaedter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1-900-NO-CHIEF
Date: 30 May 91 09:53:02 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.


More interestingly, the fire chief who spent over $1000 in town's
money on 900-sex calls, didn't just use his phone. He apparantely took
an unused phone and hot-wired it into the sanitation department's
phone line. He was traced back when the police tried to take an
inventory of all phone equipment and that phone was missing. It
suddenly re-appeared the day after, thus triggering suspicions.


Tarl Neustaedter    [e-mail]
Marlboro, Mass.        Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
Date: 30 May 91 16:49:09 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rick
Broadhead) writes...

> 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.

A couple of possible causes of a double ring in the US:

1) Rolm PBXs use the double ring.  If the call terminated on a DID
trunk into a Rolm machine, then the PBX generated the ring.  Note that
DID service implies that the PBX, not the CO, generates the tones.
Hence some Rolm oddities: If the line is equipped with Autopark, then
if you listen to the busy signal for ten seconds, it goes away and
beeps the called party.  The caller doesn't pay until the callee picks
up.  Clever.

2) The No. 1 Crossbar generated double ring on some numbers.  Few are
left in service but 703 is PacBell so there may be a few left ...


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: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
Date: 30 May 91 17:50:02 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> ivgate!Jack.Winslade@uunet.
uu.net (Jack Winslade) writes:

> [e-mail] (Rick Broadhead) writes:

> There was a discussion of ringing tones in a local conference a while
> back (but I can't find it now) which discussed this.  It made mention
> of a certain suburban Omaha office which until recently had a
> vibrating reed tone generator.  It was remarked that it sounded like
> the passing of gas.  ;-)

The UK has recently moved to the precise tone plan. However the
definition of the previous dial tone was:

         a PURRING tone at about -15dBm.

A more euphemistic way of describing the tone perhaps :-)


Tom Gray

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

From: Clive Feather <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
Date: Thu, 30 May 91 16:33:29 BST


In 11-394, [e-mail] writes:

> No! Denmark is ED, not BD.

And the Moderator Notes:

> 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.

The list that [e-mail] posted was originally posted by me,
and comes direct from a British Telecom publication. Please blame
them, not Andy or me.

Also, cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail] writes:

> I dialed a number in 703, and instead of receiving the standard U.S.
> single ring, I received a non-US double ring.

This could be because the number is connected to another country. For
example, 1-800-XDESK-57 is located in Cambridge UK (it maps to a UK
number, not the one in my signature), and so gives the double-ring
that all UK numbers do.


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
(USA: 1 800 XDESK 57)  | United Kingdom

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

From: David E. Sheafer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Date: 30 May 91 10:00:34 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


I have an AT&T calling card, and a New England Telephone Calling card.
Interestingly they both have the identical number and PIN.

I also have an AT&T Universal card and in the past have used it to
make calls for both Interlata (AT&T) and Intralata (New England
Telephone).  I wonder if this is going to change.  I haven't received
anything in th mail as of yet.


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

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

Date: Thu, 30 May 91 15:05:05 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Definitive ANAC Guide


In 416 the ANAC number is 997-nnnn.  The catch is that nnnn changes
quite often (monthly or thereabouts).  No I don't know the current
nnnn.


Tony Harminc

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

Date: Thu, 30 May 91 17:05:25 PDT
From: "John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fax Memory
Organization: University of California, San Diego


If security among the individuals is not a problem, this may be a case
where technology is not the best way to go.  Instead, just put out ten
boxes.  Arrange for fax callers to indicate the box number, and have
the recipients sort out each other's faxes.  You may say that this
wastes time, but it will certainly be shorter than waiting for a
100-page printout.

If the volume of faxes received per individual is so large that the
above is not a viable option, then perhaps ten separate fax machines
is the best idea after all.  There's no reason to make the recipients
wait for the printout.


John C. Fowler, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #412
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11131;
          2 Jun 91 1:48 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00880;
          2 Jun 91 0:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30090;
          1 Jun 91 23:13 CDT
Date:     Sat, 1 Jun 91 22:23:49 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #413
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 1 Jun 91 22:23:40 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 413

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Looking For Motorola Service Manual [Cliff Yamamoto]
    900 Numbers and Privacy [David Gast]
    Need Information on Voice Mail [Luesak Chowpradith]
    Voice Mail Under Apple Unix (A/UX) and Fax Modems [Greg Maples]
    Stationary Cellular Phone Wanted [Alex Beylin]
    E-Mail Addresses of Companies in the Telecom Business [Juergen Ziegler]
    Carrier Fraud Liability Citation Wanted [Peter Marshall]
    Texas (GTE) and Class [Bob Peterson]
    Remote ISDN Connection Wanted [Claudio Nieder]
    Printing Text Files on Fax From VMS [Claudio Nieder]
    Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone [R. Kevin Oberman]
    Another Embarrassed Employee? (was Hayes Wins Damages) [Daniel Herrick]
    Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [Dave Levenson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Cliff Yamamoto)
Subject: Looking for Motorola Service Manual
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 29 May 91 15:52:48 GMT


Greetings,

Motorola makes great stuff, but they never want to help the little guy
who needs a service manual for some used stuff.  I bought a model
N1275A power amp used for 470-494 which I'd like to modify for amateur
radio use.  I after several phone calls I found the part numbers for
the service manuals, but Motorola won't sell them to any Joe Blow.  If
anyone can help me locate or xerox the following manuals I'd appreciate
it:

Motorola part#: 6881020C85
Motorola part#: 6881070C60


Thanks in advance,

Cliff Yamamoto - KA6JRG
Internet: [e-mail]
          [e-mail]
Bitnet:      [e-mail]
Uucp:     uunet!kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov![e-mail]
          ames!elroy!jato!jpl-mil!kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov!cyamamot

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 17:43:22 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900 Numbers and Privacy


Someone wrote yesterday:

> 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."

This service goes to show that even if one protects his/her privacy,
others are there to invade it.  What this service seems to imply is
that you are like your neighbors.  If one of them calls 1-900-KINKY-SEX
(yes, I realize the X does not count as part of the phone number),
then you can receive promotional literature or phone calls.  If one of
them calls, 1-900-4SPORTS, you too, can receive promotional literature.

I am so happy to hear that I have the same interests as my neighbors.
I expect to get a lot of material I can't read because I don't read
all of languages they speak.

Finally, I am curious about the nine closest neighbors.  My guess is
that it is nine numbers close by, probably arranged by address.  I
doubt that US Sprint actually has detailed maps indicating the
location and configuration of every apartment and house on every plot
of land.  It would be interesting to know who my nine closest
neighbors are or even the nine closest neighbors of my parents.  Where
do they measure from?  Where the phone enters the building?  The
center of the property?  All in all, I would estimate that Sprint is
exaggerating its claims again.  At least, I hope they do not have
these detailed maps.


David

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

From: ccicpg!conexch![e-mail]
Date: Wed May 29 13:36:21 1991
Subject: Need Information on Voice Mail
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Luesak Chowpradith)
Organization: The Consultants' Exchange, Orange County, CA.  [phone]


I would like to know whether anybody could forward me some info
regarding voice mail products. Right now I am trying to get more
information about it before buying anything. Please e-mail any info to
"[e-mail]" Thank you.


[e-mail]

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

From: Greg Maples <ddtisvr![e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Mail Under Apple Unix (A/UX) and Fax Modems
Organization: DuPont Design Technologies Group
Date: Fri, 31 May 91 00:38:27 GMT


This may be a long shot, but here's what I want to do:

Get a central voice mail processing card that stores digitized voice
when a phone circuit rings over.  I would then like to be able to
store and forward this file to the intended recipient as mail.  If a
central system is available, it would be for a Sun 4/370 running 4.1.1
If the only possibility is a card per user machine, they would be for
Apple Mac II's running A/UX.

I would also like to be able to get a fax modem card at 9600/9600 for
the Sun 4/370 that would do send and receive faxes via a network
shareable server or queue like the 'lp' daemon.  Another possibility
would be a smart ethernet device to do this.

Are there such devices as these?  Who makes them?  What are the
limitations, features, etc.  If there are enough replies and interest
generated, I'll post a summary.


Greg Maples                      | These are my opinions, not yours. Keep your
Systems Group Leader             | hands off 'em. They're also not the opinions
DuPont Design Technologies       | of my employer or yours. So there. (c) 1991
[e-mail]      | The preceding is an opinion which is mine.

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 15:30 EDT
From: Alex Beylin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stationary Cellular Phone Wanted
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI


I have a somewhat unusual set of requirements for a cellular phone
unit and so far have been unable to find one that fits.  Perhaps
someone in the telecom land can help.


This cellular phone needs to be transportable, but it will be moved at
most once or twice a month, so size in not an issue.  Most of the time
this phone will be located inside of a house and will be used just as
if it is a standard wired telephone.  One of the primary requirements
is ability to plug it into an AC outlet.  The idea is to plug it in
and forget about it till it needs to be moved.

The feature set is not important.  The only highly desirable feature
is on-hook dialing.  20+ number memory would be a nice bonus as well.

An important consideration is the price.  I would like to buy this
unit with Ameritech subscription and am willing to go to one of the
applience discount shops (Fretter, Highland, etc) that get kick backs
from Ameritech.  Availability under $100 is best.

Any suggestions are welcome.  Does a unit like that even exist?


Alex Beylin, Systems Specialist | [phone]
[e-mail]           | Chrysler Corp. MIS
sharkey!cfctech!alexb           | Distributed Systems Group


[Moderator's Note: The Radio Shack CT-301 units in Chicago are
attached to Ameritech. You can let them sit in the charging holster
(which is plugged in) all the time, and take it out when you want to
carry it somewhere.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 17:14
From: "Juergen, ZIEGLER" <[e-mail]>
Subject: E-Mail Addresses of Companies in the Telecom Business


Hi there,

Is there a list of e-mail addresses available of all firms in the
telecommunications business (telco, ld-carriers, vans, ... ) ?


Thanks,

Juergen

BITNET   : [e-mail]
Internet : [e-mail]
X.400    : S=UJ32;OU=ibm3090;OU=rz;P=uni-karlsruhe;A=dbp;C=de


[Moderator's Note: Very likely there is not. Such a list would have
thousands of entries in the USA alone, where there are 1400+ telephone
copanies, large and small.  There are printed directories.   PAT]

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

Subject: Carrier Fraud Liability Citation Wanted
From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 91 13:12:44 PDT


Regarding this topic, can readers provide information about a recent
FCC Notice and/or a Pacific Mutual Petition?

Thanks.


Peter Marshall

  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA
                           PEP, V.32, V.42

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

Subject: Texas (GTE) and Class
From: Bob Peterson <zgbbs![e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 91 05:34:36 CST
Organization: The Zeitgeist BBS, Plano, TX  214 596 3720


  Yesterday evening I received a sales call from a very nice lady
representing GTE, my local dial tone provider.  She wanted to sell me
call waiting, cancel call waiting, distinctive ringing, etc.

  After I told her I wasn't interested I asked if she was employed by
GTE or by a marketing company.  She stammered for a moment, then
replied, "Both."  So I took a chance and asked her a couple of questions.

  I asked if GTE planned to implement Caller Id.  She amazed me by
replying that CID was part of Class service, and that GTE would be
implementing CID once the Public Utilities Commission approved it.
The current holdup, she told me, was CID's conflict with a Texas
privacy law.

  I then asked if Call Trace would be available as well.  Not only did
she answer, "Yes," but she described how Call Trace should be used.
Then she gave me a *NN code that will execute the trace!

  Finally, I asked which Texas privacy law prevented CID.  This finally
stumped her, but she promply suggested I query the business office for
the citation.

  I was quite impressed that this individual, who I initially expected
would be reading a prepared script with little understanding, seemed
to have a pretty reasonable grasp of not only current GTE services,
but future services as well.  Bravo GTE!


Hardcopy    and    Electronic Addresses:          Office @ Texas Instruments:
Bob Peterson       Compuserve: 70235,326          NB 2nd Floor CSC Aisle C3
P.O. Box 861686    Internet: [e-mail]  Landline: 214/995-6080 days
Plano, Tx USA 75086   24 hour BBS: 214/596-3720 @ 1200, 2400, 9600 (HST & V.32)

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

Date: Thu, 30 May 1991 14:36:12 +0000
From: Claudio Nieder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Remote ISDN Connection Wanted
Organization: Physics Institute, University of Zuerich, Switzerland


Hi,

We would like to connect VAXes running VMS and PCs running MS-DOS to
ISDN. The ISDN plugs shall be located at a different place than the
VAXes and PCs, and it should be possible to share them between the
different computers. So we need a box which connects on an ethernet
and on ISDN and the necessary software for PCs and VAXes for accessing
the ISDN lines through this box.

Does such a box exist? We would for the moment also be interested in a
solution which works only with the VAXes.

Please mail me if you know of some solution to my problem. I'll
summarize to the net.


                  claudio ([e-mail])
Also: PSI%022847931125::TRZCL1::C_NIEDER, [e-mail]
Claudio Nieder AST 3.944 (DW 6)                        | Tel: [phone]
Alcatel STR AG, Friesenbergstrasse 75, CH-8055 Zuerich | Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 30 May 1991 14:39:05 +0000
From: Claudio Nieder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Printing Text Files on Fax From VMS
Organization: Physics Institute, University of Zuerich, Switzerland


Hi,

We are using a program running on VAX(VMS) which produces some lists
(plain text, no graphics) on a local printer. There should be a
possibility to print them on a remote fax machine.

We are looking for a solution which can be implemented without any
costly program development etc. The best solution would be if there
already exists some product which would make the fax machine appear
to the program like a local printer, so that no change to the existing
software is necessary.

Does anybody know about such a solution? Any help welcome.

Please send E-Mail, I'll summarize to the net.


                  claudio ([e-mail])
Also: PSI%022847931125::TRZCL1::C_NIEDER, [e-mail]
Claudio Nieder AST 3.944 (DW 6)                        | Tel: [phone]
Alcatel STR AG, Friesenbergstrasse 75, CH-8055 Zuerich | Fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone
Date: 30 May 91 15:07:54 GMT


Well, a government agency (or its contractors) has again forgotten
about those silly, old-fashioned rotary phones. This morning's
{Tri-Valley Herald} (Livermore, CA) reports that a $25,000 telephone
messaging and information system installed in the county courthouse is
not accessible by rotary-dialed phones. "Those unfortunate enough to
have the old-fashioned types of telephones will be disconnected five
seconds after the menu of keypad choices ends."

The system for the small claims and civil divisions was supposed to
switch to an operator if no menu items were selected, but "somehow, it
got lost in the cracks" said John Reymundo, division chief of the
small claims court.

It's not clear who is responsible. Craig Watts of Pacific Bell is
quoted "That is bad." and "I sure hope it wasn't our system." and
claimed that 23% of California households have rotary phones. (First
time I've heard that number.  I wonder where he got it.)

The company who installed the system was unavailable for comment.
(Gee, I wonder why?)

I wonder how many more of these we will see. I wonder when COs will
start dropping support for rotory phones into electronic switches? I
suspect it's coming now that tone dialing is "free" in California.
Maybe there will soon be a charge to allow rotory dialing in the
future with all rotory service moved to the old switches?


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: [e-mail]
Subject: Another Embarrassed Employee? (was Hayes Wins Damages)
Date: 30 May 91 12:05:38 EST


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

> 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).

There has been a lot of grieving in this forum over the idea of
disciplinary action against Randy Borow.  Here is another example of a
serious indiscretion by an employee.  I wonder about the current state
of that employee's career.

The relevant differences are that Randy involved his employer in a
breaking of the law while the one that Toby mentions was only a
serious embarrassment.


dan herrick       [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus
Date: 2 Jun 91 01:40:10 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> 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.

It is possible that you reached a DID trunk into a PBX.  In this case,
the ringing, busy, and other 'call progress' tones are not supplied by
the C.O., but by the destination PBX.  If this PBX generates a
double-ring tone toward the calling party (possibly when it generates
a double-ring toward the called party) then that's what you'll hear.

Were you calling a commercial establishment?  A college dorm or
campus?  Some other place where you were dialing directly to an
extension of a large private network?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #413
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17004;
          2 Jun 91 3:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02065;
          2 Jun 91 2:26 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08857;
          2 Jun 91 1:19 CDT
Date:     Sun, 2 Jun 91 0:20:56 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #414
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 2 Jun 91 00:20:28 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 414

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telemarketing by The Middlesex News [John R. Covert]
    Two Beepers, One Number [Ken Levitt]
    Homebrew Networking [Official Random]
    Engineering Help Needed [leroy Casterline]
    Wanted: T1/CEPT1 VME Card [Brian Carlton]
    MCI Prefered (Correction on Prices) [Bill Huttig]
    Carrier ID Number - 700-555-4x4x [Bill Huttig]
    MCI $20 Promotion [Rick Anderson]
    908 Area Code Switchover [Tom Neff]
    Does Fred Know Something We Don't Know? [Charlie Mingo]
    Billing Cutover Question [Linc Madison]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 May 91 10:01:15 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  31-May-1991 1255" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketing by The Middlesex News


Telecom readers will remember the letter I wrote last year concerning
telemarketing calls from {The Middlesex News}.  That letter stated, in
part:

> I pay New England Telephone for residential telephone service for my
> own purposes, and I allow my number to be listed so that people who
> know me but do not know my number may find it out and call me.  I
> also pay New England Telephone for call forwarding service and pay
> NYNEX Mobile Communications for mobile telephone service so that
> I can receive desired calls when I am not at home.

> I do not wish to be called by telemarketers, especially by companies
> such as The Middlesex News which continue to call repeatedly after I
> have told them to cease and desist.  This letter documents, in writing,
> my request for The Middlesex News to permanently remove me from any
> and all telemarketing lists, and to never call again.

> Should my request be ignored, I am serving notice that I will bill
> you for the actual cost of any call forwarding or mobile telephone
> call that results when you call my home telephone number.  In addition,
> I will bill you a service charge of between $20 and $100 for processing
> your call.

Yesterday, they called again.  I am sending the following letter:

31 May 1991

Mrs. Paula Bubello
Director of Telemarketing
The Middlesex News
33 New York Avenue
Framingham, Massachusetts  01701

Dear Mrs. Bubello:

Yesterday evening at around 7:05 pm, as I was driving on Route 1
North, I received a telemarketing call from The Middlesex News.  The
caller told me that his name was David, but refused to tell me his
full name.

As I informed you in my letter written almost exactly one year ago, I
do not wish to receive calls from the Middlesex News.  In that letter,
I also informed you that I would bill you for the cost of the call
forwarding and the cellular mobile telephone charges, as well as a
service charge of between $20 and $100 for processing your call.  I
have enclosed a copy of that letter.

This letter again asks, rather demands, that The Middlesex News never
contact me by telephone again.  My service charge will increase each
time The Middlesex News calls, and if this invoice is unpaid, I will
institute legal action.


            I N V O I C E

   30 May 1991        Call Forwarding Message Unit    0.09
            Cellular Air Time Charge    0.32
            Massachusetts Telecom Tax    0.02
            Federal Telecom Tax        0.01
            Telemarketing Service Charge   20.00

            TOTAL                  $20.44

    THIS BILL IS PAYABLE AND DUE WHEN RECEIVED,
    AND IS OVERDUE AFTER 5 JULY 1991.

Sincerely,

John R. Covert

                           -------

If they don't pay, they will get a second notice, and then I will
gamble $14 to see if Small Claims Court will order payment.


john

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 91 21:51:29 EDT
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two Beepers, One Number


I own two Motorola digital pagers type BPR2000 Model A03BGB4661C.  One
of them is currently receiving messages from a local beeper provider
and the other one is not.

The units are identical in every way (including frequency) except for
the serial number.  I would like to have both units beep when the
signal comes in so that I could carry one unit and my partner could
carry the other.  Only one of us would be on call at any given time,
but it would be nice to not have to pass the unit back and forth
constantly.

The serial number seems to be contained on a long white plug in chip
that is labeled "Motorola Permacode Code Plug".

Is there any way to reprogram this chip or to purchase a new chip that
matches the number of my other beeper?


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 91 22:26:19 EDT
From: Official Random <[e-mail]>
Subject: Homebrew Networking


    For a year and a half, I've dialed in to the local terminal
server of [state university which shall remain nameless.]  Until last
December, access was facilitated via an X.25 statewide network, which
has since died due to budget cuts and cost overruns.  Having discovered
four-digit phone bills (that's four to the left of the decimal), I am
taking the following action.

    I live three NXXes from the dial-in.  Diagram:

  Dial-in ----- NXX ----- NXX ----- Me

        Oddly, I am only local to the NXX nearest to me, but it is local to
the NXX beyond it _and_ the dial-in's NXX.

    Having an aunt and uncle who live in the NXX which is local to
both me and the dial-in, I have gotten their permission to get telephone
service at their residence.  For a cost of about $18.88 a month -
including taxes - I get unlimited local calling and call forwarding.
Of course, the call forwarding will be _permanently_ programmed to
forward to the dial-in.

    The plot thickens: The dial-in has a rack of 18 modems in a
hunt group.  Therefore, if I am on line and someone else calls my
forwarding number, it does NOT busy on them, but rather just drops
them to the next available line.  My aunt and uncle will also
(according to the local BOC people I ordered this from) be able to
dial out, utterly unaffected by the whole forwarding scheme.

I stand to save about $400 _at least_ each month by doing this.  My
friends from nearby exchanges will also get substantial savings.

Things like this make me begin to wonder why people phreak ... if you
ask me, the phone company is voluntarily losing money in this case,
and, worse yet, losing money it would be getting from the lucrative
DCOM gang.

Are they being nice?

Are they just confused? [No one I talked to could understand it.]

Is this illegal? [I know it's unethical, and I quit school before
Ethics 101.]

Will they eventually get really p-o'ed at me?

Should I have done this long ago?

Should we all do this?

Should I get Identi-Call service and Call Forwarding on the data line
here, thus creating a situation where calls to the auxiliary number
would ring, but calls to the main data number would forward through my
new port and onto Internet - thus providing absolutely free network
access for an entire county??

Just curious.

shag


[Moderator's Note: There are instances -- very few of them, and yours
is apparently one -- where two or more local calls chained together
wind up costing less than a single toll call when you include the cost
of the forwarded call AND the fixed expenses each month such as line
charges, the call-forwarding monthly fee, etc. Obviously, all links in
the chain have to have (relative to the one they connect with)
unlimited, untimed local calling to make it worthwhile. As soon as any
one link has to pay tolls, you may as well all pay tolls, since the
difference will be negligible or possibly even against your favor!

Now it may be that unlimited calling is available from you to your
aunt and from her to the site with *residence* service, but as you
will recall from a previous discussion here, as soon as you solicit
the public to call your telephone number, la-la! you have a BUSINESS
line, and BUSINESS rates. Do the BUSINESS telephones on the same
exchange as your aunt *also* get unlimited local calling? I'd be
surprised if they do. In Chicago, business phones are charged by the
minute even on very local calls. No unlimited, untimed service for
them!  So maybe when you start inviting 'the entire county' along with
all your friends to use the line at their pleasure to avoid tolls,
particularly since the whole thing terminates in a business
subcriber's equipment (the modem lines at the site), telco might feel
you were soliciting the public to call your phone, i.e. the recent BBS
sysop fiasco and convert the forwarded line at your aunt's place to
business service. Then what? Back to paying tolls?  If this works for
you, fine, but best keep it to yourself and use it -- not invite
everyone else to join in.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 91 21:51:11 -0600
From: leroy Casterline <[e-mail]>
Subject: Engineering Help Needed


My company is in need of an engineer (consultant/contractor OK) with
state-of-the-art knowledge in the design of voice storage systems,
and experience designing telephone equipment (digital answering
machine design work would be especially relevent).  We are especially
concerned with reducing the amount of storage required for these
messages.  If you are interested in working on such a project, please
contact me.


Leroy Casterline | Cahill Casterline Ltd | Fort Collins, CO | 303/484-2212
Internet:[e-mail] | Compu$erve:70540,3307 | BIX:leroy

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

Subject: Wanted: T1/CEPT1 VME Card
From: Brian Carlton <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 May 91 22:21:15 PDT
Organization: BDCsys, Sunnyvale, CA


Does anyone know of a card to go into a VME chassis that has a T1 or
CEPT1 interface?  This is not just trying to hook a computer up to a
T1 line, but to allow VME cards to talk to the interface.

Please mail replies to me, if there is interest I will summarize any
answers.


Brian Carlton

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Prefered (Correction on Prices)
Date: 31 May 91 01:44:30 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


The posting on MCI Prefered I made had several errors in it. Below is
a new summary.

Customer Service 800-727-5555
Under $50 in calls -- $7.50/month
 .235 Day /.1645 Evening/ .1293 Night

Homework option (Home phones billed to the account)
 .25 day/ .12 all other

Regional calling - State (might be LATA or area code not clear yet)
Rates vary by state - Homework rates differ

Personal/Private 800 - no mothly fee
Per minute rates same as above

Clasic 800 - $10/mo $10 for installation
Per minute rates same as above

Travel card /account code included ... many other options available.

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Carrier ID Number - 700-555-4x4x
Date: 31 May 91 02:05:47 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I was under the impression that the number to ID carriers was
1-700-555-4141.

MCI Prefered advertises 700-555-4343.  Since they are not my 1+, I did
some testing and thought the Digest readers might be interested in the
results:

PIC    700-555    Message
222    4141    Thank You for selecting MCI for.. now connected 2RR
222    4343    Thank You.............................connected    2RR
222     4242     same as 222 4141
852    4141    Thank You for using TELECOM*USA ...call 800-476-1234
852     4242    We are sorry your call can not be completed as dialed AC
852    4343    Thank You for selecting MCI ... now connected 2BP
852    4444    connect to directory assistence

The 852 4343 is in the same voice as the 222 PIC ones but not the 852
4141.  Why does the 852 PIC behave this way ... it was a SouthernNet
PIC. Teleconnects' PIC is 835 ... does it behave this way?


Bill

[Moderator's Note: From here just now, 10852-700-anything got me a
message saying 'call cannot be completed with the carrier access code
you have chosen.'  PAT]

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

From: Rick Anderson <asuvax!gtephx![e-mail]>
Subject: MCI $20 Promotion
Organization: gte
Date: Thu, 30 May 1991 20:26:50 GMT


I believe MCI is currently undergoing a nationwide promotion whereby
they will give you $20 if you switch over to them as your primary
carrier.  I recently received a check in the mail from MCI for $20.
The check was a normal check on the front, but on the back, it said if
I endorsed and cashed the check, I would be switched over to MCI.

My question to the net: is it legally feasible to cross out this
endorsement message, sign the check, collect the $20, and then legally
expect to not be switched over to MCI??

I realize they will probably switch you over regardless of what you
do, but by crossing out the endorsement message, haven't you taken
away the "ok" for them to switch you over?


Rick Anderson    AG Communication Systems

 ...!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!andersonr
 ...!att!gtephx!andersonr
 ...!uunet!zardoz!hrc!gtephx!andersonr


[Moderator's Note: As soon as you cross out the special endorsement
you no longer have the right to cash the check which was issued as
payment for your having given permission to change your phones. When
you withheld your permission, you had no right to the money. And
please, no one needs to reply saying 'you have the right to keep
things of value which arrive in the mail unsolicited'. This was not
'something of value'. It was a contract they were requesting you to
sign in exchange for immediate payment for doing so.  Big difference.  PAT]

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

From: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>
Subject: 908 Area Code Switchover
Date: 31 May 91 07:03:27 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>


Just a reminder that New Jersey's 908 area code becomes mandatory on
Saturday, June 8, 1991 at 2 A.M.  This affects 1.5 million phones (314
exchanges) in central New Jersey, formerly part of 201.  The area code
has been available since January 1990.  As of Saturday you will get a
recording if you still dial 201.

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Does Fred Know Something We Don't Know?
Date: 31 May 91 15:11:36


[e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein) writes:

> A couple of possible causes of a double ring in the US:

> 2) The No. 1 Crossbar generated double ring on some numbers.  Few are
> left in service but 703 is PacBell so there may be a few left ...
                             ^^^^^^^

    If PacBell provides service in 703 (Arlington and Roanoke, VA),
they're certainly keeping a low profile; for example, the bills come
from C&P.

    The only PacBell phone I've ever seen in 703 was in "Die Hard 2,"
when Bruce Willis found one at Dulles.

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

Date: Sat, 1 Jun 91 00:48:39 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billing Cutover Question


As of about 45 minutes ago, calls between Berkeley and San Francisco
"Central" (roughly the northeastern 1/3 of the city, including
downtown, North Beach, Castro, and Mission areas) are local (Zone 1).

I was musing on the question of what would have happened were I in the
midst of a call at the time of the cutover.  Suppose, for example, I
called someone in S.F. at 11:50 and talked for 25 minutes.  In exact
compliance with the tariff, I should be charged 40% x ($0.08 + 9 x
$0.02) = $0.10 for the first ten minutes, and nothing for the
remaining 15 (unless I have measured service, in which case I would
pay 40% x (15 x $0.01) = $0.06).

Would my phone bill show the Zone 2 call as having a duration of 10
minutes, or 25?

Would I have caused all the billing computers at Pac*Bell to explode,
engulfing downtown San Francisco in a massive conflagration?

Did they actually cut over at 4:00 this afternoon so as not to have to
pay people overtime to figure these things out?


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]
PS. I now get to call Belvedere, Sausalito, and Walnut Creek, as well!!


[Moderator's Note: Ah, Linc ... here's one for you to worry about: you
are crossing the Pacific Ocean coming from Australia to California.
You are using the phone, making a collect call to SFC. When you cross the
international date line so it becomes the previous day once again, do
they charge you for a call which lasted a <negative> number of
minutes? After all, the call was finished before you even started it.
Suppose on the (Australian) day you started the call, the telco was
changing over to a new billing plan at the exact moment you were
crossing the IDL ... would they charge the <negative> minutes using
the old calculation or the new one?    :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #414
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05776;
          2 Jun 91 13:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09006;
          2 Jun 91 11:23 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06736;
          2 Jun 91 10:15 CDT
Date:     Sun, 2 Jun 91 10:15:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #415
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 2 Jun 91 10:15:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 415

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [John Higdon]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Robert L. Oliver]
    Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security [Michael Nolan]
    Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security [Colin Plumb]
    Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Old Phone Museum Being Cranked Up [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: C&P Telephone "Anti-Slam" Flag and Amazing Service [John Higdon]
    Re: Thrfity Tel [David Gast]
    Re: Fax Memory [David Ptasnik]
    Re: Incoming Lines From Telco [[e-mail]]
    Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone [Brian Kantor]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
From: "Steven S. Brack" <nstar!bluemoon![e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 91 16:21:39 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])


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

> Most C.O. switches built in the last ten years *deliberately* divorce
> the ringback tone heard by the calling party from the acrual ringing
> sound at the called party's phone. This has been done to cut down on
> revenue "leakage" due to ringing code schemes: "Well, when we get to
> Aunt Gertie's house, we'll call and leave it ring three times."
> Modern switches, in general, return ringback both slower and
> asynchronously from the actual ringing in order to foul up those
> schemes.  "Why did you answer? It only rang twice." "Twice? It started
> on the fourth ring here!"

Do the IECs do anything to combat sending messages other ways?  I can
remember my mother telling me (when I was a young man going on a long
trip) that when I landed, I was to make a collect call home, and say
it was from "Mr. Holmes."  It seems that doing something like this
would be very costly to the IECs.

Oh, I made that collect call through AT&T.  Funny, it wasn't that long
ago that we had one phone company. 8| <- The jury's still out on
whether I should ) or (.


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] or 419 474 1010  |  [e-mail]

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

From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
Date: 31 May 91 12:41:53 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: I try not to


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

> Modern switches, in general, return ringback both slower and
> asynchronously from the actual ringing in order to foul up those
> schemes.  "Why did you answer? It only rang twice." "Twice? It started
> on the fourth ring here!"

I have not found this to be the case in Atlanta or Huntsville. In both
towns I have had an answering machine with a 'toll saver' feature. If
there has not been a message left it allows four rings then picks up.
If there has been a message it picks up after two rings (thus if you
are calling long distance to check for calls you can hang up on the
third ring to avoid charges for no messages).

I have always had it pick up after the correct number of rings as
heard by either the caller or the callee (plenty of time was spent
verifying this).


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: Fri, 31 May 91 11:28 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World


Fred R. Goldstein writes:

> 2) The No. 1 Crossbar generated double ring on some numbers.  Few are
> left in service but 703 is PacBell so there may be a few left ...

What? Did I read that right? Last time I was in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, the RBOC was the descendent of C&P. Is Pac*Bell there as an
independent somewhere? I cannot imagine that the forces of the
universe would allow what Pac*Bell calls service to escape the borders
of California.

But the mention of #1 crossbar is sound. Back in the not-so-distant
past, all phones served by local #1 crossbar had the normal "single"
ring if the numbers ended in 000-499 and a "double" ring if they ended
in 500-999. I used to feel so superior because I had the more highly
advanced #5 crossbar. Unfortunately, I still do. They now have #5ESS.


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

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

From: "Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
Organization: Rabbit Software Corp.
Date: 31 May 91 23:41:39 GMT


[e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein) writes:

> 2) The No. 1 Crossbar generated double ring on some numbers.  Few are
> left in service but 703 is PacBell so there may be a few left ...

ACK!  Run for your lives!  Has PacBell taken over Virginia too?!

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

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

From: Michael Nolan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: 31 May 91 15:10:35 GMT


[e-mail] (Alex Beylin) writes:

> I've always wondered what they do with laptops that require AC power
> to operate.  Is there a three-prong AC plug at the security station?

I've had to set my system up on the floor 10 or 15 feet away from the
security station more than once in order to find a reachable plug.
The really 'fun' experience I had was when I was carrying a Toshiba
T1200 back from Dallas and had inadvertently drained the battery.
Good thing I had the AC power pack in my carry-on bag!  (This was last
September, when security was REAL tight.)


Michael Nolan   [e-mail]

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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security
Date: Fri, 31 May 1991 16:19:31 -0400
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


Anything with batteries in it could be a bomb.  A portable computer is
several pounds of unopenable case which X-rays will show as batteries,
wires, and unidentifiable junk.  This is a really good cover for an
explosive device.  Verifying that the thing does something is a good
way to screen out the less technologically sophisticated.

(Not that I expect anyone here to have any difficulty finding some
inessential space in a portable computer if they wented to create a
"working" bomb.)


Colin

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Fri, 31 May 1991 07:06:28 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Alex Beylin <alexb@cfctech.
cfc.com> writes:

> They usually do the same when I try to carry a portable computer on
> board.  One of the security people always takes me to the side table
> and asks to see the computer work.  Once the lights come on, they let
> me go.

> I've always wondered what they do with laptops that require AC power
> to operate.  Is there a three-prong AC plug at the security station?

As late as maybe 1985 they just wanted to look at it (a Kaypro-4), and
obviously didn't know what it was.  About '86-'87 or so there was a
distinct change.  They knew exactly what they wanted to see: some
indication that it functioned (disk noise, lights, anything).

Yes they always seem to know exactly where an outlet is and they don't
hesitate.


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: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Old Phone Museum Being Cranked Up
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 14:30:28 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> kentrox![e-mail]
(Bud Couch) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> Ron <uwm!carroll1.cc.edu!
> [e-mail]> writes:

>>    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.

> Pacific Telecom also bought out the old RCA Alascom system, and is
> "The Phone Company" in Alaska.

Pacific Corp.  (Portland, Ore.) owns Pacific Telecom (Vancouver, Wn.)
which owns Alascom (the regulated long distance carrier), and a large
percentage of the privately owned local telco's in Alaska!  Telephone
Utilities of the Northland, Telephone Utilies of ... I don't remember
the names of them all.  I believe they also use the TU name in Gig
Harbor, WN.  and Forks, WN.  They own several local telco's in the
Northwest.

But ... the two largest local phone companies in Alaska are city
owned: Anchorage Telephone Utilites, and Fairbanks Municipal
Utilities.  And there in is an interesting story.

When Pacific Telecom bought what is now TU of the Northland, which
serves much of the area just east of Fairbanks, the Alaska Public
Utilites Commission told them something to the effect of: "Don't buy
anymore. (Unless Fairbanks MUS is sold, which we would allow)."  Now
FMUS, being owned by a city, is not regulated by the PUC.  I have no
idea why the PUC thought then it would be a good idea if Pacific
Telecom should be allowed to buy FMUS but nothing else.  (It has not
been up for sale; it makes the city too much money!)

But that was years ago.

In the last two or three years the hot item has been the Anchorage
Telephone Utilities sale.  The city would like to sell it.  A couple
years ago they put it up for bid.  Pacific Telecom offered the only
bid.  It required 60% voter approval and got something like 58%; and
so failed.  In the process Pacific Telecom spent more money on
advertising and on political donations in the state of Alaska than any
other company for that particular year.  (Considering the oil companies
we have here, that is some chunk of money.)

Now the mayor of Anchorage (Mr.  Fink, no less) is trying again.  The
political fighting has been going hot and heavy.  Some would say that
PT already owns too much!  Some would say they do such a fine job,
let's give em more!  And everything in between.  The proposals in
Anchorage for a bidding process have been everything from explicitly
banning PT to allowing them to bid only if they sell off their
inter-state business (originally the idea was that they would have to
sell Alascom, which PT said *NO* thanks to, and lately it has meant
they would have to sell off their major ownership of the fiber optic
Pacific cable that is just now being put into service.  That has not
been rejected by PT.)

Eventually it is very likely that PT will own the phone system in
Anchorage.  I don't know if that scares Alascom employees more or ATU
employees more.

Oh, also ... PT corporate profits last year were a record high.

Disclaimer:  I work for Alascom under a union contract.


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

Date: Wed, 29 May 91 17:42 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: C&P Telephone "Anti-Slam" Flag and Amazing Service


wts1 <[e-mail]> writes:

> I called Saturday AM, and sure enough, the office was open!  Anyone
> know if this is just Southern Bell in NC, all of BellSouth, or other
> RBOCs also?  First Class!

Pacific Bell has had Saturday business office hours for a couple of
years, as much as it pains me to say it. But then what good does it do
if there is nothing to offer :-)


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

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 91 18:43:31 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thrfity Tel

It seems that if TT is playing the ethical line (no pun intended) and
at the same time is engaged in delivering intra-LATA calls against PUC
rules, that they need to be set up and given a dose of their own
medicine.  The PUC should just confiscate all of their computers and
forbid them from using a phone.


David

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fax Memory
Date: Fri, 31 May 91 8:32:13 PDT


Ricoh fax machines with memory had this feature a couple of years ago,
I assume that they still do.

When a fax is sent to the machine, the sender can put in a security
code.  The fax is stored in the machine's memory, and will not be
printed out until the proper security code is entered at the fax's
keyboard.  This was explained to me by a sales rep, and is kind of
vague.  I don't know how the problem of lost codes, etc. was dealt
with.

Another solution would be a fax board(s).  The PC could be programmed
any way you want it, callers could self direct to the correct PC if
you are on a phone system with DISA, or you could use selective rings.
There are lots and lots of relatively inexpensive options.

As I remember, fax machines with memory were pretty pricy.  I imagine
a PC with a fax board and a security scheme would be cheaper.


[e-mail]

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

From: Kral <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Incoming Lines From Telco
Organization: Digital Research Inc
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 91 05:33:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Robert M. Hamer) writes:

> I can't find a network interface.  Coming in from outside into the
> basement is a line with what looks like perhaps 10 or 15 twisted
> pairs.  One of the pairs is connected to one of the old-fashioned
> terminals (with four screw-type poles) to which all of our in-house
> wiring is connected.

I can't tell from your description if this is related or not, so take
it for what it is worth...

In the East Bay (ie Oakland and points east) area I've seen
residential units where they string 12 twisted pair wires (not cables,
wires, no sheathing!) throughout the house when it is built.  Then you
just tap on to the pair you want to consider active at each outlet.
This lets you fix broken circuits, or have different circuits active
at different outlets.

This was in a house that was a rental, primarily to students.  So it
was not unusual to have four lines or more in the house, with each
bedroom being on a different line.  This setup made it pretty easy to
do.


kral * 408/647-6112 *    ...!uunet!drivax!braun * [e-mail]

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone
Date: 2 Jun 91 03:41:21 GMT


Ken Oberman wondered when COs would stop supporting pulse-dial
(rotary) phones.  Well, PBX's already have; the UCSD Ericsson MD-110
will not allow an extension phone to pulse-dial any number with a "1"
(one) in it -- it interprets the single pulse as a switchhook flash and
gives you a fresh dialtone.

Of course, all the campus analog phones have touch-tone dials.  We
didn't discover the problem until people tried dialing the local
Telenet node with their modems, some of which were older models that
couldn't use touch-tone dialing.

Last I heard, a couple of years ago, they'd have it fixed real soon.

Hmm. It just occured to me: when they convert the student dorms to use
the Ericsson phone system in a couple of years, will the students who
own cheap plastic pulse-dial phones be able to dial 911?


Brian

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #415
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11762;
          2 Jun 91 15:55 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14881;
          2 Jun 91 14:29 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11102;
          2 Jun 91 13:24 CDT
Date:     Sun, 2 Jun 91 12:33:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #416
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 2 Jun 91 12:33:20 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 416

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Brian Charles Kohn]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Bill Huttig]
    Re: A Visitor Observes Phone Service in the UK [John Slater]
    Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Steve Gaarder]
    Re: Are Telco Profits Too Large? [Linc Madison]
    Re: Free Teletypes [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Homophobic Posting in Digest! (was NYNEX Pops the MPOP) [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Did Western Electric Also Make Sound Recordings? [William M. Hawkins]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 May 91 13:53:33 EDT
From: Brian Charles Kohn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Reply-To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center


> "When it arrives, you'll notice that your new card looks different. It
> even has a DIFFERENT ACCOUNT NUMBER FROM YOUR CURRENT AT&T CARD.
> (Emphasis added).  In order to comply with government requirements,
> AT&T is no longer sharing card numbers with your local telephone
> company. Now, AT&T is issuing new card numbers that are exclusive to
> AT&T."

> So does this mean that we will all need to know at least *two* PIN
> numbers now?

Actually ... the new calling card number will be different from your
phone number.  It will be a new 14 digit number to remember.

=> And how is everyone supposed to know that "If it's a local call use my
=> BOC card, while if it's an inter-LATA call use my AT&T card"? How many
=> people actually can tell in advance what is a intra- compared to an
=> inter-LATA call?

The word is that BOC card numbers won't work for LD calls, and LD card
numbers won't work for local calls.  When that transition is to happen
I don't know.

> Note that if I use MCI or Sprint, which have similar calling card
> setups (via an 800 or 950 number), I can usually make INTRA and INTER
> LATA calls on the same card, and even on the same call. (The charges
> may be higher for INTRA LATA calls than what the BOC/GTE/local
> companies charge, however).

This has got to be either illegal or unfair.  AT&T is not permitted to
carry local phone calls.  Not even a little.  So MCI and Sprint
shouldn't be allowed to either.

> In the event than any AT&T Calling Card people area reading this, all
> I can say is that this is quite disappointing.

I bet you that the AT&T Calling Card people are more disappointed with
it than you are.  Disappointed that unscrupulous AOS services have
made the government take this action.


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: This is just one more example of the unfairness
which has riddled divestiture since the beginning. AT&T has been held
to the most rigid of standards, while the 'others' are allowed to
pretty much do as they please subject to a large enough stink being
made that they have to reform a little -- but just a little. AT&T got
to where they were after more than a century of experience, hard work
and intelligent management ... and a judge comes along and rips them
off without a second thought, based largely on his own prejudices. And
let's face it: Greene had it in for AT&T from the beginning.   PAT]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Date: 31 May 91 16:02:26 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <zach![e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

> And how is everyone supposed to know that "If it's a local call use my
> BOC card, while if it's an inter-LATA call use my AT&T card"? How many
> people actually can tell in advance what is a intra- compared to an
> inter-LATA call?

 From my understanding the new AT&T card can be use for IntraLATA
calls with any Local carrier. The main reason is to protect you from
getting charged by AOS's.  I think by law the BOC/LEC numbers must be
made available to all OCC's .  Your BOC/LEC card should work using any
carrier and will be billed on your local bill.

OCC's can carry IntraLATA calls in some states but AT&T can not.  AT&T
said that they have problems with some of the LEC's accepting the new
cards and the problem should be worked out shortly.


Bill

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

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Visitor Observes Phone Service in the UK
Date: 31 May 91 15:35:17 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems UK


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Martin Baines) writes:

>> He has to dial an access number to get to the Mercury network.

> Depends where you live and when you got your phone as to whether it is
> Mercury compatible. If you live in an exchange that is digital (50% of
> exchanges, 75% of the population) then all you need to get Mercury is
> a tone phone.

Not true, Marty. Availability of Mercury access is dependent on
whether Mercury has got around to making service available yet. This
in turn depends on how close geographically a switch is to Mercury's
nationwide figure-of-eight fibre optic network. This may often
correspond with digital exchanges, but not necessarily.

> If you get a *new* phone from BT it may/may not be tone:
> it seems to depend what they have in stock (any comments?).

To the best of my knowledge all of BT's phones for sale have been
dual-signalling for a couple of years or so. They're slowly getting
round to promoting "Star Services" (call-waiting, redirection etc) and
are installing as many tone-capable phones as they can.

> If you live on a pulse exchange, to get Mercury you need a phone that
> can change from pulse to tone in the middle of dialing: the pulses to
> get to Mercury, then tones for your PIN and the number.

True. Almost all phones sold in the UK that are capable of tone
signalling have a fairly automatic way of doing this (in other words
buttons for abbreviated dialling can be programmed to perform mixed
dialling.  E.g. in Hayes-speak : ATDP131T,1234567890 to access Mercury
and dial account number and PIN).


John Slater   Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

Disclaimer : I work for Marty Baines, so I have to be nice to him.

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

Date: Sat, 1 Jun 91 02:45:55 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire


The following piece, which showed up in soc.culture.new-zealand,
suggests one possible approach to my quest for a cheap way to run wire
to a friend's house:

> From: [e-mail] (Andrew Norris)

> With respect to the tails about uses of no8, there was an real good
> chapter in a Crump Book in which a character named 'Scratcher' had the
> job of maintaining a 8 mile length of telephone line through the bush.
> The PO provided him with copper wire, which he used to sew his boots and
> cloths up with. The line was repaired with any junk he could lay his
> hands on, including sardine cans and dog chain. But he knew what he was
> doing as he confided in the central character, Bruce (?);

> 'It can't be any old thing though, it has to be metal'

BTW, I'm also looking for entrance blocks (lightning protectors) or
sources for same.

[ Pat, concerning your suggestion of going underground: A reasonable
thing to suggest, since you live in the Midwest where the soil is soft
and sandy.  Here it's heavy clay, and, since it's through the woods,
full of roots as well.]


Steve Gaarder
[e-mail]          [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: When I look at old photographs of Chicago, say from
the 1900-1920 era, all I see in the sky are telephone poles and wires
running everywhere. The wires criss-cross in all directions running up
and down the streets, etc. And now, telephone poles, while not rare,
are far less common here. In the downtown area you don't see one for
blocks at a time. In the residential areas, we have poles in the alley
behind the houses in many areas, but very few on the main streets.
They have buried almost everything.

Of course, there are offsets to this: For the past two weeks, Bell
Avenue (the north/south street at the corner from where I live) has
been torn up for several blocks, all the way from Roseland Cemetery
north to Warren Park. Everyone is in on the act: I see trucks from
People's Gas, IBT, and the Water and Sewer Works all out there every
day, digging, laying new conduits, sewers, etc. They wake me at 6 AM
when they start tearing up the street.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 1 Jun 91 00:40:08 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Telco Profits Too Large?


Martin Baines said in 11.409.7 that British Telecom made profits of
#95/second or #3000 billion.  Much discussion has ensued regarding the
fact that the latter figure is more than 50 years U.S. GNP, etc.

The answer to the dilemma is rather simple: the two figures do not
equate to one another.  #95/sec = #3000 MILLION/year = #3 billion/yr =
US $5 billion/yr.

For comparison, AT&T last year earned about US $2.7 billion.  However,
in 1981, 1982, and 1983, AT&T earned close to or more than US $7
billion per year.  [Source: Value Line Investment Survey] The total
profits of the "Baby Bells" for 1990, though, was in excess of US $9
billion.  Add another $1.5 billion for GTE, and about a billion for
MCI and Sprint combined, and a fraction of a billion for Centel,
Cincinnati Bell, etc.  So, all in all, US telephone companies reaped
profits in the neighborhood of $12 billion for 1990.  However, the US
is more than 2.4 times the size of Britain, so BT's profits were about
double the scale of US telephone companies.

That gives you a little bit of a yardstick for comparing "excessive"
profits.  (BTW, 1990 profits for the Baby Bells ranged from a low of
$1.13 billion for Pacific Telesis to a high of $1.695 billion for Bell
South.  Southern New England Telephone earned about $150 million, and
I'm not sure whether or not that is included in NYNEX, but it doesn't
materially affect my figures either way.)


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Free Teletypes
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 91 13:16:03 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Floyd Davidson) writes:

[about teletype machines and radio stations]

> It was usually "canned" sound.  Nobody would really want to work
> around that racket.  The tty machines in well designed places were in
> rooms with sound proofing, and nobody had to listen to them.

When I was with Alaskan Forces radio in the mid 70's, the newsroom had
five teletypes, with four running all the time.  (AP, UPI, Reuters and
the AFRTS newswire compilation) The poor news guy had to put up with
it all the time.  I don't recall the newscasts using teletype noise in
the background there, as the news was actually delivered from an
ajoining studio.  Curiously enough, the simplest solution (of placing
a mike in the teletype room) wouldn't have worked, since three of the
four wires made their hourly local breaks at the top of the hour.

At an earlier job with a Nome radio station, the teletype was in the
tiny news studio, albeit inside a sound-deadening casing.  The AP fed
that machine, and the teletype in the background was real during
newscasts.  The same unpredictability about local breaks was evident,
though ... sometimes, the teletype would be completely silent until
the last seconds of the news.

(This has strayed from telecom a bit, so I shan't rant on)

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


[Moderator's Note: In the public telegraph offices of yester-year
there would be usually a half-dozen or more machines. On rare
instances, all would be silent for maybe ten or fifteen seconds; then
there would be a soft whirring noise for a few seconds as one of the
machines came on, and the click/clack would start again.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 91 18:11:26 EDT
Subject: Homophobic Posting in Digest! (was NYNEX Pops the MPOP)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill


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

> 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.

"Limp-wristed" is a rather offensive and homophobic term to use.  I
DARE you to walk into the gym at the Greenwich Village YMCA and a)
call somebody there a limpwristed faggot or b) try to convince one of
the gentlemen working out that being homosexual or effeminate means
that you have no guts, strength or backbone, as your ignorant comment
implies.  Somebody with a homosexual orientation and the ability and
desire to bench press twice your body weight would be happy to adjust
your attitude for you.

Please take your stereotypes to another list.

> [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]

Pat, while I appreciate your defense of our Corporate reputation, I am
a little disappointed that you granted his heterosexist assumptions in
your reply.  If you think I'm nit-picking, ask yourself if you would
have answered: "you may think that policy niggardly, but ..."  or "you
may think you were being Jewed down, but ..."


Andy Sherman   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Oh dear me, here come the flamers again ...
detirmined to infest TELECOM Digest as bad they have the rest of the
net. The fact that in your response you used 'limpwristed' as an
adjective, or modifier for 'faggot' shows me you are aware the term
can be used to describe any number of people and/or their actions *in
addition to male homosexuals*.  Or were you just being redundant, much
like saying 'gay homosexual' or 'Department of Redundancy Department'?
Your syntax confuses me. Describing a 'faggot' as limpwristed is your
problem, not mine or that of the original author.

You don't display very good vocabulary skills where 'niggardly' is
concerned either. I think you have that word (adj./adv. meaning stingy
or miserly; with its root in 'niggard' (n., probably Scandanavian in
origin meaning a miser, or stingy person)) confused with 'nigger', a
slang term whose root is in 'Niger', or a person from Niger(ia) which
in current parlance or idiom is an ugly way of describing a black
person. I agree 'faggot' is an ugly way to describe a gay person, but
you in your wisdom appended it to 'limpwristed', not me. Please
continue this over in alt.politics.homosexual or someplace where they
relish flames and personal attacks, and expect to find homophobia,
internalized or otherwise, lurking in every message.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 91 23:48:47 CDT
From: "William M. Hawkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did Western Electric Also Make Sound Recordings?


I just returned from a visit to the Pavek Wireless Museum in a suburb
of Minneapolis.  It's a three year old museum with a major collection
of wireless stuff.  It also contains a Vitaphone Lathe, dated 1926,
with a model number of WE D85249 (yes, it looks like a serial number,
but that was on another plate).  A single motor drives the turntable
from one end and the lathe screw from the other.  The placard says
that Selsyns were used to couple the camera and the recording lathe.
Selsyns are back to back three phase synchronous motors.  Well, the
transmitter is a generator and the receiver is a motor.  So, that's
how they synchronized sound and picture.  Still, I didn't think a
director could make a film a reel at a time, without cutting and
splicing.  Something had to be used for sound editing, to go with the
film editing.

The placard also said the lathe cut a 17.5 inch disk, which was used
to press 16 inch copies.  The disk on the turntable looked like metal,
and the head looked like it could dig a serious groove in the metal.
The 'card also said 33 RPM.  Maybe they dropped the third of an RPM.


Bill Hawkins, alias [e-mail]  612-895-6840 at work.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #416
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14730;
          2 Jun 91 17:02 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18272;
          2 Jun 91 15:35 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14881;
          2 Jun 91 14:30 CDT
Date:     Sun, 2 Jun 91 13:49:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #417
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 2 Jun 91 13:49:06 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 417

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administriva: New Modem In Use [TELECOM Moderator]
    Bell Atlantic Guardian Insurance Policy Text [Christopher Lott]
    GTE Mobilenet and 7D vs 10D vs 1+10D Dialing [Marty Brenneis]
    Surprise!! [Brian Gordon]
    Cellular Modem Wanted [Albert Pang]
    Strange AT&T Advertisement [Mark J. Christophel]
    PacBell Does Something Right [Donald Ekman]
    Re: International 800 Access [Jim Rees]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 13:11:08 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administriva: New Modem In Use


The Digest is now being produced each day using a new Telebit T-1600
modem. This 9600 baud model has a number of nice features, including
callback security, error checking, v.32 compatibility and other
things. Since most of the time the modem will be in interactive use;
i.e. me at the terminal, typing in messages, editing other messages,
etc, some aspects of the unit are not needed, such as Data Compression.

But the big thing -- the most important from my point of view -- is
the fourfold increase in speed where screen refreshes are concerned. I
use Emacs to edit the Digest, and mmdf for the mail. The constant
redrawing of the screen by the editor took a lot of time in the past.
Now the redrawing is instant, as is the listing of messages in the
queue. Previously, a list of several dozen messages to be reviewed
took several seconds each time it was presented. This is no longer the
case. It is just like being in the terminal room at NWU.  The modem
interfaces with my terminals (Wyse 50's) at 38,400 baud, so everything
is now moving very fast and smooth. Baud rate selection is automatic,
so the modem fits right in when calling other places at a slower
speed. No baud rate adjustment by me is required.  Also, an S-register
allows automatic dialing of a preselected number whenever DTR goes
high, or by pushing a single button on the front panel which is a nice
convenience also.

The modem was loaned to me for use with the Digest by two regular
readers who suggested I leave their name out of print, and I am
honoring their request ... but I want to publicly say thanks; and they
will know who they are!


PAT

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 91 14:35:06 -0400
From: Christopher Lott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Atlantic Guardian Insurance Policy Text


Hi Pat,

Hot off the flatbed scanner, here is the full text of the Bell
Atlantic Guardian Insurance policy.  The policy strikes me as more
than a little vague -- for example, do they cover only their phones
which you are renting, or any $8.99 phone which maybe you got free in
some promotion?

chris ...
                            ----

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE OPTIONAL WIRE MAINTENANCE PLAN AND BELL
ATLANTIC GUARDIAN (sm) ENHANCED MAINTENANCE SERVICE

The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company (hereinafter referred to
as "C&P") offers the following wire maintenance plans: (l ) Optional
Wire Maintenance Plan ("the Basic Plan"), and (2) Bell Atlantic
Guardian (sm) Enhanced Maintenance Service. The following terms and
conditions will govern the provision of these Plans.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANS

A. Optional Wire Maintenance Plan (the "Basic Plan"): This is an
optional wire maintenance plan (hereafter referred to as the "Basic
Plan") which includes the following service:

In accordance with C&P's standard procedures, C&P will perform such
repairs to the Customer's standard inside telephone wire and jack(s)
(subject to the Plan Exclusions listed below) that become necessary
and are reported to C&P while you are covered under this Plan. If a
repairperson is dispatched to perform repairs to your inside wire or
jack(s), and the problem is in your telephone or associated equipment
rather than the wire or jacks, you may be required to pay a service
charge for that visit at C&P's then-applicable rates.

Guardian Plan: This plan provides you the same coverage as the Basic
Plan, plus the following:

In addition to the Basic Plan, if the trouble occurs in your telephone
set, C&P will provide you a standard desk telephone for up to 60 days
while you arrange to have your telephone set repaired or replaced.
Also, you will not be billed a service charge when the problem is
found to be in your telephone equipment and not your inside wire or
jacks. If you have a permanently wired telephone without a standard
telephone jack needed to use the loaner telephone, C&P will convert
one telephone jack to modular free of charge. You will then be
responsible for converting your telephone to modular or for acquiring
a modular telephone to be used with the modular jack. Within 60 days,
you must return the loaned telephone in accordance with C&P's
then-applicable procedures. If you fail to return the loaned telephone
as and when required, you may be billed at C&P's then-applicable
rates for all costs and expenses associated with such failure.

To request maintenance service under either of these Plans, the
Customer should call the C&P repair service telephone number, or such
other number as C&P may designate.

CHARGES

The current monthly charges for these two Plans are as follows:

         Basic Plan:  $.85 per telephone line per month.

         Guardian Plan: $2.00 per telephone line per month.

A one-time service order charge may also be billed, if applicable,
when you order either of these Plans. The charges for these Plans are
subject to change by C&P from time to time, as more fully described in
the next paragraph. All charges, plus all applicable taxes, shall be
due and payable upon Customer's receipt of the applicable bill.


CHANGES IN MONTHLY CHARGES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS: THE CHARGES FOR
THESE PLANS, AND ANY OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THESE
PLANS. MAY BE CHANGED BY C&P AT ANY TIME UPON AT LEAST THIRTY (30)
DAYS' PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE (WHICH MAY BE IN THE FORM OF A BILL INSERT
OR OTHER WRITTEN NOTIFICATION). THE PAYMENT OF APPLICABLE CHARGES BY
THE CUSTOMER, OR A REQUEST FOR SERVICE UNDER THE PLANS, AFTER RECEIV-
ING SUCH NOTICE OF A CHANGE IN THE CHARGES OR OTHER TERMS AND
CONDITIONS WILL BE DEEMED TO BE ASSENT BY THE CUSTOMER TO THE
CHANGE(S) IN THE CHARGES, TERMS OR CONDITIONS. IF THE CUSTOMER DOES
NOT WISH TO CONTINUE RECEIVING THIS PLAN UNDER SUCH REVISED CHARGES,
TERMS OR CONDITIONS, CUSTOMER MAY SIMPLY TERMINATE ITS PARTICIPATION
UNDER THE PLAN AT ANY TIME UPON NOTICE TO C&P.

LIMITED 90-DAY WARRANTY

C&P warrants for a period of 90 days that these services and products
will meet accepted industry practices and be free from defects in
materials or workmanship. Should any failure to conform to this
warranty appear and be reported to C&P within said 90-day period, C&P
shall reperform the nonconforming services, and repair or replace the
nonconforming product(s). Such reperformance of work and repair or
replacement of nonconforming products shall constitute the entire
liability of C&P and sole remedy of the Customer under this warranty,
whether claim or remedy is sought in contract, tort (including
negligence), strict liability, or otherwise.

THE FOREGOING WARRANTIES ARE EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER
WARRANTIES, WHETHER WRITTEN OR IMPLIED, IN FACT OR IN LAW. C&P
DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

THE LIABILITY, IF ANY, OF C&P AND ITS EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS TO THE
CUSTOMER OR TO ANY OTHER PERSON FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SERVICE UNDER THESE PLANS, OR FROM
ANY FAULT. FAILURE, DEFECT OR DEFICIENCY IN ANY SERVICE, LABOR.
MATERIAL, WORK OR PRODUCT FURNISHED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE PLANS,
SHALL BE LIMITED TO AN AMOUNT NOT IN EXCESS OF $500.00. IN NO EVENT,
HOWEVER, SHALL C&P OR ITS EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR
SPECIAL, INDIRECT.

INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE PROVISION OF OR
FAILURE TO PROVIDE SERVICE UNDER THESE PLANS, OR FROM ANY FAULT,
FAILURE, DEFECT OR DEFICIENCY IN ANY SERVICE, LABOR, MATERIAL, WORK OR
PRODUCT FURNISHED IN CONNECTION WITH THESE PLANS (SUCH AS, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, TELEPHONE SERVICE OUTAGES AND ANY LOSS OF USE OF WIRING,
JACKS OR TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT, AND ANY DAMAGES RESULTING THEREFROM).
THESE LIMITATIONS OF AND EXCLUSIONS FROM LIABILITY SHALL APPLY
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER A CLAIM OR REMEDY IS SOUGHT IN CONTRACT, TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE AND STRICT LIABILITY). OR OTHERWISE.

PLAN ELIGIBILITY

These Plans are offered only to C&P's residence telephone Customers
who use only standard single line telephone set(s). The Plans are not
available to Customers with multi-line telephone equipment, systems or
services (such as multi-line sets associated with common equipment,
key telephone systems, Centrex service. private branch exchange (PBX)
equipment).

EXCLUSIONS

The Plans do not apply to: (1 ) wire larger than 8-pair, unless
otherwise expressly agreed by C&P: (2) wire or jack malfunctions or
problems which arise prior to the commencement of the Customer's
coverage under the Plan, or which are caused by abuse. acts of third
parties, fire, or natural disaster; (3) inside telephone wiring and
jack(s) which are non standard or do not comply with Part 68 of the
Federal Communications Commission Rules: (4) wire or jacks which at
the commencement of coverage are not in satisfactory condition or fail
to meet C&P's technical standards: (5) wire located outside of the
Customer's living unit in multi-tenant buildings: (6) restoration of
your premises if you ask C&P to repair concealed wire: and (7) repair
of the Customer's telephones or other premises equipment.

TERMINATION

The Customer may terminate participation in either Plan at any time
simply by notifying C&P's local business office (or such other number
that C&P may designate for such purpose). C&P may terminate the
Customer's participation in these Plans without cause only upon thirty
(30) days prior notice to Customer, but may terminate or suspend Plan
participation at any time in the event Customer fails to pay all
applicable charges when due.

EFFECTIVE DATE

Commencement and termination of coverage under either Plan shall be
effective on a date to be determined by C&P, which shall not be more
than 30 days after C&P receives the Customer's request(s) to commence
or terminate the Plan.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be
invalid or unenforceable such invalidity or unenforceability shall not
invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision of this
Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed as if it did not
contain such invalid or unenforceable provision.

C&P shall not be liable for any delay or failure to perform its
obligations if such delay or nonperformance arises in connection with
any acts of God, fires, floods, strikes or other labor disputes,
unusually severe weather, acts of any governmental body, or any other
cause beyond the reasonable control of C&P.

C&P Telephone
A Bell Atlantic Company

SSI# 700 219 421

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 91 07:33:59 PDT
From: Marty the Droid <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE Mobilenet and 7D vs 10D vs 1+10D Dialing


I just tried some test calls on my GTE Mobilenet cellphone in the SF
area.  My number is in the 415 area. I tried calling 389-xxxx,
415-389-xxxx and 1+415-389-xxxx. All three calls went thru without a
glitch.

This functionality coupled with least cost routing on LD calls makes
GTE look even better than $ellularOne. If only the GTE landwire folks
could be run this well.


Marty 'The Droid' Brenneis         ...!uupsi!kerner!droid
Industrial Magician                [e-mail]
[phone]

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

Date: Sat, 1 Jun 91 21:28:37 PDT
From: Brian Gordon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Surprise!!


The good news is that, as of today, 01 Jun 91, PacBell has expanded its
local calling area, so I can call work, for example, without incurring
toll charges.

The bad news is that, without notice, the "permissive" 1-plus dialing
has stopped working.  The normal dialing from 408 has been, for
example, just 415-336-xxxx.  It was permissible, however, to dial
1-415-336-xxxx, which, I presume, will someday become the norm.  As of
this morning, using the "1-" form reaches a reorder tone ...

Doncha' just love those guys?

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

From: Albert Pang <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Modem Wanted
Organization: INSL, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: Fri, 31 May 1991 21:54:18 GMT


Does a Cellular Modem (as in cellular telephone with a RS232
connection) exist?


Albert Pang     [e-mail]>
Information Networks & Systems Lab   McGill University

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

From: "Mark J. Christophel" <novavax.nova.edu!rm1!mjc>
Subject: Strange AT&T Advertisement
Date: Tue, 28 May 91 11:02:33 EDT


This is my first post, although I am a regular reader:

The following advertisement appeared in last week's (Thursday, May 23)
{Sun-Sentinel}.  It was a small ad on one of the last pages of the
newspaper.

        NOTICE TO AT&T CUSTOMERS
        ------------------------

    AT&T filed with the Federal Communications Commission on May
17, 1991, new tax factors to recover gross receipts taxes imposed by
certain states on interstate telecommunications services.  The factor
scheduled to become effective on July 1, 1991, in Florida is 2.25%.

    These surcharges will apply to the interstate charges of AT&T
Long Distance, AT&T Reach Out(R) America, AT&T AnyHour Saver(Sm) Plan,
AT&T SelectSaver(Sm) Plan, AT&T WATS and AT&T 800 Service, AT&T 800
READYLINE(R), AT&T PRO(Sm) WATS, AT&T MEGACOM(R) and MEGACOM 800
Services, AT&T Software Defined Network Service, AT&T International
Long Distance and AT&T 900 Service.


Mark J. Christophel       rm1!mjc OR mjc@rm1             [phone]
[M. Christophel, Racal-Milgo, MS E112, Box 407044, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33340]

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

Date: Thu, 30 May 91 21:54:59 PDT
From: Donald Ekman <[e-mail]>
Subject: PacBell Does Something Right


Today Pacific Bell came to my house to install the second line that I
ordered two days ago.

They replaced the old cable from the pole to the house with a new,
two-line cable.  They replaced the old box with the new "Telephone
Network Interface," which is a box in which my internal lines connect
to a terminal block, which, in turn, connects to the telco line via a
modular jack and plug.  Just the thing for isolating problems to
either my in-house wiring, or the telco line.

It took exactly five minutes to connect my modem to the new line, and
another two minutes to test the whole thing.  Pac Bell, for once, did
something right.  You see this, John Higdon?  :-)


Donald E. Ekman           | Disclaimer:  Loral
Space Systems/Loral       | doesn't think I have
Palo Alto, CA  USA        | any opinions.  They
[e-mail] | are probably right.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: International 800 Access
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Fri, 31 May 91 15:30:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Ken Jongsma <wybbs!ken@sharkey.
cc.umich.edu> writes:

> For what it's worth: Two years ago, I was in Australia and was unable
> to use USA Direct to reach a domestic US 800 number. However, several
> months ago, I was in the UK and had no problems with USA Direct.

Does USA Direct take Visa?  Last time I tried this, they only took
AT&T cards, so if you didn't have an account with AT&T you were out of
luck.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #417
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03064;
          3 Jun 91 0:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03470;
          2 Jun 91 22:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01877;
          2 Jun 91 21:35 CDT
Date:     Sun, 2 Jun 91 21:30:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #418
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 2 Jun 91 21:30:14 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 418

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    That Toddlin' Town Named the Ohm, Too! [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Movie Review: The President's Analyst [Rob Boudrie]
    Re: Surprise!! [Brent Chapman]
    Re: Surprise!! [Bill Woodcock]
    Re: Cellular Harrassment at Airport Security [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [Rick Broadhead]
    Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: Free Teletypes [David Lesher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:09 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: That Toddlin' Town Named the Ohm, Too!


        We can all hum that song made so popular by several singers up
to the inimitable Frank Sinatra.  Through it, we can see Chicagoans
have always known how to "party hearty."

        That's often our first thought about Chicago and what goes on
thre.  Great convention town, as many of us know from direct
experience.  Somehow, despite evidence that most of the early
developers of telecommunications devices in America started in
Chicago's environs, we never get a focus on the status of Chicago's
contributions to our technology.

        It must have been a significant focus, for Chicago is also the
birthplace of every basic unit of electrical measurement the world
uses.  Here's a quotation from Percy Dunsheath's "A History of
Electrical Engineering," (Faber & Faber, London, 1962, pp. 302-303):

        "At the International Electrical Exposition held in Paris in
1881 much dissatisfaction with the postion was expressed by practical
electrical engineers, who were still using widely `Weber' to denote
the unit of current, measuring electrical pressure in terms of the
equivalent number of Daniell cells and resistance in terms of miles of
telegraph wire" <another book on the life of Wehrner von Siemens
somewhat immodestly suggests that he declined the honor of having
Georg Ohm's unit named the "Siemens."> "and the new names ampere, volt
and ohm were adopted." <But notice they are NOT capitalized at this
point.  That has significance in the world of scholarly science, as
we'll see later.>

        "In 1891 the <British> Board of Trade set up a Standards
Committee `for the measurement of electricity for use in trade' which
adopted the C.G.S. system of electrical units with the values of units
determined by the original British Association Committee and adopted
the names which that Committee had proposed: ohm, ampere, volt for the
units of electrical resistance, electric current and electric
pressure." <Notice the names are still not capitalized.>

        "Two years later an important International Electrical
Congress was held in Chicago under the presidency of Helmholtz with
Britain represented by Preece, Ayrton, Silvanus Thompson and Alexander
Siemens.

        "This Congress recommended the following as legal units:

        "RESISTANCE.  The Internationa Ohm based upon the ohm equal to
        10e9 units of resistance of the C.G.S. system of electromagnetic
        units represented by the resistance to an unvarying current by a
        column of mercury at the temperature of melting ice 14.4521
        grams in mass of a constant cross section and a length of
        106.3 cm.

        "CURRENT.  The International Ampere, one-tenth of the unit of
        current of the C.G.S. unit represented by the current which when
        passed through a solution of nitrate of silver deposits silver at
        the rate of 0.001118 of a gram per second.

        "ELECTROMOTIVE FORCE.  The International Volt, which is the
        electromotive force that steadily applied will produce a current
        of one International Ampere represented by 1000/1434 of the
        electromotive force of a Clark's cell at 15 degrees Centigrade.

        "The unit of quantity, the International Coulomb, was that quantity
        transferred by one International Ampere fowing for one second.

        "The unit of capacity, the International Farad, was the capacity
        of a condenser which a charge of one International Coulomb would
        raise by one International Volt.

        "The unit of work, the International Joule, was 10e7 units of work
        in the C.G.S. system or the energy expended when one International
        Ampere flows through a resistance of one International Ohm for one
        second.

        "The unit of power, the International Watt, 10e7 units in the
        C.G.S. system or the power when the expenditure of energy is at the
        rate of one International Joule per second.

        "The unit of induction, the International Henry, or the induction
        in a circuit when a pressure of one International Volt is induced
        by a change of one International Ampere per second."

        Shortly later, Dunsheath writes, "By this time" (1908) the
same units of resistance, current and e.m.f. had been adopted by all
the principal countries if the world." <end of quotes>

        (For those interested, these International units are ten times
larger than what we use everyday, which are called the "practical
units," based on the M.K.S. system of measurement instead of the
C.G.S. system used in the basic physics laboratory. We signify the
practical units by NOT capitalizing their names, while the larger
International Units are capitalized.

But be careful: Some units, like the Baud, are used as internationally
standardized and are capitalized anyway.  However, not only do
telecomm people almost always write the term Baud incorrectly, they
typically horrobly misuse it, anyway.  Your 2400 bps modem does NOT
transmit or receive 2400 "Baud," unless you want to play word games
about it doing so because it's operating full duplex!  Regardless,
your 9600 NEVER transmits 9600 "Baud" in any event.)

        While the units named in Chicago have undergone slight
adjustment in the intervening century, they remain the units we all
use daily in any aspect of telecommunications work.  And I'll bet
those famous heads of science who met in Chicago in 1893 enjoyed the
fabled hospitality and great steaks of That Toddlin' Town, as well!

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

From: Rob Boudrie <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 00:28:21 EDT
Subject: Movie Review: The President's Analyst


"The President's Analyst" is an old (early 70's I think, but I may be
off) movie starring James Coburn.

The President has a psychiatrist, James Coburn, who is targeted for
kidnapping by TPC.  The shrink is in a fone booth and the door locks
behind him, at which time a telco truck drives up and loads the locked
booth with Coburn in it onto the back of the truck.  The truck driuves
to telco headquarters (somewhere in NJ, I assume), and the phone booth
(with Coburn in it) is placed on a conveyor belt taking him past
displays of the wonders of telco technology.

The best part is the movie they force him to watch -- done in true
"public utility PR style" talking about the tremendous benefits of the
fone chip they want implanted in every newborn's brain.  This will
allow all the implanted people to call any other implanted person
merely by thinking of that person's number and thinking the
communication (sort of the ultimate "follow me roaming").  Seeing this
movie is a must for anyone who has ever had an interest in telecom,
especially those us of dating from the days of TAP.

I don't remember how it turned out, and it was mediocre as movies go,
*BUT* the true to life nature of the telco promo movies in it was
hilarious. If anyone remembers other funny or remarkable scenes from
the film, please post them.


Rob Boudrie   [e-mail]

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

From: Brent Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Surprise!!
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1991 19:18:03 GMT


Brian Gordon <[e-mail]> writes:

> The good news is that, as of today, 01 Jun 91, PacBell has expanded its
> local calling area, so I can call work, for example, without incurring
> toll charges.

> The bad news is that, without notice, the "permissive" 1-plus dialing
> has stopped working.  The normal dialing from 408 has been, for
> example, just 415-336-xxxx.  It was permissible, however, to dial
> 1-415-336-xxxx, which, I presume, will someday become the norm.  As of
> this morning, using the "1-" form reaches a reorder tone ...

> Doncha' just love those guys?

Either PacBell already corrected this problem, or else it's something
isolated to your local switch or PBX.  I live and work just on the 408
side of the 415/408 border, while most of my friends live and work in
415.  I habitually dial "1-415-xxx-yyyy".  I made several calls from
408-745 to 415 yesterday (June 1) without any problems, and I just now
explicitly verified that both "1-415-xxx-yyyy" and "415-xxx-yyyy" work
from my home phone (408-745).

Are you sure this one is PacBell's fault?


Brent Chapman                 Telebit Corporation
Sun Network Specialist        1315 Chesapeake Terrace
[e-mail]             Sunnyvale, CA  94089
                              Phone:  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Incidentally Brent, I *love* your company's new
T-1600 modem. It is working out quite well here at Digest HQ.   PAT]

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

From: Bill Woodcock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Surprise!!
Date: 2 Jun 91 19:41:17 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz; Open Access Computing


[e-mail] writes:

> The bad news is that, without notice, the "permissive" 1-plus dialing
> has stopped working.  The normal dialing from 408 has been, for
> example, just 415-336-xxxx.  It was permissible, however, to dial
> 1-415-336-xxxx, which, I presume, will someday become the norm.  As of
> this morning, using the "1-" form reaches a reorder tone ...

> Doncha' just love those guys?

Whew.  Well, I just tried from my phone in Santa Cruz (408-425-XXX) to
my phone in Berkeley (415-843-XXXX) and got through with the 1-plus
dialing, but got the "Sorry, but you must first dial a one..." when I
tried without.  But then I have to dial a 1+7D to get to San Jose,
too, and 1+408+7D _doesn't_ work.  :-)

Yeah, I just can't get enough of that great Pac*Bel logic either.
Does this mean that after the 415/510 split, we'll be getting free
unlimited calls to a _different area code_ if we have flat-rate
service, and are calling back and forth from SF to the East Bay?  Does
that happen anywhere else?


Bill Woodcock   BMUG NetAdmin
[e-mail]
2355.virginia.st..berkeley.ca.94709.1315


[Moderator's Note: Although we do not get flat-rate service, we do get
untimed local calls within an eight-mile radius for about four cents
each. Many subscribers have a mix of 312/708 in their local area, and
I think Centel gives their Park Ridge/Des Plaines customers flat rate
unlimited service into IBT's Chicago-Newcastle and Chicago-Ohare COs.
Also, the far south side of Chicago (312) and the extreme northeast
corner of the southern suburbs (708) get local untimed calls back and
forth to each other as well as to selected places in 219; ie, Hammond/
Whiting.  PAT]

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

Date: 2-JUN-1991 15:37:55.87
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Harrassment at Airport Security


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

> I've always wondered what they do with laptops that require AC
> power to operate.  Is there a three-prong AC plug at the security
> station?

There certainly was one at the security station that wanted to check
out the little immersion heater I carry for boiling water to brew tea
in motels in strange towns -- when I pointed out that the heater would
quickly self-destruct if it were not immersed in water while plugged
in, the agent concerned with me had a colleague dutifully fetch some
water, too.  There's no end of conveniences available at those
stations :-) .


Fred <[e-mail]>  or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com>

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

Date: Sun, 02 Jun 91 16:30:38 EDT
From: Rick Broadhead <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus


In Vol. 11, Issue 413, [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
writes:

> Were you calling a commercial establishment?  A college dorm or campus?
> Some other place where you were dialing directly to an extension of a large
> private network?

To answer your question: I heard the double-ring when calling the
"Management Services" department at Toronto City Hall.


Rick Broadhead   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 16:18:19 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire


Steve Gaarder writes:

> [ Pat, concerning your suggestion of going underground: A reasonable
> thing to suggest, since you live in the Midwest where the soil is soft
> and sandy.  Here it's heavy clay, and, since it's through the woods,
> full of roots as well.]

Try renting a small drop plow or trencher (ditch witch).  I think I'd
prefer the trencher over a vibratory plow if you think you will run
into roots.

> BTW, I'm also looking for entrance blocks (lightning protectors) or
> sources for same.

Absolutely, if I remember you are going to use the lines for data com
(not RS-232 I hope, at that distance).  Many serial ports use CMOS
chips which are extremely sensitive to static electricity.  Last month
lightning damaged several serial ports on the engineering Sun network
here at Auburn, even though the cable runs were fairly short (but
unshelded).  I think Specialized Products Corp. carries gas discharge
protectors built into a DB25 connector.

As far as wire, I think C-wire (drop wire) is hard to beat if you are
going to use unshelded cable. It can be run overhead or plowed in the
ground.

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Free Teletypes
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 18:56:07 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


[about teletype machines and radio stations]

I know two stories about news TTY's, from different era's, but with
common threads:

1945

{The Cleveland Press}, like any other paper of its time, had many
machines. There was the A wire, the sports, etc. etc.

Well, they sat next to each other in the City Room, and made non-stop
noise. If one was stopped, another three were sure to be running. You
just ignored it. If the circuits died, they ran 'open' (clacking but
not printing anything) until the loop was fixed.

But late that summer, they ALL stopped at once. Dead. The silence was
so profound that everyone in the building knew about it at once.
Silence continued. After an interval described by one there as
"seemingly hours later" but likely only a minute or so, they ALL
restarted with the same message -- the war was over.

1970's.

At a classical music station of some fame, located on a river with the
same name as the Prince of Wales (hint;-}) the machine sat way in the
back of the station, in a semi-soundproof phonebooth sized chamber.

Now, news is not the forte of classical music stations. If fact, if it
were not for some FCC rule I'm sure John Hignon can quote, they'd do
away with it entirely. So for the three daily newscasts, the 'voice'
would run back, rip off the previous four + hours of stuff, and choose
an article or two. Of course, you got time for this task at about 30
seconds before the hour ;_]

But that day, somebody at Cheyenne Mountain had loaded and fed, not
the weekly NORAD test tape, but the WAR! one. Confusion reigned across
the US as the wrong code was used to cancel the bogus message. Some
stations ignored it. Others followed the law and went off the air
ASAP. The lead station in "our fair city" [the one that the others
have CONALRAD receivers tuned to] choose to ignore it. It took hours
to straighten out.

Can you imagine the look on the personality who finds a forest of
paper on the machine, most of which indicates that the USA has been at
war for four + hours, and Wxxx is still on the air? Gulp.


[e-mail]     (305) 255-RTFM

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #418
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03204;
          3 Jun 91 23:49 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24463;
          3 Jun 91 20:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30616;
          3 Jun 91 19:49 CDT
Date:     Mon, 3 Jun 91 19:46:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #419
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 3 Jun 91 19:45:45 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 419

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Surprise!! [John Higdon]
    Re: Surprise!! [Roger Fajman]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Steve Bellovin]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Skip Collins]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [A. Satish Pai]
    Re: Did Western Electric Also Make Sound Recordings? [Scott Dorsey]
    Re: Homebrew Networking [Brad Hicks]
    Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Bill Nickless]
    Re: Two Beepers, One Number [Darren Alex Griffiths]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 20:14 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Surprise!!


Brian Gordon <[e-mail]> writes:

> The bad news is that, without notice, the "permissive" 1-plus dialing
> has stopped working.

This is a programming problem in your individual CO. There would be no
reason to block the permissive '1' in calling long distance. A '1' is
still permitted (but not required) from my 408 telephones.

Bill Woodcock <[e-mail]> writes:

> Yeah, I just can't get enough of that great Pac*Bel logic either.
> Does this mean that after the 415/510 split, we'll be getting free
> unlimited calls to a _different area code_ if we have flat-rate
> service, and are calling back and forth from SF to the East Bay?  Does
> that happen anywhere else?

Frequently. As a matter of fact, Mountain View and Los Altos (415) are
Zone 1 (local) to San Jose 2 (408). Southern Fremont (415) is local to
San Jose 1 (408). In both cases, the full ten (or eleven in the case
of calls from 415) digits must be dialed to complete a LOCAL call. And
yes, if you have unmeasured residence service the call is free.

This also is the case in many places in the Los Angeles area, and in
many other places around the country, as Pat suggests.


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

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 91  19:24:33 EDT
Subject: Re: Surprise!!


> Yeah, I just can't get enough of that great Pac*Bel logic either.
> Does this mean that after the 415/510 split, we'll be getting free
> unlimited calls to a _different area code_ if we have flat-rate
> service, and are calling back and forth from SF to the East Bay?  Does
> that happen anywhere else?

Here in the Washington, DC, area we have flat rate local calling among
three area codes (202, 301, 703).  We also have a quite large local
calling area centered around DC and including much of the Maryland and
Virginia suburbs.  Unfortunately, it is flattened in the northwest and
so does not include my home in Ashton, MD.  :-( However, when the 301
area code splits, I will be able to dial local calls to three area
codes from there too.

Here we now have to dial the area code in front of a local call to
another area code.  When that went into effect, a 1 in front of the
area code would not be accepted.  However, I just tried a few calls
and found that the 1 seems to be optional now.  I also found that I
could also prefix a local call in my own area code with 1 and the area
code, which also did not work before.  I was doing this from a Centrex
line on the 301-402 exchange.  It might work differently elsewhere.


Roger Fajman                       Telephone:  [phone]
National Institutes of Health      BITNET:     RAF@NIHCU
Bethesda, Maryland, USA            Internet:   [e-mail]

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

From: Steve Bellovin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Date: 3 Jun 91 20:10:32 GMT
Reply-To: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Douglas Scott Reuben) writes:

> So does this mean that we will all need to know at least *two* PIN
> numbers now?

> And how is everyone supposed to know that "If it's a local call use my
> BOC card, while if it's an inter-LATA call use my AT&T card"? How many
> people actually can tell in advance what is a intra- compared to an
> inter-LATA call?

Caveat: this is not authoritative, but I did ask somebody about this.

Right now, the LECs supply card verification services to the IECs.
With the new cards, that relationship will be reversed.  AT&T will
supply card verification service to the LECs for an intra-LATA call
billed to an AT&T Card.  This is already being done by the Universal
Card people.  You can bill intra-LATA calls to your Universal Card,
but without the 10% discount applied to AT&T calls.

Note that AT&T will *NOT* be providing card verification to other
interexchange carriers.  This should deal with the oft-expressed
concerns of our customers that they not be billed by an AOS for calls
placed on an AT&T Card.

I hope this sets your mind at ease.

> Now I don't consider my friends, parents, and relatives to be all that
> ignorant on how to use a telephone, but I just can't see how THIS is
> going to be explained to them by AT&T and/or the BOCs.  AT&T and the
> BOCs sure didn't do a good job when it came to warning people about
> AOSs until quite late in the game; I am wondering how much more
> confusion this nonsense will cause.

Tell them to use their AT&T Card.  Period.


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: Skip Collins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Date: 3 Jun 91 19:30:03 GMT
Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD


[e-mail] (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes:

> So does this mean that we will all need to know at least *two* PIN
> numbers now?

Why don't the telephone companies allow customers to *choose* their
own PINs, as some banks now do for their ATM cards.  More than one
sequence of 14 digits would be hard for many people to remember.  If
it is illegal for local and long-distance carriers to exchange and
coordinate such matters, why aren't consumers given the option to make
their own lives simpler?  Just a thought.


Skip Collins, [e-mail]

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

From: "A. Satish Pai" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Reply-To: "A. Satish Pai" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven CT 06520, USA
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 15:46:34 GMT


[Brian = [e-mail] (Brian Charles Kohn).
SE = someone else.]

SE> "When it arrives, you'll notice that your new card looks different.
SE> It even has a DIFFERENT ACCOUNT NUMBER FROM YOUR CURRENT AT&T CARD.
SE> (Emphasis added).  In order to comply with government requirements,
SE> AT&T is no longer sharing card numbers with your local telephone
SE> company. Now, AT&T is issuing new card numbers that are exclusive to
SE> AT&T."

SE> So does this mean that we will all need to know at least *two* PIN
SE> numbers now?

Brian> Actually ... the new calling card number will be different from
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Brian> your phone number.  It will be a new 14 digit number to
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Brian> remember.

I don't understand the above statement.

My Calling Card (issued two years ago) has a number that is not my
home or other phone number (in fact I didn't have residential phone
service when I applied for the card). I've seen promotional literature
from AT&T saying explicitly that you don't need to have a phone number
of your own to get the card.

And the number has 14 digits, too (except that they're all on the
card, there is no PIN, unlike the Universal Card).

So what's the difference from the older cards?

One thing different that I _have_ seen (in pictures of the new card in
ads) is that the "international number" seems to have an extra six
digits prefixed to it compared to the one on the older cards, and
there is a two-digit "authorization code" also on the card. Since I
haven't got any notification from AT&T about my Calling Card, I
presume that I can still use my card according to the instructions I
received when I got it. Does this mean, then, that there are actually
two different ways of calling internationally with AT&T cards? What
are the extra digits there for on the newer cards?


Satish

Internet: [e-mail]                       | A. Satish Pai
UUCP:     ...!{uunet,harvard,decvax,ucbvax}!yale!pai   |
Bitnet:   Pai@YaleCS                                   | [phone] [Off.]
Mail:     Box 2158, Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520  | [phone] [Res.]

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

From: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did Western Electric Also Make Sound Recordings?
Reply-To: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 13:01:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(William M. Hawkins) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 416, Message 8 of 8

> I just returned from a visit to the Pavek Wireless Museum in a suburb
> of Minneapolis.  It's a three year old museum with a major collection
> of wireless stuff.  It also contains a Vitaphone Lathe, dated 1926,
> with a model number of WE D85249 (yes, it looks like a serial number,
> but that was on another plate).  A single motor drives the turntable
> from one end and the lathe screw from the other.  The placard says
> that Selsyns were used to couple the camera and the recording lathe.
> Selsyns are back to back three phase synchronous motors.  Well, the
> transmitter is a generator and the receiver is a motor.  So, that's
> how they synchronized sound and picture.  Still, I didn't think a
> director could make a film a reel at a time, without cutting and
> splicing.  Something had to be used for sound editing, to go with the
> film editing.

Yup.  The projector actually had mechanical coupling, but the
recording was done with a selsyn arrangement.  Some of the earlier
Vitaphone lathes just had a 60 Hz synchronous motor which would
synchronize with the indentical motor on the camera, by virtue of
their being on the same power line.  Because the loads were different,
though, the motor slip was different and they didn't stay synched too
well.

Sound editing was done with a bank of synchronized turntables, a
mixer, and a synchronized cutting lathe.  Scenes would be shot with
three cameras all synched together, and the film edited seperately,
but maintaining the same length and pattern so that the edited film
would stay in synch with the sound.  Often scenes really would last
for a full reel, and the scenes were shot all in one take with no
editing within.

> The placard also said the lathe cut a 17.5 inch disk, which was used
> to press 16 inch copies.  The disk on the turntable looked like metal,
> and the head looked like it could dig a serious groove in the metal.
> The 'card also said 33 RPM.  Maybe they dropped the third of an RPM.

The disk was a sheet of aluminum with a nitrate or acetate coating on
it.  There are also some glass transcription discs out there with
similar coatings, though I don't believe they were used for Vitaphone.

Makes me glad I live in the 1990's, with my nifty Nagra.  Or is this
the 1960's?  Something like that.


scott

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

Date: 03 Jun 91 10:16:59 EDT
From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Homebrew Networking


> Is this illegal? ...  Will they eventually get really p-o'ed at me?

This exact question came up in the news less than a year ago, less
than a hundred miles from me.  A guy in central Missouri figured out a
deal by which he could get lower intraLATA rates by hopscotching once,
and set himself up to do it.  Then he got REALLY creative: he put some
kind of multiplexor on each end so that up to eight conversations
could ride the same circuit, and "sold" access to the other seven
pseudo-circuites, openly and publicly, to people in his part of the
state.  The savings for them was something like 30% or 50% off of
standard intraLATA charges from SWBT.

When they finally caught on to this (the mills of bureaucracy grind
slowly), Southwestern Bell gave birth to a porcupine with all
attendant sound effects, and hit the guy with about a dozen lawyers.
If memory serves, the final settlement gave them the right to charge
him enough extra to make it uneconomical, but not the right to recover
damages.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Almost all of the above is from dim memory.  To get an
accurate account, call the St. Louis Post-Disposal (excuse me,
Post-Dispatch) or the St. Louis Riverfront Slimes (excuse me, Times)
and ask them for a copy of their articles on the subject.  (Front page
stuff in both papers.)  It's late, and I don't have a phone book
handy; you can get both numbers from [phone], of course.  Or
maybe somebody here knows the full story?


[For direct replies, save me a lot of money and use
[e-mail]; CI$ is just easier for me to hit via the company
QuickMail system.]

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

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 11:09:06 CDT
From: Bill Nickless <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire


When you find the right wire and tools and get ready to do the job,
don't forget to contact the appropriate utilities so they can tell you
where the 25 kilovolt electric main is buried on your property, or the
128-fiber AT&T AT&T Long Lines trunk.


Bill Nickless     [e-mail] or [e-mail]
                  [phone] or [phone]

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

From: Darren Alex Griffiths <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two Beepers, One Number
Date: 3 Jun 91 15:09:40 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


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

> I own two Motorola digital pagers type BPR2000 Model A03BGB4661C.  One
> of them is currently receiving messages from a local beeper provider
> and the other one is not.

> The serial number seems to be contained on a long white plug in chip
> that is labeled "Motorola Permacode Code Plug".

> Is there any way to reprogram this chip or to purchase a new chip that
> matches the number of my other beeper?

Ick, I'm don't believe that is the most elegant way of solving the
problem.  I've had to deal with similar situations many times and
normally you can call the provider and they will make a small change
to flag both beepers during a call.  The company I use makes this type
of change free of charge and the cost would be the rental of two
beepers plus one phone number.  I suppose it would be even cheaper if
you own the beepers.

I also find it useful to have multiple numbers on one beeper.  For
example, I currently have a voice mail/pager system on one number, I
primarily use this for personal stuff, and two seperate numbers that
I've given to my two biggest clients.  The advantage of this is that
each number also has a different letter illuminated (the A B C D at
the bottom of most Motorola pagers) so I have a pretty good idea who
is paging me.  All of this costs about $22 a month, including pager
rental, which seems cheap to me.

I suppose the next step would to get an alphanumeric pager and have my
computer send the subject line of each mail message I receive to it,
although there is a such a thing as being to available.


Cheers,

darren alex griffiths        [phone]            [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #419
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05276;
          4 Jun 91 0:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21480;
          3 Jun 91 23:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31956;
          3 Jun 91 21:56 CDT
Date:     Mon, 3 Jun 91 21:34:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #420
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 3 Jun 91 20:34:30 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 420

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MCI $20 Promotion [John Higdon]
    Re: MCI $20 Promotion [Rob Stampfli]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone [Robert L. Oliver]
    Re: Two Beepers, One Number [John A. Weeks III]
    Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security [Steven King]
    Re: PacBell Does Something Right [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    Re: PacBell Does Something Right [John Higdon]
    Re: Surprise!! [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: Cellular Modems [Ron Dippold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 00:06 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: MCI $20 Promotion


Rick Anderson <asuvax!gtephx![e-mail]> writes:

> My question to the net: is it legally feasible to cross out this
> endorsement message, sign the check, collect the $20, and then legally
> expect to not be switched over to MCI??

If you want to be extra sleazy (and let your conscience be your
guide), the following scam will work and will not cost you any money.
It assumes existing service with PacBell and AT&T (mileage with other
providers may vary ...)

First, notify PacBell that you suspect that MCI is about to slam your
service. A note will go into your records that you made the call and
the normal charges to switch the account (in case the "slamming"
occurs) will be waived. Then call AT&T and tell them the same thing.
AT&T will for some fixed period repeatedly place PIC orders, changing
your service back to AT&T. If it already is AT&T, the order is
ignored.  If not (and is MCI), your PIC will be switched back to AT&T.
You will not be charged by PacBell because of the previous call the
that business office.

How do I know this will work? Recently, I had some dealings with a
reseller who I expected to pull just such a trick (change my PIC). I
called PacBell, who said that while nothing could be done to stop
such an order, a note could be made in my records to allow the
switches of the PIC without charge. At the same time, AT&T offered to
repeatedly put through PIC change orders to specify AT&T. I was told
to check for PIC and if I found that it was changed to call AT&T or
PacBell immediately.

> I realize they will probably switch you over regardless of what you
> do, but by crossing out the endorsement message, haven't you taken
> away the "ok" for them to switch you over?

Remember, there is nothing to stop you from switching back, unless the
"contract" states that acceptance of the money requires you to
languish with MCI for some period of time.


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

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

From: Rob Stampfli <colnet![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI $20 Promotion
Organization: Little to None
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 03:26:49 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: As soon as you cross out the special endorsement
> you no longer have the right to cash the check which was issued as
> payment for your having given permission to change your phones. When
> you withheld your permission, you had no right to the money. And
> please, no one needs to reply saying 'you have the right to keep
> things of value which arrive in the mail unsolicited'. This was not
> 'something of value'. It was a contract they were requesting you to
> sign in exchange for immediate payment for doing so.  Big difference.  PAT]

Pat,

Put the shoe on the other foot: Suppose I wrote on the back of a check
to MCI, in payment of a regular monthly bill: "By depositing this
check, MCI agrees, for the value received, to provide the issuer of
said check with phone service for the rest of his natural life, with
no additional charges to be incurred."  Are you really saying that if
MCI should happen to not catch this and cashes the check, that they
have entered into this contract?  And if they do catch it, cross out
the verbage and deposit the check anyway, are they guilty of some
heinous crime?  Then, what makes you or I different from MCI?

I am not a lawyer, and neither are you.  I have tried very diligently
to get an answer to this question (not related to the MCI offer,
incidently) and the best that I could ascertain was that it is far
from a clearly defined point of contract law.  I may morally agree
with what you say, but I don't believe it would make a strong case in
a court of law.


Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, [e-mail]
(osu-cis!kd8wk!res), [e-mail]

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

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
Date: 3 Jun 91 18:30:21 GMT
Reply-To: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rick
Broadhead) writes:

> [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]

He might have hit a PBX or Centrex that uses a double ring to indicate
an outside call.  Having moved around the Joisey locations of Bell
Labs quite a bit, I've encountered this feature in ESSX (a centrex),
Dimension, and System 85.


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: "Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone
Organization: Rabbit Software Corp.
Date:  3 Jun 91 22:49:55 GMT


[e-mail] (Brian Kantor) writes:

> Ken Oberman wondered when COs would stop supporting pulse-dial
> (rotary) phones.  Well, PBX's already have; the UCSD Ericsson MD-110
> will not allow an extension phone to pulse-dial any number with a "1"
> (one) in it -- it interprets the single pulse as a switchhook flash and
> gives you a fresh dialtone.

Sounds like a misconfiguration or a bug in the Ericsson to me.  The
switch should be able to tell the difference between a 1 and a flash.
Further, you imply that OTHER numbers can be pulse dialled, indicating
that pulse dialing IS supported.  I suspect that the person who
configured your Ericsson figured that no pulse phones would be used,
and they set the flash interval so small that it cannot be
distinguished from a 1 (our old ITT 3100 PBX could be so configured).
It makes flashing easier: you don't have that annoying problem of
trying to flash but realizing that you haven't held the hook down long
enough.  Used to happen to me all the time until I convinced our ITT
maintenance people to change the flash interval; it was ridiculously
high.

Never encountered these problems with our current AT&T System 25.  The
defaults are apparently just right.


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

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

From: "John A. Weeks III" <newave![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two Beepers, One Number
Date:     Mon, 3 Jun 1991 17:10:46 -0500
Reply-To: "John A. Weeks III" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Eden Prairie, MN


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

> The units are identical in every way (including frequency) except for
> the serial number.  I would like to have both units beep when the
> signal comes in so that I could carry one unit and my partner could
> carry the other.  Only one of us would be on call at any given time,
> but it would be nice to not have to pass the unit back and forth
> constantly.

As long as you expect to pay for service for two pagers and not just
one, I am sure that your paging service would be more than happy make
this change for you.

> The serial number seems to be contained on a long white plug in chip
> that is labeled "Motorola Permacode Code Plug".

The permacode sets the code that the page will respond to.  These are
replacable parts, and most pager service centers and many paging
services carry spare code plugs, but few carry duplicate code plugs.
You would end up having to order a new code plug.  Expect to spend
$100 or so for the new code plug.  If your paging service has two
duplicate code plugs of a different code, it might end up cheaper to
change both pagers to a new code.


John A. Weeks III               [phone]             [e-mail]
NeWave Communications, Ltd.                        ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security
Date: 3 Jun 91 19:31:48 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group, Arlington Hgts IL


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

> (Not that I expect anyone here to have any difficulty finding some
> inessential space in a portable computer if they wented to create a
> "working" bomb.)

My feelings exactly.  I've had to travel with a reasonably large
(about 50 pounds with case) HP analyzer at times.  When I bring it as
a carry-on item airport security invariably wants me to unpack it and
turn it on.  I know that there's LOTS of room in there to fit
exposives and a timer and still have the thing perform as advertised.

Oddly, on a trip to Israel (you know, terrorism central?) last month I
brought the analyzer as checked baggage.  On the Chicago -> Zurich leg
they took it no questions asked.  (And I specifically told them, "This
is computer equipment.  PLEASE DON'T X-RAY IT!"  Dunno if they did or
not, but it still worked when I got there so I don't really care. :-)
For the Zurich -> Tel Aviv leg all luggage had to be re-checked, and
on that one they had me unpack the analyzer so they could run some
sort of explosives sniffer over it.  No one ever asked me to actually
turn it on, though.  (Good thing.  I later found out I was missing the
fuse needed for 220V AC.)


Steven King, Motorola Cellular  (...uunet!motcid!king)

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 15:48:31 PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PacBell Does Something Right


You're lucky. I had to really work hard to convince the installers
that they should rip out several generations of interface boxes and
clean it all up with a six-line box for me and a two-line box for the
guy downstairs (we share a garage in which the boxes are located).

The installers told me that while it is in the company's interest to
introduce the new telephone network interface boxes as much as
possible, it is *not* in the installers' interest, as the nifty new
boxes reduce service calls for which these guys get paid.

One bad thing that they did do and I did not discover until after they
were done: In order to get all my lines installed they had to pull out
the existing five-pair underground cable and replace it with two
five-pair cables (or so I thought). Since the conduit was so tight (it
took them five hours to pull the 60 feet or so to the nearest pole)
they "cheated" and intstalled a three-pair plus a five-pair. I have
six lines, the other guy has two. 3 + 5 = 8 and 6 + 2 = 8, so now
there is no room for expansion!


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report
Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040,
Phone: [phone]  FAX: [phone]  Email: [e-mail]
Direct: [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 20:23 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: PacBell Does Something Right


Donald Ekman <[e-mail]> writes:

> It took exactly five minutes to connect my modem to the new line, and
> another two minutes to test the whole thing.  Pac Bell, for once, did
> something right.  You see this, John Higdon?  :-)

Yes, it certainly makes perfect sense for PacBell to remove your old
drop, replace it with two-line overhead drop, and install a modern
demark when you added ONE (1) line. On the other hand, it also
apparently makes sense to the powers that be at PacBell to have an
entire corner of my house covered with six types of protectors and ten
haphazard single-line drops feeding them.

A recently suggested theory is that this is PacBell's infliction of
punishment for my having so many lines. Now for $300/month, it could
all be provided on T1. Hmmmm .... could it be a sales pressure tactic?


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

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Surprise!!
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 03:29:55 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Although we do not get flat-rate service, we do get
> untimed local calls within an eight-mile radius for about four cents
> each.

Does this mean that the telco has the exact geographic co-ords for
each phone number so that a call to one house [(abc) def 1234] is
untimed but a call to another house on the same exchange but > eight
miles away [(abc) def 1235] is timed?

Or is it based on distances between exchanges so that if you are lucky
you could be further apart as long as the two exchanges in question
were within eight miles of each other?

Our local calls are untimed (22c soon to be 24c) and can reach 30km to
the north and south but only 5km to the east and 10km to the west (the
Pacific Ocean and Illawarra Coastal Ranges get in the way) from my
home. This is based on exchange districts - calls to your own district
or an adjacent one are local.

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


[Moderator's Note: They measure from one central office to another, as
the crow flies. Any central offices within eight miles of the central
office serving you in any direction make up your local calling area.
I get a smaller area here since I am two miles west of Lake Michigan.
I cannot call eight miles east!  But my eight miles north gets me into
Glencoe, IL. To the northwest, Skokie and Niles. West to the Chicago
central offices of Kildare, Irving, Merrimac and Newcastle. South to
the Chicago central offices of Lakeview, Superior, Illinois-Dearborn.
Directly southeast of me is Chicago-Edgewater. 'My' CO is Rogers Park.
There might be 10-11 miles between subscribers if both are at the
outer edges of their own district. The plan here is fair to all.  PAT]

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

From: Ron Dippold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Modems
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 22:01:08 GMT


On the subject of cellular modems and laptops, I've run into something
that others might have encountered a fix for.  It seems the
high-powered laptops such as the Toshiba 5200 don't have any provision
for running off of a 12-V DC input.  I can imagine that your typical
low-power 12-V input might be insufficient to run something like this,
with a hard drive, 16 megs of memory, 25 MHz 386, VGA screen, etc.
However, we need something that powerful (and we need the slots).
Seeing as how a car battery can provide a substantial amount of power,
I was wondering if anyone knew of any product that would allow us to
run something like this off of the car's lighter jack, or even to hook
directly to the battery if necessary.  Or of any portable with that
much power and a slot that you can take along with your cellular
phone.


Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks.  | Ron Dippold

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #420
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07936;
          4 Jun 91 1:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19671;
          4 Jun 91 0:10 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac21480;
          3 Jun 91 23:03 CDT
Date:     Mon, 3 Jun 91 22:33:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #421
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 3 Jun 91 22:33:01 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 421

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings? [John Higdon]
    Re: 900 Numbers and Privacy [Tom Perrine]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Movie Review: The President's Analyst [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    CORNET (was AT&T Announces New 800 Number) [Andy Sherman]
    Looking For Ringback Number [Rick Broadhead]
    Telecom References in Movies (Was The President's Analyst) [Dennis Pratt]
    Caller ID in the UK [Scott A. McIntyre]
    Telecom and Nixpub Systems Questions in Great Britain [Kai-Uwe Herbing]
    Markey Bill on Telemarketing [Robert Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
Date: 3 Jun 91 21:47:37 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA



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

> Fred R. Goldstein writes:

>> 2) The No. 1 Crossbar generated double ring on some numbers.  Few are
>> left in service but 703 is PacBell so there may be a few left ...

> What? Did I read that right? Last time I was in the Commonwealth of
> Virginia, the RBOC was the descendent of C&P. ---

Mea Culpa.  I read "704" instad of "703" and thought about oranges,
talking mice, and various other fruits and nuts who hang out in
PacBell land.

I doubt that Virginia has any 1XB's left.  But I may be wrong.


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: Sun, 2 Jun 91 22:44 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Did Western Electric Also Produce Sound Recordings?


George Horwath <motcid![e-mail]> writes:

> finally marketed it as the graphophone. This was the device that
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
> [Moderator's Note: Did you mean 'gramaphone'?  PAT]

No, this is not a typo. Several reference works talk about the
'graphophone'. This is understandably confusing.

By the way, things like this have been appearing at the end of some
digests:

> ^A^A^A^A

Are they the result of your new 'modemphone'?


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


[Moderator's Note: The four control-A's which appeared at the end of
the re-transmission of issues 410-411-412 were inadvertently
forgotten. I sent the remailing from the archives copies, and the
symbols there mark the end and start of each issue.  Sorry.   PAT]

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

From: Tom Perrine <tots!tots.Logicon.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Numbers and Privacy
Date: 3 Jun 91 22:44:28 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
Gast) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 413, Message 2 of 13

> Someone wrote yesterday:

>> 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."

> Finally, I am curious about the nine closest neighbors.  My guess is
> that it is nine numbers close by, probably arranged by address.  I
> doubt that US Sprint actually has detailed maps indicating the
> location and configuration of every apartment and house on every plot
> of land.  It would be interesting to know who my nine closest
> neighbors are or even the nine closest neighbors of my parents.  Where
> do they measure from?  Where the phone enters the building?  The
> center of the property?  All in all, I would estimate that Sprint is
> exaggerating its claims again.  At least, I hope they do not have
> these detailed maps.

One very simple way to find your "nine-closest neighbors" is by using
ZIP + 4.

I discovered this while extensively researching privacy issues
(killing time while waiting in the Post Office line).

I saw the new ZIP + 4 directory, and decided to look up my address and
see just how close someone could match me, based on only my ZIP + 4.

I discovered that I share a ZIP + 4 with *one* neighbor. When I saw
this, I skimmed through the book and noticed that in most instances,
it appeared that there where no more than 8-12 addresses to a ZIP + 4.

I live on a fairly generic street of single-family homes in a city
(Poway) which is adjacent to San Diego. I do not know how ZIP + 4
deals with high-occupancy buildings, but I suspect that a ZIP + 4
could be set up to handle one or more floors of a single building.

(Actually, I seem to recall that ZIP + 4s are grouped together to form
the routes that the Post Office assigns to letter carriers.)

I suspect that your "nine-closest neighbors" share your ZIP + 4, or
are otherwise matched from adjacent ZIP + 4s.


Tom Perrine (tep)   |Internet: [e-mail] |Voice: [phone]
Logicon - T&TSD     | UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep     |  or : [phone]
P.O. Box 85158      |GENIE: T.PERRINE               |  FAX: [phone]
San Diego CA 92138

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Date: 4 Jun 91 02:14:03 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> "A. Satish Pai" <Pai-Satish@
cs.yale.edu> writes:

> My Calling Card (issued two years ago) has a number that is not my
> home or other phone number (in fact I didn't have residential phone
> service when I applied for the card). I've seen promotional literature
> from AT&T saying explicitly that you don't need to have a phone number
> of your own to get the card.

[stuff deleted]

> So what's the difference from the older cards?

> One thing different that I _have_ seen (in pictures of the new card in
> ads) is that the "international number" seems to have an extra six
> digits prefixed to it compared to the one on the older cards, and
> there is a two-digit "authorization code" also on the card. Since I
> haven't got any notification from AT&T about my Calling Card, I

The difference is that the old non-subscriber cards are issued in area
code 507 and 508 with a exchange that is inposible (starting with a 0
or 1) and are handled through various BOC's, I had one that was billed
by Cincinatti Bell a few years ago. They provided verification for
the AT&T to the LEC's. The new cards start with a 83x where x is a 6
or 8. The international part of the number is 891253 xxx xxxx xxxx x
xx the 89 is the internation standard for phone card the 1 is for the
North America country code. The 253 id's it as a AT&T card the xxx
xxx xxxx is the same as the US version. The x xx are additional
verification numbers.

I was surprised that the number 253 was used as Carrier ID and not 288
like the PIC. It would have made more sense to use the PIC's.


Bill


[Moderator's Note: I think all the non-subscriber AT&T cards were
handled by Cincinatti Bell for many years ... maybe still.    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 09:46 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Movie Review: The President's Analyst


        In Digest v11iss418, Rob Boudrie <[e-mail]>
describes the closing scenes of a film that ought to be in the
curriculum of every student of telecommunications.  Rob asks for
recall of earlier scenes, all of which probably run on and on to the
casual viewer.

        The earlier scenes do, however all build the thread that the
world has some all-pervading, all-knowing super spy organization
called TPC.  Because the President's analyst knows what's on the mind
of the President of the U.S., every spy organization wants to capture
him for interrogation.

        For most of the film, James Coburn (the actor who portrayed
"Our Man Flint" in a number of 007 spoof films) is chased, captured
and escapes from every major spy organization in the world.

        Through all this plot-building, no matter where Coburn is, on
land, at sea (indeed at one time under it in a Russian sub) or in the
air while being chased by one spy service after another, he is under
constant color video and audio surveillance by TPC.  Truly, TPC has
telecommunications ability equalled by no other organization on the
planet.

        But, threaded through every adventure the President's analyst
embarks on is a non-stop series of "telephone gags."  Many of these
are "inside jokes," hilarious to anyone who was ever inside the
monopoly U.S. telephone esablishment; perhaps puzzling and boring to
a non-initiate.

        Among the more obvious gags are a scene in the Washington bar
where spies of all nations meet for a drink at the end of a hard day.
Each has to check in with their respective national HQ, comparing
notes about how rotten the phone company is in their home nation.  In
the scene Rob mentions, the President's analyst has finally escaped
bearing nothing but but his undershorts, and finds himself along a
road through open Canadian wheat fields - with nothing in view but a
telephone booth.  His attempts to place a collect call to the White
House, but lacking the demanded coin the idiotic operator is only
going to return after taking the call order, are the penultimate
example of Lily Tomlin's "Ernestine the Operator."

        Whoever the author of "The President's Analyst" was, that
person certainly had to be "on the inside" in the bad old days of the
monopoly era of telecommunications.  Today, it can be found in the
"oldies and classics" section of many video rental stores for a very
low rental price.

        I heartily recommend viewing this film to every serious
student of telecommunications as a very entertaining object lesson in
what the study all came from.  It's a great way to pick up on what the
cognoscenti are talking about here in the Digest!

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

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: CORNET (was Re: AT&T Announces New Technical Reference 800 Number)
Date: 3 Jun 91 18:51:15 GMT
Reply-To: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ


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

>         A quick, simple question: what is Cornet?

> [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]

CORNET is on the way out.  At most locations it's already been
replaced with a Software Defined Network (SDN).  You dial
1+NPA+NXX+xxxx and some other magic routes the call.  Most locations
have switched over some time ago.

There are chargebacks for SDN calls, since the business unit that
provides the service sure wants the revenue shifted from *your* books
to *its* books.


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!

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

Date: Sun, 02 Jun 91 17:00:57 EDT
From: Rick Broadhead <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For Ringback Number


Pat:

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate question for the list, but I'm
looking for the telephone number that will cause my own telephone to
ring (there must be an acronym to describe such a number, but I don't
know what it is).

The number used to be 41091 but then the telephone company changed the
switching equipment for my exchange (487), and now, dialing that
number generates a "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed as
dialed...." announcement.

Dialing 57 + the last five digits of your phone number seems to work
on almost every exchange but my own.  I expected that once my exchange
had been serviced, I would be able to use this method like everyone
else.  But, dialing 57 + the last five digits of my own phone number
brings "You have dialed a number to which long distance charges
apply...."

Obviously, I can't ask Bell for the number.  Do you have any idea how
I'd go ab out looking for it (I'm in 416)?

Thanks.


Rick Broadhead
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The ringback number varies from one community to
the next. There is no set rule. Maybe someone in area 416 reading this
who knows the answer will write you direct.    PAT]

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

From: Dennis Pratt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom References in Movies (Was: The President's Analyst)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 09:06:30 DST
Organization: GTE Labs, Inc.


Other important telecom aspects of The President's Analyst included:

  * All phone company employees were actually PR robots.
  * The phone company had video bugs planted all over the world.
  * The phone company was more powerful than the KBG, CIA, FBI, etc.

I would like to compile a list of telecom references from popular
movies (and what those references were).

I particularly liked the Cheers episode two years ago in which Robin
Colcord (sp?) phones Cheers from a plane (using, perhaps, GTE Airfone).
The connection was extremely poor, causing a mis-communication, and
leading to the humorous episode.  Sam also implied that Robin used
AirFone only to impress people.

Please email any telecom references from movies that you remember to
[e-mail].


Dennis Pratt
  New Service Modeling Techniques
   Service Concept Design Department
    GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA
     [phone]

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

From: "Scott A. McIntyre" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 14:05:16 BST
Subject: Caller ID in the UK


I was just browsing through a flatmates copy of Cosmopolitan and in
the back, in the advertising section under Personal was a device
called something like the Inquisitor.

Essentially, it's a Caller ID box that displays the area code and
phone number of all incoming calls.  It is also programmable to ignore
calls from certain area codes or precise numbers.  It also boasts a
automatic dialer and a few other widgets.

As far as I am aware, this is the first of these deviced to be on the
UK market.  I would think that it will not be trememdously successful
since most of the UK is not on Tone yet (the device requires it).

If anyone wants any more information, let me know, I'll copy down the
advert and submit it.


Scott

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

From: Kai-Uwe Herbing <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom and Nixpub Systems Questions in Great Britain
Date: 2 Jun 91 12:25:28 GMT
Organization: netmbx, Berlin, Germany


Hey folks,

I am interested to go from Germany to Great Britain and therefore I
research the conditions concerning access to the net.

I would like to know, if there are any nixpub systems in Great
Britain, how high are the prices, the British Telecom charges you pay
per minute (average) and so on.

If this is'nt the right newsgroup to ask all this, please refrain from
flaming me, but direct me to the right one, because I found none
fitting better.

Please respond by e-mail.

Thanks in advance for your help.


Kai-Uwe Herbing | phone [phone]
Strasse 28  D-1000 Berlin 12 | herbing@netmbx
Fed.Rep.of Germany | [e-mail]

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Markey Bill on Telemarketing
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 05:46:14 GMT


Rep. Markey of the House Subcomm. on Telecomm has introduced a bill
that would create a national telemarketing "NO CALLS" list, to which
telemarketers could not make calls without assuming legal liability.
It has been covered in almost every newspaper of record, and chances
of its passage are rated high.  Is anyone on the East Coast tracking
the progress of this bill?  Thanks for your report, if you are.

I drafted an almost identical bill for the CA legislature which passed
in 1989, only to be vetoed by our then-Governor Deukmejian ... so you
know where I stand on this matter.)  :-)


Bob Jacobson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #421
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10513;
          4 Jun 91 2:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09912;
          4 Jun 91 1:18 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac19671;
          4 Jun 91 0:11 CDT
Date:     Mon, 3 Jun 91 23:12:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #422
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 3 Jun 91 23:12:31 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 422

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act (HR1304) [bparrish]
    The FCC Says it Wants to Hear From You! [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Click on Line After First Ring - a New Noise [Andy Rabagliati]
    Funny Ringing Tones in North America [Dave Leibold]
    Underground vs Aerial Plant [Jim Redelfs]
    Inta-LATA Calls by AT&T, and 800 via USA Direct [John R. Covert]
    Mux's For Sale [Glen Lovell]
    Videophones? Telewriters? [Artur Matuck]
    Baud-y Bits (Was That Toddlin' Town Named the Ohm, Too!) [Al Varney]
    950 Carrier Access From Canada [Dave Leibold]
    Re: New Mexico Cell Questions [John R. Covert]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act (HR1304)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 12:57:45 PDT
From: bparrish <[e-mail]>


Re:  HR1304  (Markey) Bill

If anyone is interested in getting a copy of the bill, just give a
call to your congressman ... I did so last week, and have a copy on my
desk right now.

The bill basically sets up a database that telemarketers must query
before calling to sell things ... anyone who wants to can request to
be in the database indicating that they do not wish to receive
unsolicited sales calls.  Much of the text deals with the FCC's
responsibility to figure out how to set up and pay for the database.


Interesting points ...

It includes lots of rules about faxes ...

"Telephone Solicitation" is defined as "the initiation of a telephone
message for the purpose of encouraging a person to purchase, rent, or
invest in property, goods, or services without that person's prior
express invitation or permission".  Note the exclusion of
fund-raising.  Maybe the politicians still want to be able to do it
themselves?

There is a restriction making it unlawful to "...use any automatic
dialing system to make unsolicited calls --

  (A)  To any emergency telephone line or pager of any hospital, medical
  physician or service office, health care facility, or fire protection
  or law enforcement agency;  or

  (B)  to any telephone number assigned to paging or cellular telephone
  service"

Notably missing from this are non-emergency lines in hospitals (i.e.
patient rooms) although I suppose a hospital could list all their
patient rooms on the "restricted" database.  I personally know of a
case of a telemarketeer making a call to a labor room at a local
hospital ... my wife was labor coach for a friend and told the
telemarketer to go soak his head.

Autodialers must state the identity of the company making the call,
and "when technically practible (given the limitations of the
telephone exchange service facilities) after the called party hangs
up, automatically create a disconnect signal or on-hook condition
which allows the called party's line to be released."

The bill is 12 pages long,(double-spaced) and makes pretty interesting
reading.  I personally would prefer that "solicitation" included
fund-raising.  I don't know the status of the bill wrt committees and
whatnot, except what is on the cover "referred to the Committee on
Enery[sic] and Commerce"... but it's kind of fun to finally see
something in writing.


Bill Parrish ([e-mail])  HP Roseville CA

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 01:12 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The FCC Says it Wants to Hear From You!


        The June 1 issue of TE&M has an interesting article on page
18; one that indicaes a route that might be useful to suffering sole
practitioner consultants who need some recognition.  It goes as
follows:

            "FCC COURTING VIEWS FROM NON-D.C. PLAYERS

        "The FCC's first look at `Networks of the Future' won't be
it's last, according to Office of Plans and Policy Chief Robert
Pepper, who is considering how commissiners can get more regular
contact with telecom industry players whose jobs are not wooing
Washington.

        "The commission had an _en_banc_ hearing last month where
technicians and users described how the telecommunications network
will develop, which communications products consmuers want, and what
innovative projects are underway.

        Overriding thems were the increasingly blurry lines among
voice, data, broadcast, cellular andother communications technologies,
and the need for an applications platform similar to that in the
computer industry, so vendors and users who plug into network are
assured of uniform specifications.

        "Pepper says commissioners want to hear more from network
users in the field and especially on ideas about specific
applications.  His office is considering ideas for regular contact
between the FCC and the world outside the Capital Beltway.

        "He agrees that tecnology is blurring the distinction among
communications media, but doesnot see a massive FCC reorganization as
a result.  He concludes however, that the commission `must be flexible
enough to make changes along with technology, including better work
across traditional bureau boundaries." <end of quote from TE&M>

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

        ...This certainly should be an opportunity for anyone with the
gumption to write a letter to Pepper at the FCC's M Street address.

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

From: Andy Rabagliati <[e-mail]>
Subject: Click on Line After First Ring - a New Noise
Organization: SGS-Thomson/Inmos Division
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 05:55:51 GMT


Here in Colorado Springs (US West) I have noticed both on our PBX at
work, and my home phone, that there is a click on the line after the
first ring.

Is this 'shutting out' Caller*Id that I havent paid for?  Turning on
the bug "they" have on me :-) ?


Thanks.  Cheers,  Andy  -  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun,  2 Jun 91 23:48:00 PST
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Funny Ringing Tones in North America
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Regarding the double ringing tone of numbers in 416-392, that prefix
is used by the City of Toronto for municipal services, and presumably
a DID connection to their PBX. 416-393 is for the Metro level of
government in Toronto. Thus, it's the PBX ringing tone that comes
across (and PBX rings are normally faster than your average phone
line).

Not too many years ago, when step-by-step switches dotted the Toronto
landscape, it was possible to get all kinds of error tones depending
on which exchange was dialed. There were sirens for wrong numbers or
invalid prefixes, or there were recordings, or there were many types
of fast busy signals to be had.

With the conversion of just about everything to DMS switches in Bell
Canada territory, everything will soon sound the same.


mail to: [e-mail]

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

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

Date: Sun, 02 Jun 91 20:30:02 CST
From: Jim Redelfs <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Underground vs Aerial Plant
Reply-To: ivgate!macnet![e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


> When I look at old photographs of Chicago, say from the 1900-1920
> era, all I see in the sky are telephone poles and wires running
> everywhere. The wires criss-cross in all directions running up and
> down the streets, etc. And now, telephone poles, while not rare, are
> far less common here. In the downtown area you don't see one for
> blocks at a time. In the residential areas, we have poles in the
> alley behind the houses in many areas, but very few on the main
> streets. They have buried almost everything.

When Northwestern Bell Telephone Company celebrated its centennial
(1979) they published an EXCELLENT book, "Good-bye Central, Hello
World", specially commissioned for the occasion.

In the book was a photograph of downtown Omaha's Harney Street - and
the maze of overhead wires.  As I recall, the poles had TWELVE cross
arms!

In the book it was mentioned that the Omaha City Council passed an
ordinance mandating that NWB have ALL plant UNDERGROUND (between the
Missouri River and 24th Street) by 1935!

One of the things that, as a phoneman, strikes me is when I drive into
Lincoln, NE.  Lincoln Telephone and Telegraph Company STILL has MANY,
major feeder cables hanging in the air along MAIN streets!  Most of
the distribution cables are enshrouded in squirrel-guard.  Heaven only
knows how old the plant under it is!

What galls me is that we spent the last 20-30 years BURYING all (most)
of our plant then, in a couple, short years, CATV hung "it" all back
up there again!


JR
   Tabby 2.2
   MacNet Omaha 402-289-2899 On loan from Mrs MacWidow (1:285/14)

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

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 06:51:57 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  03-Jun-1991 0933" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inta-LATA Calls by AT&T, and 800 via USA Direct


It's time to end some misconceptions.

Some folks have been complaining about AT&T being prevented from
handling Intra-LATA calls when MCI and Sprint are allowed to do so.
This is simply not true.

Whether carriers other than the local telco can carry Intra-LATA
traffic or not is determined on a state-by-state basis by the local
DPU/PUC/PSC/CC.  If the local regulatory authority decides to permit
Intra-LATA competition, each carrier wishing to compete must file a
tariff with the local authorities.

AT&T has chosen not to file tariffs for most kinds of Intra-LATA
service, even where they would be allowed to do so.  In the case of
Massachusetts, AT&T has chosen not to handle Intra-LATA Message
Telephone Service (1+ and 0+ calling), but does handle other kinds of
Intra-LATA service, such as Readyline 800, Megacom, and Software
Defined Network (SDN).

So quit your moaning about AT&T being unfairly picked on.

In re calls to 800 numbers via USA Direct: This is a service that AT&T
has only been providing for about a year now.  So the reports of
people trying a couple of years ago without avail are true, but were
before the service was offered.

To use the service, you must have either an AT&T or local exchange
carrier calling card.  Third number or collect billing is not
possible, nor is billing to any bank or travel and entertainment
cards.

When I used the service almost exactly a year ago from Bermuda, a call
to a fictitious number in Pittsburgh appeared on my bill.  Calling
that number yielded a recording explaining the USA Direct 800 calling
service.  Back then, the USA Direct operator (who can be on a console
anywhere in the country; many of them are in North Carolina), had to
pass the call on to another operator.  Now the software in the normal
Toll Services Positions has been modified so that the first operator
can directly connect the call.

AT&T will provide the service only to AT&T 800 numbers -- this is
because to do otherwise would not only cause people to receive calls
from areas other than those specified in their contracts with
MCI/Sprint or whoever, but would also provide a benefit to their
competition which AT&T seems to consider not to be worth the small
added revenue of handling the call.


john

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

From: Glen Lovell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mux's For Sale
Date: 3 Jun 91 14:51:20 GMT
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF


For Sale !!!

15 (ea) Teltone M-825 T-1 asynch Multiplexers.  Just taken out of
service, excellent condition...

*32 line without modem control
*31 line with modem control
*9600 Baud and below with error-correction
*19200 without error-correction
*T1 lightning protected
*Internal span power for driving repeaters
*1 mile at 26 guage 2 pair shielded without repeaters

Great gear. $ 750 per pair or best offer.

Glen @ [phone]  or  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon,  3 Jun 91 12:20:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Artur Matuck <[e-mail]>
Subject: Videophones? Telewriters?


Does anyone know where to find info to eventually acquire videophones
and telewriters?  I am trying to set up an international art
telecommunication event and I heard some people are already using
those devices.  How do I find them?

Thanks,


Artur Matuck

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

Date: Mon,  3 Jun 91 18:22:20 CDT
From: Al Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Baud-y Bits (Was: That Toddlin' Town Named the Ohm, Too!)
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

 [a lot of stuff about partying in Chicago, but leaves out the details!]

> But be careful: Some units, like the Baud, are used as internationally
> standardized and are capitalized anyway.  However, not only do
> telecomm people almost always write the term Baud incorrectly, they
> typically horrobly misuse it, anyway.  Your 2400 bps modem does NOT
> transmit or receive 2400 "Baud," unless you want to play word games
> about it doing so because it's operating full duplex!  Regardless,
> your 9600 NEVER transmits 9600 "Baud" in any event.)

   Well, NEVER say NEVER!  Don't forget that there are "modems" that
interface to AT&T's digital (DDS) network that really send 9600
"symbols"/second.  The DDS network doesn't convert the user's bits to
analog signals, it instead multiplexes them to a DS0-compatible 56-Kbps
bipolar format, then encodes that into a single 64-Kbps T1 channel.
The receiving end just undoes the multiplexing/encoding.  In the
interest of fairness, I should mention that almost any real carrier
will support private-line or direct-connect service of this type,
including Mr. Kimberlin's company.  Of course, maybe this doesn't fit
your idea of a "modem".

   And I agree the terms "baud" and "Baud" are mis-used by telecom
people, even "horrobly".  The "operator's manual" for my SupraModem
2400(tm) uses "bps" almost everywhere, and even defines 2400 bps as
"600 symbols per second".  But in Appendix A, "Result Codes", the
meaning of "CONNECT 2400" is "Modem has connected at 2400 baud."
Maybe you have to mis-define the code in order to be compatible with
the "industry-standard AT command set"??  What does a Hayes manual
say?


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

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

Date: Sun,  2 Jun 91 23:40:00 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 950 Carrier Access From Canada
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Brian Crawford <[e-mail]> asks:

> Is "950" carrier access available FROM Canada (B.C. specifically)?

The straight 950 prefix (or 10xxx for that matter) doesn't operate in
Canada ... yet. However, that prefix seems to be reserved for eventual
carrier access. Some payphones and switches have been found to treat
the 10xxx syntax properly (though only a recording comes on at this
point).

In the meantime, MCI can be reached from Canada via their 1 800
950.1022 number, while Sprint's 1 800 877.8000 number worked from
Toronto in recent times. These are available only to those who have
active billing with these carriers (such as US residents, or Canadians
who move to Florida :->).

Information about other carriers (Allnet, Metromedia/ITT, etc) is
unknown as I didn't have their 800 access numbers.

U.S.-bound calls seem to default to AT&T when dialing 1+ out of
Canada. At least directory assistance calls to California are greeted
with thanks for using AT&T. Also, payphones that take cards (which are
not too common) will accept AT&T's card, along with Canadian telco
cards, Visa, MC, and Amex. It's a good bet that dialing the card
number (ie. 0 + area code + number <boing> card #) will accept the
AT&T cards.

Now if the CRTC (Canadian regulator) can open up 10xxx at least for
the U.S.- bound calls from Canada. It shouldn't matter to the Telecom
Canada folks once the call crosses the border. The concern seems to be
use of U.S. carriers to make calls from one Canadian point to another,
cutting Bell Canada, Unitel, etc out.

BTW ... does anyone know if the calling number is passed along when a
950 is dialed, or does the carrier completely rely on the called
number and the card number with this?


David Leibold   [e-mail]

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

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

Date: Fri, 31 May 91 11:47:54 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  31-May-1991 1440" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Mexico Cell Questions


> As to the "B"s: Is there a "B" in Santa Fe? No one was sure about
> this, and there was some suggestion made that a new system had been
> set up but no info was available yet. Any word on this?

U.S. West has the license to operate the B system, but have not built
it yet.  Their Albuquerque system reaches to just barely the southern
edge of Santa Fe, they tell me.  For more info, call them on 800-238-7848.


john

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #422
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21177;
          5 Jun 91 4:19 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06402;
          5 Jun 91 2:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31951;
          5 Jun 91 1:32 CDT
Date:     Wed, 5 Jun 91 1:10:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #423
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 5 Jun 91 01:09:59 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 423

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [J. Philip Miller]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Rob Woiccak]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Dave Niebuhr]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Joshua E. Muskovitz]
    Re: MCI $20 Promotion [Mike Riddle]
    Re: MCI $20 Promotion [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Movie Review: The President's Analyst [Scott Dorsey]
    Re: Movie Review: The President's Analyst [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: Cheap 9600 bps Modem [Robert Dinse]
    Re: One City With Two Area Codes [Carl Moore]
    Re: International 800 Access [David Heale]
    Re: Surprise!! [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Key Pads) [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 23:14:06 CDT


Skip Collins <[e-mail]> writes:

> Why don't the telephone companies allow customers to *choose* their
> own PINs, as some banks now do for their ATM cards.

Well at least with the AT&T Universal card, you can change your PIN to
whatever you want.  Just call them and change the one they have
assigned to you.


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 08:16:12 EDT
From: rob woiccak <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?


Skip Collins sez:

> Why don't the telephone companies allow customers to *choose* their
> own PINs, as some banks now do for their ATM cards.

In fact, some do. I called up Bell Atlantic to acquire a calling card
yesterday morning and after going through the rigormorole of supplying
name and number, the operator asked if I wanted to choose a PIN of my
own (the last four digits that is). I was a bit stunned and just
stammered, "um, no, I'll let you do it".


rob woiccak     zengineer -- [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1991 7:33:38 EDT
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?


I recently changed my NYTel PIN (reason unimportant) and found that I
had to select a new four-digit number and give it to a second person.
Not bad.

However, a few days later a card arrived from ATT (my long distance
carrier) with my new PIN on it.  I was curious but didn't pursue the
matter at that point.  A few days after that the new NYTel card
arrived.

The difference between the two is that the ATT card has my full phone
number, PIN and International number whereas the NYTel card has just
the PIN.

I called ATT and asked why I received a new card since I hadn't made
the request to them.  The answer was that the local BOC forwarded the
number to a processor and the third party went ahead and cut two cards
(one ATT and one NYTel).

It seems that these two outfits share the same database for PINs.
However, the ATT operator couldn't answer what would have happened if
I had Sprint, MCI or any other long distance company.


Dave Niebuhr   Brookhaven National Laboratory
    BITnet and Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: What would have happened is you would have received
a different card and a different PIN. Only AT&T and the local telco
share a calling card data base, and AT&T will not be doing with the
local telco much longer.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 09:38:51 EDT
From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?


I've been an MCI customer for years and I've ALWAYS (well, with one
exception noted below) had my MCI calling card be the same first 10
digits of my phone, and then a different PIN from the RBOC.  Makes
sense to me.  All I have to remember is which PIN to use.

The only time this didn't work was after my last move.  The MCI rep
set up my account incorrectly (but issued cards).  After realizing the
mistake, they cancelled service and set it up again (this time
correctly).  This was in a matter of minutes.  But when they went to
issue me a calling card (for the new account), the computer recognised
that a card had been issued for that phone number and instead issued a
scrambled card number.

When I finally got the card, I called MCI and asked about it.  After
about five minutes, they figured out what had happened, cancelled
those cards, and issued me new cards based on my phone number.  Since
I was going on a trip and wouldn't have the new cards in time (and
they couldn't tell me the PIN) they told me to use my RBOC / (ATT) card
and they would reimburse me for the difference in rates, when the bill
came.

All in all, very nice service.  (Although I've had some really bad
service from them, too.)

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

From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI $20 Promotion
Organization: Nebraska Inns of Court
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1991 13:25:48 GMT


In <[e-mail]> colnet![e-mail] (Rob
Stampfli) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: As soon as you cross out the special endorsement
>> you no longer have the right to cash the check which was issued as
>> payment for your having given permission to change your phones.
>> [deleted]

>> It was a contract they were requesting you to
>> sign in exchange for immediate payment for doing so.  Big difference.  PAT]

> I am not a lawyer, and neither are you.  I have tried very diligently
> to get an answer to this question (not related to the MCI offer,
> incidently) and the best that I could ascertain was that it is far
> from a clearly defined point of contract law.  I may morally agree
> with what you say, but I don't believe it would make a strong case in
> a court of law.

Well, I'm a law school graduate but not yet admitted to any state bar,
so I guess this is just going to be over-educated ramblings, but
here's my two cents worth.

The issue of endorsements on the back of checks is subject to the
Uniform Commercial Code and is, as the last poster suggested, not
entirely clear.  "It Depends" is the best answer one can give,
separate from the specific facts in a case.

When I received the MCI offer recently, the qualification was also on
the front of the check and an enclosed letter clearly explained the
offer.  I don't know, of course, if this format was followed anywhere
else, but in my semi-professional opinion, if /I/ had endorsed the
check, I would have been accepting their offer to switch.

Which I didn't, for reasons which will remain my own.

            <<<< 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, 02 Jun 91 18:51:35 CST
From: Jim Redelfs <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI's $20 Promotion
Reply-To: ivgate!macnet![e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


Rick Anderson wrote:

[Regarding MCI's $20 check - the endorsement of which grants them permission
to change your PIC (long distance carrier) to MCI]

> is it legally feasible to cross out this endorsement message, sign
> the check, collect the $20, and then legally expect to not be
> switched over to MCI?

To which Pat replied:

> As soon as you cross out the special endorsement you no longer have
> the right to cash the check which was issued as payment for your
> having given permission to change your phones. When you withheld your
> permission, you had no right to the money.

I agree with that, Pat.

After I (recently) received my check from MCI, I did some thinking -
AND some calling to the US WEST Communications Business Office.

I did not see among the promotional literature that accompanied the
check anything that indicated a TIME constraint - how long one MUST
remain with MCI following the cashing of the check/cutover to MCI.

"We" charge $5 (total) to change a customer's long distance carrier.
I wonder if MCI will allow THE CUSTOMER to pay that charge (out of the
$20 check)?  I assume so.  So the net value of the check is reduced to
$15.

After a period of time, the customer could initiate a PIC-change to
another carrier, incurring yet another $5 charge by the RBOC.  At that
point, the net value of MCI's promotion to the end user is a CLEAR,
$10!

Not a bad deal, really.  It just depends on how much value one places on his/
her time - to place the PIC-change order.


JR
  --- Tabby 2.2
  MacNet Omaha 402-289-2899 On loan from Mrs MacWidow (1:285/14)

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

From: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Movie Review: The President's Analyst
Reply-To: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1991 13:40:41 GMT


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

>        But, threaded through every adventure the President's analyst
> embarks on is a non-stop series of "telephone gags."  Many of these
> are "inside jokes," hilarious to anyone who was ever inside the
> monopoly U.S. telephone esablishment; perhaps puzzling and boring to
> a non-initiate.

    The President's Analyst really is a spectacular film.  I have a
16mm print of it underneath my bed and invite any comp.dcom.telecom
readers to view it if they ever find themselves in the southern
Virginia area.


scott

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

Subject: Movie Review: The President's Analyst
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 91 22:42:41 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Rob Boudrie) writes:

> "The President's Analyst" is an old (early 70's I think, but I may be
> off) movie starring James Coburn.

[...]

> I don't remember how it turned out, and it was mediocre as movies go,
> *BUT* the true to life nature of the telco promo movies in it was
> hilarious. If anyone remembers other funny or remarkable scenes from
> the film, please post them.

You had mentioned the movie Coburn was forced to watch ... Pat
Harrington played the quintessential Phone Company announcer/PR flack,
narrating the movie and explaining why they needed Coburn to convince
the President of the necessity of their plan.  As he's going on, the
camera pans down to a close-up of his right foot, shot from behind.
Into the heel of his shoe is plugged a standard-looking cord-board
cord and plug, with the cord trailing off-screen.

At the end of the movie, there is a brief scene with a roomful of TPC
types standing and watching the video clandestinely taken in Coburn's
house, as he's reunited with his friends and allies.  A close-up of
Harrington, with a sentimental tear in his eye pulls back and pans the
roomful of PhoneDroids, and as the camera pans, you see that _all_ of
them have the same cord exiting their right heels.

That's my favorite James Coburn movie.  I've yet to see it in a video
store ... is it available?  The TPC movie is truly a classic; all
those Bell Labs films we saw in grade school, thrown in a blender.
Thanks for reminding me!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Dinse)
Subject: Re: Cheap 9600 bps Modem
Date: 2 Jun 91 17:32:44 GMT
Organization: ESKIMO NORTH [phone] SEATTLE WA.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
gov (Patrick Hoepfner) writes:

> There is also a V.32bis, V.42bis, MNP5 and send/receive Fax modem from
> Prometheus selling for around $700!

> Get 'em while their hot!

     Haven't had any experience with the Prometheus 9600 bauds, but
for their 2400 baud external modems, "Get 'em while their hot!" is
appropriate, I could could just about fry an egg on the ones I used to
have. I had to take the option card out of one of them or it would
hang up on people as soon as it answered.

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 10:12:15 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One City With Two Area Codes


That is 917 (not 918) to be used for cellular/beeper in NYC.  918 is
in use in Oklahoma, including Tulsa.

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

Subject: Re: International 800 access
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 10:02:48 BST
From: [e-mail]


    Attempts to dial American 800 numbers from the UK sometimes
give one of two recorded messages (otherwise they just give number
unobtainable tone). The messages are:

"The number you have dialled is unobtainable, please check the number
and try again," and "Your international call could not be completed as
dialled, please check the number and try again 2EN".

    Both of these imply that the user has missdialled rather than
international calls to the number being blocked. Presumably there is a
table of valid area codes at one of the international exchanges and
any code not listed returns these messages, whether it is non-existant
or blocked.


David Heale

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Surprise!!
Date: 4 Jun 91 18:54:35 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David
E A Wilson) writes...

(Actually, Pat sez:)

> [Moderator's Note: They measure from one central office to another, as
> the crow flies. Any central offices within eight miles of the central
> office serving you in any direction make up your local calling area.

In some cases they use the location of the CO, but in others, they
bill to a "rate center" at a fictitious location.  This is useful to
the telco when "contiguous exchanges" get a lower rate than nearby
non-contiguous exchanges.  By splitting one CO into multiple
exchanges, they reduce the local/cheap radius!

New England Telephone does this a lot.  Medford, Everett and Melrose
MA are all exchanges, with their own billing locations, but they don't
have CO's; all are served by the Malden CO (which has a lot of
prefixes).  Likewise, Charlestown, MA is an exchange served by the
Boston-Bowdoin CO, whose other codes are in the Boston Central
exchange.  Dover (in 508) by the Needham CO (in 617), etc.

In some other cases, a CO has different prefix codes for different
localities but they're billed as one.  Mattapan served by Milton and
West Medford by Arlington are examples.  Hence the distinction between
the CO serving area (which may be part of an exchange, or more than one
exchange) and exchange area itself (which is a line on a map).
Confusing, eh?


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, 3 Jun 91 23:02:00 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads)


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

>    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.

This reminds me of a "pet peeve" (sic?) that I have with the newer
modems.  Both the Hayes 9600 V-series and the $74 2400 card-modem I
have won't accept an ATS11 value (DTMF duration) of less than 50ms.
The default seems to be 100ms.  The Hayes will take a smaller value,
but use 50 during tone generation.  The clone returns ERROR for a
value less than 50.  The old 1200 geniune Hayes that I have will take
values down to 1ms, and actually do it as well.

Since my switch will reliably take 36ms, I see no reason to not allow
me to dial at that speed.  Anybody (Toby?) know why the newer modems
are handicapped/differently-abled in this manner?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: And while Toby is answering that, here is another
question: how come US Robotics has a condition you can set which
allows for 'quick dialing', or dialing without waiting the obligitory
two seconds before starting?  Hayes used to claim (maybe still do)
that telco tariffs require a two second pause before dialing. You
could not set that particular S-register less than 2.  Telebit seems
to feel the same way ... but USR lets you go off hook and bang those
digits right out if you set the register for it.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #423
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23468;
          5 Jun 91 5:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac06371;
          5 Jun 91 3:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06402;
          5 Jun 91 2:40 CDT
Date:     Wed, 5 Jun 91 1:52:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #424
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 5 Jun 91 01:52:32 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 424

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Free Teletypes [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: Motorola PC-500 Problems (was DiamondTel 99X) [Scott Stratmoen]
    Re: ONA Offers New Horizons for Telesleaze [Brandon S. Allbery]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Tom Perrine]
    Re: Cellular Modems [Dave Platt]
    Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security [Max Rochlin]
    Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Jim Redelfs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Free Teletypes
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 91 22:55:36 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (David Lesher) writes:

> [about teletype machines and radio stations]

> But that day, somebody at Cheyenne Mountain had loaded and fed, not
> the weekly NORAD test tape, but the WAR! one. Confusion reigned across
> the US as the wrong code was used to cancel the bogus message. Some
> stations ignored it. Others followed the law and went off the air
> ASAP.

Hey, I remember that!  It was 1973, I think ... my first year in
radio.  As I recall, the message I saw was the weekly Associated Press
EBS test, but the AP threaded the wrong tape, and we saw the real
McCoy message.  The authentication codes checked out and everything.
(big thrills as the news director finally got to rip open one of those
red envelopes).

We might have paid more attention, though, if it had come in some
other time.  The message arrived on Saturday, in the early afternoon
(Bering Time), exactly the same time the AP _always_ ran the EBS test.

I think AP began moving their tests around after that.  It seems that
very few stations took it seriously.

> Can you imagine the look on the personality who finds a forest of
> paper on the machine, most of which indicates that the USA has been at
> war for four + hours, and Wxxx is still on the air? Gulp.

Oh, yes, I can imagine.  I also remember the look on an announcer's
face when he was blasting through a bunch of news, and came across a
wire piece that had actually been composed on the KSR tape-punch
machine we had.  It looked exactly like an authentic wire story, but
was heavily peppered with un-airable expletives.  He got about two
syllables into it, and began to stammer and splutter, as we in the
other room were collapsing in laughter.  (radio folks are fun folks...
some day, I'll tell you about getting pied in the face in the midst of
a newscast :-)


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

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

From: Scott Stratmoen <mcdchg!ast!freedm![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Motorola PC-500 Problems (was DiamondTel 99X Weakness)
Date: 2 Jun 91 15:23:57 GMT
Organization: Scott Stratmoen, Arlington Heights, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Ron Heiby) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 412, Message 6 of 14

> Saw your message about your PC-500.  You refer to a *dealer*
> dissatisfaction issue.  Motorola loves its customers and your
> satisfaction is our number one goal.  Publishing dissatisfaction with
> us rather than the dealer is counter-productive.  You provide enough
> information to infer that the phone was NOT NEW.  If used, warranty is
> NOT transferrable.  Regardless, I would like to speak with you and
> resolve to your satisfaction.  If your Oki was NEW and your PC-500 was
> NOT NEW, I say "No Fair."  We stand behind our products and customers
> -- period!
> Our quality program is second to none.  Our customers are our number
> one priority.

Not to draw out this discussion ... but let me clear up a few things.

- In no way do I have dissatisfaction with my dealer.  The only person
  who was dissatisfied was the owner who couldn't get rid of me.

- All three of the PC-500 phones were new out of the box.  (Not sure how
  this could have been a point of confusion.)

- There is no question in my mind that customer satisfaction is a
  priority with Motorola.  The service center in Arlington Hts., IL stated
  that they would repair said phones.  I didn't want a repaired phone at
  a new price, but a new phone that worked.

- Warranty repair of a new phone out the box only one to ten hours
  (depending on which of the three phones we are discussing) is not
  justified.  The unit should just work. <- note period

After three phones in four days, I just couldn't spend anymore time
dealing with the situation.  Thus the decision to switch to another
vendor.

Post sale support of a product is a must in a competitive market.  But
reputation is made, or lost, on the basis of delivering product of the
highest quality possible off the factory floor.


Scott Stratmoen    ..!ast!freedm!scott     [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 21:16:10 -0400
From: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ONA Offers New Horizons for Telesleaze
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by [e-mail].
ma.us (John R. Levine):

(about advertizing between rings)
>  I don't know why it's suddenly coming back now, except perhaps that
>  the last of the old Bell System managers who thought of the phone
>  company as a service are retiring, and the new ones have less shame.

I dunno, but it's been a progressive disease around here.  First they
combined the time and weather services, then they added advertising,
then they moved it to a 900 number and put a current-time-and-temperature
announcement on the old number with an advertisement for the 900
number (and, of course, they try to bore you off the phone before
telling you how much it co$t$).  I expect ads in the ring sequence wil
be next.  :-(

At least they haven't figured out how to charge me for punching in
162.550 on my HT.  :-)


Me: Brandon S. Allbery             KF8NH: DC to LIGHT!  [44.70.4.88]
Internet: [e-mail]         Delphi: ALLBERY
uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery


[Moderator's Note: Hadn't you heard that NOAA was going to begin
selling advertising space on that mobious loop tape they play over and
over for an hour at a time?   Its true!  :)  Of course it is. :)   PAT]

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

From: Tom Perrine <tots!tots.Logicon.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
Date: 4 Jun 91 18:08:26 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


In article <[e-mail]> Andy Sherman <andys@ulysses.
att.com> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 420, Message 3 of 10

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rick
> Broadhead) writes:

> He might have hit a PBX or Centrex that uses a double ring to indicate
> an outside call.  Having moved around the Joisey locations of Bell
> Labs quite a bit, I've encountered this feature in ESSX (a centrex),
> Dimension, and System 85.

Hmmm. Our brand-new ROLM 97xx signals with a double ring for an
outside call, but the caller hears a single ring.

Speaking of our brand-new system, several people have asked me (why
me?) questions about DIDs. Is the following explanation correct:

For an incoming (outside) call:

The CO translates the dialed number and either:

If it is POTS ("single-line home phone") routes it to the proper
dedicated line.

If it is a DID, discovers some kind of indication that this number
should be routed to any of a set of trunks (our incoming trunks). The
CO then picks any of the available incoming trunks (is this like a
rotary?) and routes the call over that trunk to the PBX, passing the
dialed number (destination) as well. The PBX then signals the
instrument assigned that DID, and if it answers connects the trunk to
the instrument.

Notes:

If all of the trunks are busy, the CO will signal busy to the caller,
even if the instrument is on-hook, the PBX will never even see the
call.

When we get Caller-ID, if you have one of the ROLM 240XX phones, you
will also see the phone number of the (outside) caller on the display.

Am I even close?

PS: I am also looking for any "stupid phonemail(tm) tricks" that
anyone can suggest. I have a sense of humor that has been described as
"strange, demented but never intentionally hostile". Something we can
all laugh at here, as a way to make the new phone system a little less
scary for some of our more telephobic employees. We have ROLM
PhoneMail, Release 5.0.


Tom Perrine (tep)   |Internet: [e-mail] |Voice: [phone]
Logicon - T&TSD     | UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep     |  or : [phone]
P.O. Box 85158      |GENIE: T.PERRINE               |  FAX: [phone]
San Diego CA 92138

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 10:42:44 PDT
From: Dave Platt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Modems
Organization: New Technologies Group, Inc.  Palo Alto CA


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

> On the subject of cellular modems and laptops, I've run into something
> that others might have encountered a fix for.  It seems the
> high-powered laptops such as the Toshiba 5200 don't have any provision
> for running off of a 12-V DC input.  I can imagine that your typical
> low-power 12-V input might be insufficient to run something like this,
> with a hard drive, 16 megs of memory, 25 MHz 386, VGA screen, etc.

> However, we need something that powerful (and we need the slots).
> Seeing as how a car battery can provide a substantial amount of power,
> I was wondering if anyone knew of any product that would allow us to
> run something like this off of the car's lighter jack, or even to hook
> directly to the battery if necessary.  Or of any portable with that
> much power and a slot that you can take along with your cellular
> phone.

There may be a very real, defensive reason (or two) for the lack of a
+12 VDC power input.

[1] Most of the "guts" of a laptop or cellular modem probably run on +5
    volts.  To be able to accept +12, one would need either a linear
    voltage regulator (which would dissipate, as heat, more than half of
    the power fed into it), or a switching regulator (which would add
    size, weight, and cost).

[2] 12-volt power drawn from a car's electrical system is hazardous.  If
    the engine is running, the accessory voltage is likely to be quite
    "dirty", with sags and spikes and high-frequency noise from the
    ignition, other loads cutting in and out, etc.  The auto environment
    is considered to be "electrically hostile"... audio amplifiers, CD
    players, etc. which are designed to operate in this environment must
    include a good deal of overvoltage/spike suppression, etc.  The CMOS
    components in a laptop are quite vulnerable to spikes and surges.

If you want to run a laptop, cellular, etc. from an auto's electrical
system, you'll probably have to buy an external high-amperage 12-volt-
to-5-volt stepdown regulator (probably a switcher, with extensive
surge protection and some big filter capacitors), and a "cheater"
which will let you plug the regulator's output into the laptop's
charger input or directly to the battery-compartment contacts.  I'd
suggest that you check your insurance and warranty, as well ... it'd
be a shame if a spike from the ignition fried your laptop.

If you were thinking of running your laptop from the car's battery,
with the ignition off: be advised that most auto batteries are not
intended for deep discharge.  They're designed to provide large
amounts of current in short bursts, and to be recharged immediately
and kept "topped up" by the alternator.  A "low maintenance" or "no
maintenance" auto battery can be ruined by only a few
deep-discharge/recharge cycles ... it will lose its ability to hold a
charge.

If you really want to run your high-amperage laptop from an external
battery, you'll probably want to get something along the lines of a
deep-discharge lead/acid battery, such as are often sold for marine or
RV applications.  These batteries are designed to be able to be
discharged most of the way to zero, and then recharged fully, a large
number of times (the tradeoff being that they don't have the same
peak-current output as a lead/acid battery designed for automotive
use).  You could charge this battery from an auto's alternator, or
with a standalone battery charger.  -


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

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 19:48:03 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security


> on that one they had me unpack the analyzer so they could run some
> sort of explosives sniffer over it.  No one ever asked me to actually
> turn it on, though.

The sniffer usually checks for nitrates, which are used in virtually
all explosives as oxidizers. As Steven King pointed out this is a much
better way to check suspicious bagagge than asking you to "Turn it
on."  No suprise Israel is using the latest equipment.  There was a
move to install them at US airports, but it died (no irony/pun
intended).

At one time Israel placed all baggage in a decompression chamber
before loading it on planes. I guess they still do.  No wonder they
don't have any sucessful bombing/skyjacking since the days of Entebe.


Patton Turner    KB4GRZ     [e-mail]

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

From: Max Rochlin <gupta![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security
Organization: Gupta Technologies Inc
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 21:18:10 GMT


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

> I've always wondered what they do with laptops that require AC power
> to operate.  Is there a three-prong AC plug at the security station?

Yes there is.  I've got a Toshiba 5200 that I've been asked to turn on
more than once.  Three-prong plugs are always nearby.

For fun, I changed my os-prompt to:

     "Yes, this really is a computer and thanks for checking"

Which amuses most airport security guards.

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

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

Date: Mon, 03 Jun 91 21:28:36 CST
From: Jim Redelfs <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire
Reply-To: ivgate!macnet![e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


Patton M. Turner wrote:

> C-wire (drop wire) is hard to beat if you are going to use unshelded
> cable. It can be run overhead or plowed in the ground.

C Rural Wire is TOUGH stuff, but buried?  I've never seen it buried in
my experience or heard of doing so before.

I recommend against direct burial of C Rural Wire.  It is designed as
an AERIAL wire (1-pr/1-line wire) and not really even as a "drop"
wire.  C Rural Wire is used for exceptionally LONG aerial spans whose
length would cause ordinary F Service Wire (aerial drop wire) to fail
at the P-clamps or break in the span.

A typical C Rural Wire installation includes terminating the C Rural
Wire at the pole closest to the station where it is connected with a
105 block to conventional F Service Wire for the final span to the
station.

Considering the scenerio:  phone service wire placed through "woods" in an
area of clay/compacted soil.

Ordinarily, a vibratory lawn plow would do a satisfactory installation
but, considering the likely encounters with numerous, substantial tree
roots, a trencher would work MUCH better.

If the service MUST be hung, I would probably forgo the luxury and
expense of poles and simply hang the spans, with PLENTY of slack, from
the existing trees.

AT&T's Phoenix Works manufactures an EXCELLENT, 5-pair, jelly-filled
buried service "wire".


JR
 --- Tabby 2.2
 MacNet Omaha 402-289-2899 On loan from Mrs MacWidow (1:285/14)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #424
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25805;
          5 Jun 91 6:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08913;
          5 Jun 91 4:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06371;
          5 Jun 91 3:40 CDT
Date:     Wed, 5 Jun 91 2:38:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #425
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 5 Jun 91 02:38:14 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 425

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Are Telco Profits Too Large? [[e-mail]]
    Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [Tom Gray]
    Re: 900 Numbers and Privacy [John R. Levine]
    Re: 908 Area Code Switchover [Carl Moore]
    Re: Videophones? Telewriters? [Sandy Kyrish]
    Re: Alexander Graham Bell Movie on AMC [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Surprise!! [Larry Jones]
    Re: MCI $20 Promotion [Bryan Reid]
    Re: PacBell Does Something Right [Martin McCormick]
    Re: The FCC Says it Wants to Hear From You! [Ronald Greenberg]
    Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone [Martin McCormick]
    Re: Cellular One Dialing Procedures [Tony Harminc]
    Caller ID Spreads From Atlanta to Athens [Glenn F. Leavell]
    How Do You Deal With Central Office Problems? [Steve Forrette]
    Busying Out a Phone With a Resister [Marc Unangst]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Are Telco Profits Too Large
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 15:23:29 EST
Subject: Re: Are Telco Profits Too Large?


[e-mail] (Guy J. Sherr) writes:

> You may wish to remind some of us that English notation given as a
> billion is actually a number with 12 zeroes, and not 9.  3000 billion
> pounds sterling would therefore be 3,000,000,000,000,000 pounds
> sterling written out, and I believe worth approximately 4.5
> quadrillion US dollars (apologies to those following the exchange
> rate).  This number seems to be inaccurate.  It is more than 50 years
> of the United States's GNP.

I suspect the situation regarding millions is the same in the U.K. as
it is here. Financial institutions and others reporting financial
results usually (incorrectly) use the US convention rather than the
English one.  I presume this is to make their results sound more
impressive.

Nevertheless, the original posting poses an interesting question:

How can companies that make large profits, be fullfilling their
community service obligations, which should include pricing their
calls as cheaply as possible.  The usual answer is that large profits
are needed to finance new equipment.  Of course, most residential
subscribers don't give a hang about new technology so long as
reliability compares favourably with price.

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus
Date: 4 Jun 91 12:44:43 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


>> Were you calling a commercial establishment?  A college dorm or campus?
>> Some other place where you were dialing directly to an extension of a large
>> private network?

> To answer your question: I heard the double-ring when calling the
> "Management Services" department at Toronto City Hall.

The double ring will indicate that the destination has answered your
call on its own equipment. The real implication of this is that you
are now being billed for the time that you are listening to ringing.


Tom Gray

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

Subject: Re: 900 Numbers and Privacy
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 4 Jun 91 14:04:53 EDT (Tue)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

> One very simple way to find your "nine-closest neighbors" is by using
> ZIP + 4. ... I discovered that I share a ZIP + 4 with *one* neighbor.
> I do not know how ZIP + 4 deals with high-occupancy buildings, but I
> suspect that a ZIP + 4 could be set up to handle one or more floors of
> a single building.

ZIP + 4 is probably how they do closest neighbors.  For large
buildings, a single building or even a single office in a building can
have its own zip.  For PO boxes, a group of boxes or a single box gets
a zip (anything sent to zip 02238-0349 comes to me, for example.)
Finding the nine people with the closest zips would be a pretty good
approximation to the closest neighbors.

Using that to make mailing lists is still a pretty unpleasant idea.
Perhaps we could try to add language to the Markey bill forbidding the
use of CLID and ANI info for anything other than call billing and
verification.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 10:15:22 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 908 Area Code Switchover


I believe the 908 area code became available in January 1991 (not
1990).

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 13:49 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Videophones? Telewriters?


Responding to Artur Matuck's request:

Common telewriter vendors: Optel Communications in New York City;
DataBeam in Lexington, KY; Shure Brothers in (yes, indeed) Chicago,
IL.  Common videophone vendors: VideoTeleCom in Austin, TX;
Compression Labs in San Jose, CA; PictureTel in the Boston area.

Also, the International Teleconferencing Association is having its
annual trade show in Washington DC on June 25-27.  For info call ITCA
at 202-833-2549.

Be forewarned that "videophones" do not run on POTS lines, but
telewriters do.  Videophones mentioned above need digital circuits.

Sandy Kyrish  [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alexander Graham Bell Movie on AMC
Date: 3 Jun 91 01:41:37 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> The above is from OnSat Magazine.  Since, I don't subscribe to AMC (or
> any subscription channels), I guess I'll have to find someone with
> cable who will let me watch it ;).

You might want to check it out.  Here in NJ, AMC is not offered as a
premium channel, but as a standard channel, included in the basic
monthly cable rate.

The movie on A. G. Bell, incidentally, appears several times a year on
AMC, and is worth watching!


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: Larry Jones <sdrc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Surprise!!
Date: 3 Jun 91 15:43:13 GMT
Organization: SDRC, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill
Woodcock) writes:

> Does this mean that after the 415/510 split, we'll be getting free
> unlimited calls to a _different area code_ if we have flat-rate
> service, and are calling back and forth from SF to the East Bay?  Does
> that happen anywhere else?

Here in Cincinnati we not only get free unlimited calls to a different
area code, we get free unlimited calls to TWO different area codes in
two different states!  Cincinnati Bell is one of the smaller phone
companies and only server the Cincinnati vacinity.  Due to the
location of Cincinnati, this includes pieces of southwest Ohio,
northern Kentucky, and southeastern Indiana.


Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
Domain: [e-mail]             Path: uunet!sdrc!scjones

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

From: Doctor Math <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI $20 Promotion
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 91 10:43:15 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department


asuvax!gtephx![e-mail] (Rick Anderson) writes:

> I believe MCI is currently undergoing a nationwide promotion whereby
> they will give you $20 if you switch over to them as your primary
> carrier.  I recently received a check in the mail from MCI for $20.
> The check was a normal check on the front, but on the back, it said if
> I endorsed and cashed the check, I would be switched over to MCI.

> My question to the net: is it legally feasible to cross out this
> endorsement message, sign the check, collect the $20, and then legally
> expect to not be switched over to MCI??

> [Moderator's Note: As soon as you cross out the special endorsement
> you no longer have the right to cash the check which was issued as
> payment for your having given permission to change your phones. . . .]

What if your BOC requires carrier changes in writing from YOU, the customer?


[Moderator's Note: If your teleco requires written notices of changes,
then MCI would comply by sending them the endorsement you signed on
the chedk. That would serve as the written notice.     PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Reid)
Subject: Re: PacBell Does Some<thing Right
Organization: DEC Western Research


I'm slightly puzzled by this stuff about how Pac Bell will or won't
put in various kinds of wires going to your house. A while ago I
wanted Pac Bell to put in a cable to my house. All I had to do was two
things: first, I had to ask for it, and second, I had to pay for it. I
paid them an installation fee of about $500, and they pulled a 25-pair
cable to my house, put a splice in my wire room, put in a thing marked
"189 BI-25 protector", which seems to have 25 fuses in it, put in a
JC-21X, and punched the cable into the JC-21X for me.

I did make one serious mistake in doing this. I had this work done at
the same time that I was having some changes made to the four-wire
leased lines coming to the house, and I made the mistake of asking the
cable installers not to reconnect the old circuits, knowing full well
that I was going to have them all taken out the next day. It took me
two years to get their paperwork straightened out and to stop being
billed for a circuit that wasn't there.

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 17:57:32 -0400
From: Ronald Greenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The FCC Says it Wants to Hear From You!


>       "The FCC's first look at `Networks of the Future' won't be
> it's last, according to Office of Plans and Policy Chief Robert
> Pepper, who is considering how commissiners can get more regular
> contact with telecom industry players whose jobs are not wooing
> Washington.

How about telling him to post to the net solicitations for comments on
specific issues as they arise?


Ronald I. Greenberg        [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 11:50:27 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone


[e-mail] (Brian Kantor) writes:

> Ken Oberman wondered when COs would stop supporting pulse-dial
> (rotary) phones.  Well, PBX's already have; the UCSD Ericsson MD-110
> will not allow an extension phone to pulse-dial any number with a "1"
> (one) in it -- it interprets the single pulse as a switchhook flash and
> gives you a fresh dialtone.

     Oklahoma State University has had an Ericsson MD110 switch in use
since Fall of 1988.  It is a truly digital PBX with the vast majority
of campus phones having A/D D/A converters in their bases.  While I've
been told that the signal on each wire pair is proprietary, it is
pretty close to ISDN.  Such indications as on-hook, off-hook, ring and
caller id information are all just digital codes sent on the control
channel.  The situation that Bryan described regarding getting a fresh
dial tone each time the hook was flashed sounds precisely like what
happens when you flash the hook on an Ericsson digital phone.
Ericssen also makes an analog line card which plugs into the MD110
switch so as to support such things as fax machines and the radio
paging system operated by our physical plant.  The analog line unit
provides all of the standard telephone signals and will accept either
pulse or tone dialing.

     The best way to tell what kind of Ericsson line one is on is to
listen to the sound of the line as you dial a number.  On a digital
line, there is absolutely nothing heard between the dial tone and the
first ring.


Martin McCormick   Amateur Radio WB5AGZ      Oklahoma State University
Computer Center    Data Communication sGroup Stillwater, OK

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

Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 10:51:28 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: CRe: Cellular One Dialing Procedures


John Higdon <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> "All of our switches are programmed from Toronto, thus you can't
>> talk to the guy in charge of switch programming."

> That's a good one. I guess if the programmers are actually in Toronto,
> there are no telephone circuits there so it would be impossible to
> talk to them. On the other hand, GTE's switches are programmed from
> Houston and I have talked to programmers for that company.

Yes - here in Toronto we all use tin cans and string (digital string
of course).

Now the curious question is why Cellular One's switches would be
programmed here.  The only switch maker I know in Toronto is Northern
Telecom.  Or is it perhaps that Cellular One is owned by a Toronto
based company ?  Cantel (the nation-wide "A" carrier) is into all
sorts of other technical ventures.  Perhaps they're the culprit.


Tony H.

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

From: "Glenn F. Leavell" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID spreads from Atlanta to Athens
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1991 04:31:43 GMT

For anyone who is keeping track out there: As of June 3, Caller-ID is
available in Athens, Georgia.  Southern Bell reports that they hope to
provide the service to all of their service areas in the state by
mid-1991 (which, in my book, is just about to arrive!).


Glenn F. Leavell  Systems Administrator  [e-mail]  404-542-3488
 University of Georgia Economics Department. 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602

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

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 22:37:57 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do You Deal With Central Office Problems?


Tim Irvin 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."  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.

Does anyone have ideas as to how to get these types of problems
resolved?  I've tried in vain on a couple of occasions to get Pacific
Bell to fix wrong recordings or other minor CO trouble, and Repair
Service seems very uninterested.  At first, they can't understand the
problem, and resort to "we just tested your line, and didn't find
anything wrong."  Once I convince them that it's not "in my line",
they take the report, the ticket soon gets cleared, and the problem is
still there.  I've all but given up.

During my recent move, there was a half-day delay between my old
service disconnect and the referral starting to work.  In the
meantime, the "... is being checked for trouble, please try your call
again later" recording was active.  Since I receive business calls on
that line, I was somewhat disappointed at this situation.  A call to
the business office revealed that this was quite normal.  A very poor
standard practice, I would say.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Subject: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor?
From: Marc Unangst <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 23:31:27 EDT
Organization: The Programmer's Pit Stop, [phone]


I recently had one modem in the middle of a 15-line hunt group go out.
Not wanting to move the rest of the modems up a line each, I did some
investigation with a VOM and a telephone, and discovered that plugging
a 270 ohm resistor into the phone line (across tip and ring) should
have almost the exact same effect as an off-hook telephone does --
thus busying out the line.  Now, my question is, is there anything
wrong with doing something like this?  Will a 1/2W resistor be enough?
Is this an "accepted" way of busying out a phone line?


Marc Unangst     [e-mail]    !hela!mudos!mju

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #425
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27335;
          6 Jun 91 3:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16760;
          6 Jun 91 2:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22694;
          6 Jun 91 1:07 CDT
Date:     Thu, 6 Jun 91 0:53:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #426
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 6 Jun 91 00:52:57 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 426

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads) [Jamie Mason]
    Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads) [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Surprise!! [Dennis Blyth]
    Re: Surprise!! [Nick Sayer]
    Re: Cellular Modems [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: One City With Two Area Codes [Linc Madison]
    Re: Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act [Linc Madison]
    Re: PacBell Does Something Right [Dave Levenson]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?  [Tim Irvin]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Brian Charles Kohn]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads)
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1991 03:41:54 -0400


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

> This reminds me of a "pet peeve" (sic?) that I have with the newer
> modems.  Both the Hayes 9600 V-series and the $74 2400 card-modem I
> have won't accept an ATS11 value (DTMF duration) of less than 50ms.
> The default seems to be 100ms.  The Hayes will take a smaller value,
> but use 50 during tone generation.  The clone returns ERROR for a
> value less than 50.  The old 1200 geniune Hayes that I have will take
> values down to 1ms, and actually do it as well.

    The default on my modem (an old USRobotics "VARmodem" 2400
internal) for the tone generation is 70ms.  70ms is obnoxiously slow,
as it is.  *How* can they set their *fastest* speed to 50?

    I guess it is like those databases which try to get smart
about names, and inevitably end up mangling esoteric names; you know a
little more about your CO switch than the modem, but the modem won't
give you the benefit of the doubt.  My modem, like your old 1200, will
go right down to 1ms, but the 1ms is a pretty feeble attempt at DTMF.

> [Moderator's Note: And while Toby is answering that, here is another
> question: how come US Robotics has a condition you can set which
> allows for 'quick dialing', or dialing without waiting the obligitory
> two seconds before starting?  Hayes used to claim (maybe still do)
> that telco tariffs require a two second pause before dialing. You
> could not set that particular S-register less than 2.  Telebit seems
> to feel the same way ... but USR lets you go off hook and bang those
> digits right out if you set the register for it.   PAT]

    What S-Register is that?  I know how to set my tone-generation
rate really fast, but I don't see an S-register which controls how
long my modem waits between taking the phone off the hook and dialing.
My modem seems to wait for a dialtone before dialing.  (Smart, eh?)

    As for the two second delay, while two seconds is a little
long (restrictive) in the usual style of Phone Company tarrifs, *some*
delay *is* required.  Dialing on my phone, I have to wait about one
second before I get the dial tone.  I can't dial sooner, or it will
miss some digits.

    Anyone know *why* 35ms (or 36ms) seems to be a universal limit
on modern exchanges?  Is this designed in?

    Also, I have heard of, but never heard officially, of a telco
tariff which requires that autodialers not retry the same number more
than ten0 times in a row automatically.  This lead to: a) some
crippled terminal programs which won't do more than ten retries before
having to be restarted, and b) crippled hardware -- my DUoFone 195 (an
old Radio Shack gadget) has an auto redialer which keeps trying till
there's no more busy.  But it will only try a maximum of ten times.
Of course, this is all obsolete now, in the days of Call Return, where
the Network does it for you.


Jamie


[Moderator's Note: Register S-6 in many modems sets the length of time
to wait off hook before dialing. In the USR, the command ATX6
overrides the two second delay and dials immediatly. The ten attempt
limit is to prevent repeated harassment of people who get wronh number
calls intended for modems. Telco's repeat dialing feature won't change
this; the modem does not care if it dials 7-D or *66. After ten tries,
it will stop dialing.   PAT]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1991 15:42:18 GMT


> to feel the same way ... but USR lets you go off hook and bang those
> digits right out if you set the register for it.   PAT]

The regulation in question is 68.314(a)(2), but it applies to answer,
not originate:

  68.314 Billing Protection

    (a)    Call duration requirements on data equipment connected to
           the Public Switched Network, or to Tie Trunks, or to
           Private Lines that access the Public Switched Network.

    (2)    Registered terminal Equipment

    Registered terminal equipment for data applications shall assure
    that, when an incoming telephone call is answered, the answering
    terminal equipment prevents both transmission and reception of
    data for at least two seconds after the answering terminal equipment
    transfers to the off-hook condition.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: Dennis Blyth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Surprise!!
Date: 5 Jun 91 20:24:08 GMT
Reply-To: Dennis Blyth <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton


In Cincinnati Bell territory, one can call from a residence phone in
Hamilton, Ohio (about 30 miles north of the Ohio river) to the
Cincinnati International airport (CVG -- code named short for
'Covington' -- because the Cincinnati airport actually is in Northern
Kentucky, about 15 miles south of the Ohio river) for the price of a
local call.  For residences, this is non-measured service.  Admittedly
only certain exchanges in Hamilton have this service, and one pays
extra (less than $ 2, in my recollection), but, oh, boy, what a deal!!

BTW, is this the furthest distance one can go, 'toll free' in the
states.  (Pls, no flames for 800 service, I'm new to the net and
somewhat sensitive!)

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

From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Surprise!!
Date: 5 Jun 91 22:11:34 GMT
Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA


sdrc![e-mail] (Larry Jones) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill
> Woodcock) writes:

>> Does this mean that after the 415/510 split, we'll be getting free
>> unlimited calls to a _different area code_ if we have flat-rate
>> service, and are calling back and forth from SF to the East Bay?  Does
>> that happen anywhere else?

> Here in Cincinnati we not only get free unlimited calls to a different
> area code, we get free unlimited calls to TWO different area codes in
> two different states!  Cincinnati Bell is one of the smaller phone
> companies and only server the Cincinnati vacinity.  Due to the
> location of Cincinnati, this includes pieces of southwest Ohio,
> northern Kentucky, and southeastern Indiana.

Given the post-Greene reality, would it not make a BIT of sense to
reform area codes a bit? How about one simple rule: No area code could
be in two LATAs? A LATA can have more than one area code, on any
boundary convenient to the local BOC, but the area codes within a LATA
would be unique to that LATA.

Yes, this will make a mess in the short term. In the long term,
however, it would become a hell of a lot easier to figure out how your
call would be billed. It would also simplify new area code assignment,
I would think.


Nick Sayer    [e-mail]
N6QQQ         209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 04:58:46 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Modems


> high-powered laptops such as the Toshiba 5200 don't have any provision
> for running off of a 12-V DC input.  I can imagine that your typical
> low-power 12-V input might be insufficient to run something like this,
> with a hard drive, 16 megs of memory, 25 MHz 386, VGA screen, etc.
> However, we need something that powerful (and we need the slots).
> Seeing as how a car battery can provide a substantial amount of power,
> I was wondering if anyone knew of any product that would allow us to
> run something like this off of the car's lighter jack, or even to hook
> directly to the battery if necessary.

    In addition to an inverter, which will generate a square wave with
the same RMS voltage as AC line current at up to several thousand
watts, there is another solution: the Adapata80 and 30.  These do not
produce AC current, and only work with switching type power supplies.
The adaptors produce 80 and 30 watts respectivly, and weigh about 1
pound.  They include a cigrette lighter plug for the DC and a 110 volt
receptacle for the output to the computer

    These adaptors being upstream of the power supply should avoid
"noise problems" from the car's electrical system.

    One of these adaptors is being used by the Agricultural
Engineering department here at Auburn, I'll check with them regarding
their experience with it.  The company's address is:

                  Product R&D Corporation
                      1194 Pacific St.
                          Suite 201
                  San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

I hope this helps, I'll E-mail any aditional information.


Patton Turner  KB4GRZ
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 02:55:08 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One City With Two Area Codes
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Scott Barman ([e-mail].
com) writes:

> It was announced not too long ago that the Bronx will be changed to
> 718 so that Manhattan will be the only borough with the 212 area code.
> Also, NY Tel also announced that a new area code (917) will
> be used for cellular phones and beepers in New York City ...

Does anyone have a list of prefixes in 212/718?  Is it really true
that none of the 212 prefixes in the Bronx are duplicated in 718?  If
so, then either NY Tel anticipated this situation (in which case, why
didn't they just throw the Bronx into 718 in the original split?) or
they got astoundingly lucky.  Also, a quick look at the NPA/NXX list
shows 718 with about 400 prefixes in use, and 212 with about 660.  If
even 1/3 of the prefixes in 212 are Bronx exchanges, it won't be long
before 718 gets split again.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 03:57:11 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act (HR1
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

In article <[e-mail]> Bill Parrish (bparrish@hprnd.
rose.hp.com) writes:

> Re:  HR1304  (Markey) Bill

> "Telephone Solicitation" is defined as "the initiation of a telephone
> message for the purpose of encouraging a person to purchase, rent, or
> invest in property, goods, or services without that person's prior
> express invitation or permission".  Note the exclusion of
> fund-raising.  Maybe the politicians still want to be able to do it
> themselves?

[No, I'm not a lawyer, but...]  There's an interesting point of
Constitutional law involved.  It turns out that if you have a "NO
SOLICITING" sign on the front of your house, it is entirely legal for
someone to come to your door anyway and solicit you for POLITICAL
purposes, because the First Amendment right of the solicitor to engage
in political speech outweighs the right of the would-not-be solicitee
to discourage it.

 ...or so I was told when I had a summer job soliciting for a  political
organization (CalPIRG).

Of course, there is the practical consideration that the "yield" from
houses with "NO SOLICITING" signs was rather lower than the incidence
of rather nasty-looking Dobermans growling through the screen door.

Regarding the Florida state tax on interstate telephone charges,
the Supreme Court ruled about three years ago that it is legal for them
to tax interstate telephone charges, notwithstanding obviously
contradictory clauses of the U.S. Constitution.  I pay the City of
Berkeley 6.5% for my out-of-state calls, although, oddly, it appears
that the State of California hasn't hitched onto this gravy train.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PacBell Does Something Right
Date: 5 Jun 91 11:35:52 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

[regarding Pac*Bell's installation of ten individual single-pair drops
on his residence]

> A recently suggested theory is that this is PacBell's infliction of
> punishment for my having so many lines. Now for $300/month, it could
> all be provided on T1. Hmmmm .... could it be a sales pressure tactic?
                         ^^^^^
                           ^
                           ^
Hey, John, is looks like one of your ten single-drop loops may be
unbalanced!

Is that $300/month in addition to the monthly rate for service on the
ten loops?


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]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 91 11:53:53 -0400
From: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest V11 #423, Joshua E. Muskovitz writes:

> I've been an MCI customer for years and I've ALWAYS (well, with one
> exception noted below) had my MCI calling card be the same first 10
> digits of my phone, and then a different PIN from the RBOC.  Makes
> sense to me.  All I have to remember is which PIN to use.

> The only time this didn't work was after my last move.  The MCI rep
> set up my account incorrectly (but issued cards).  After realizing the
> mistake, they cancelled service and set it up again (this time
> correctly).  This was in a matter of minutes.  But when they went to
> issue me a calling card (for the new account), the computer recognised
> that a card had been issued for that phone number and instead issued a
> scrambled card number.

US Sprint (or is it just Sprint now) hasn't issued FON Cards with you
phone number on it for sometime now.  A couple of moves ago the rep
told me my new card would be some random 14 digit number.  Not wanting
to have to memorize 14 random digits, I asked her if there was anyway
to request that my card have my phone number as the first 10-digits.
She said no way (security precautions -- something about people having
roommates and the security problems that brought about -- seemed like
hoky to me).  She did say that I could keep my present card number if
I wanted.  So I did.  Now two moves later (and two phone numbers
later), I still have my old FON card with my old telephone number on
it.  Seems strange when I get the bill and my 2 phone numbers are
listed followed by this old phone number from 1/2 way across the
country.


Tim Irvin

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

Date: Wed,  5 Jun 91 12:24:54 EDT
From: Brian Charles Kohn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Reply-To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Process Center


[Brian = [e-mail] (Brian Charles Kohn):

> Actually ... the new calling card number will be different from
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> your phone number.  It will be a new 14 digit number to
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> remember.

> I don't understand the above statement.
> My Calling Card (issued two years ago) has a number that is not my
> home or other phone number

Then you already have one of these new type calling card numbers (for
domestic use) ... people like SE have not ... the first ten digits of
their calling card number have been their telephone number.


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]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #426
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00504;
          6 Jun 91 4:54 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19954;
          6 Jun 91 3:24 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16760;
          6 Jun 91 2:16 CDT
Date:     Thu, 6 Jun 91 1:28:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #427
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 6 Jun 91 01:27:56 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 427

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Free Teletypes [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: MCI's $20 Promotion [Ron Dippold]
    Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [John R. Covert]
    Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [John Higdon]
    Re: Cellular One Dialing Procedures [John R. Covert]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [William F Thompson]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Robert L. Oliver]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [Carl Moore]
    Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor? [Toby Nixon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Free Teletypes
From: "Steven S. Brack" <nstar!bluemoon![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 91 17:10:25 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])


[e-mail] (David Lesher) writes:

> [about teletype machines and radio stations]

> 1945

> {The Cleveland Press}, like any other paper of its time, had many
> machines. There was the A wire, the sports, etc. etc.

> Well, they sat next to each other in the City Room, and made non-stop
> noise. If one was stopped, another three were sure to be running. You
> just ignored it. If the circuits died, they ran 'open' (clacking but
> not printing anything) until the loop was fixed.

> But late that summer, they ALL stopped at once. Dead. The silence was
> so profound that everyone in the building knew about it at once.
> Silence continued. After an interval described by one there as
> "seemingly hours later" but likely only a minute or so, they ALL
> restarted with the same message -- the war was over.

 From what I understand of news teletypes, there is a break key which
interrupts send/recieve along the TTY connection.  This key must be
held for one minute to silence the feeds on the line.  (They apparently
detect loss of transmiossion.)  This method is used to clear the line
for important transmissions, i.e. the end of WWII, the deaths of FDR &
JFK, Nixon's resignation.

> 1970's.

> At a classical music station of some fame, located on a river with the
> same name as the Prince of Wales (hint;-}) the machine sat way in the
> back of the station, in a semi-soundproof phonebooth sized chamber.

   ....

> But that day, somebody at Cheyenne Mountain had loaded and fed, not
> the weekly NORAD test tape, but the WAR! one. Confusion reigned across
> the US as the wrong code was used to cancel the bogus message. Some
> stations ignored it. Others followed the law and went off the air
> ASAP. The lead station in "our fair city" [the one that the others
> have CONALRAD receivers tuned to] choose to ignore it. It took hours
> to straighten out.

How does the EBS/CONALRAD/SCATANA system work?  I assume there is a
great deal of telecom equipment used in its implementation.

> Can you imagine the look on the personality who finds a forest of
> paper on the machine, most of which indicates that the USA has been at
> war for four + hours, and Wxxx is still on the air? Gulp.

I read a report of a college AM station receiving a phone call to the
effect that radicals had threatened to douse the city (somewhere in
CA?) with a poisonous agent.  The phone call was bogus, but convinced
the student on duty to broadcast warnings to citizens that they should
stay inside and close their windows (this occured, I recall, in the
late summer - high temperatures).

The hoax went largely unnoticed, because hardly anyone paid attention
to the station that broadcast the warning!


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] or 419 474 1010  |  [e-mail]

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

From: Ron Dippold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI's $20 Promotion
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 18:09:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>  ivgate!macnet!jim.redelfs@
uunet.uu.net writes:

[Regarding MCI's $20 check - the endorsement of which grants them
permission to change your PIC (long distance carrier) to MCI] ...

> "We" charge $5 (total) to change a customer's long distance
> carrier. I wonder if MCI will allow THE CUSTOMER to pay that charge
> (out of the $20 check)?  I assume so.  So the net value of the check
> is reduced to >$15.  After a period of time, the customer could
> initiate a PIC-change to another carrier, incurring yet another $5
> charge by the RBOC.  At that point, the net value of MCI's promotion
> to the end user is a CLEAR, $10!  Not a bad deal, really.  It just
> depends on how much value one places on his/ her time - to place the
> PIC-change order.

I imagine that MCI is willing to take the risk that once you've
switched over to their service that you will be so impressed that
you'll want to stay forever.  Not unlike those record clubs.

And if they _did_ stipulate that you couldn't switch back to AT&T or
Sprint, that would appear as if they were unconfident of their
service, and people wouldn't go for the offer because they wouldn't
have a choice.

So they weigh the risk that you'll do two quick switches, losing them
$20, against the odds that you'll stay on as a customer, gaining them
quite a bit in the long run, they hope.


Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks.  |  Ron Dippold

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 11:44:05 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  05-Jun-1991 1440" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus


>> To answer your question: I heard the double-ring when calling the
>> "Management Services" department at Toronto City Hall.

> The double ring will indicate that the destination has answered your
> call on its own equipment. The real implication of this is that you
> are now being billed for the time that you are listening to ringing.

Tom, for the Management Services department at Toronto City Hall, this
is not the case.

As has already been explained, when a PBX has DID trunks, audible
ringing tone is returned to the caller directly from the PBX, which
can ring any way it pleases.  This earlier response was correct, and
yours was incorrect.

Specifically, 416 392-7715 rings with double ring, but you are not
billed until someone answers.  I have verified this from a trunk which
provides positive indication of answer supervision.


john

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 08:56 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus


Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]> writes:

> The double ring will indicate that the destination has answered your
> call on its own equipment. The real implication of this is that you
> are now being billed for the time that you are listening to ringing.

Not generally true. If the reason you are hearing an unusual ringing
signal involves a PBX, it is probably a DID connection. Answer
supervision occurs when, and only when, the call is picked up by the
ringing extension. Busy, no answer, and even local customer intercept
recordings do not return supervision on a properly set up PBX.

In essence, the PBX becomes the terminating CO.


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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 12:08:57 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  05-Jun-1991 1446" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular One Dialing Procedures


> Now the curious question is why Cellular One's switches would be
> programmed here.  The only switch maker I know in Toronto is Northern
> Telecom.  Or is it perhaps that Cellular One is owned by a Toronto
> based company ?  Cantel (the nation-wide "A" carrier) is into all
> sorts of other technical ventures.  Perhaps they're the culprit.

Your guess that Cantel is somehow involved may be right on the mark.
As was reported elsewhere, Bay Area Cellular has recently converted to
an Ericsson (correctly spelled with the double "s") switch.  Cantel is
the largest single user of Ericsson switches, and may be providing the
programming -- or Ericsson may have an office in Toronto where the
programming is done.

It seems to be the case throughout Cantel that local calls must be
dialled without a "1", and I wonder why Cantel subscribers don't
complain about the same problem of not being able to use repertory
dialling when travelling.

Someone asked about new features that Ericsson switches may provide:

Cantel customers are able to be reached regardless of where they are,
coast to coast in Canada, as well as in locations in the U.S. that are
Ericsson switches directly linked to Cantel, without doing anything at
all to indicate that they are in a new system.  In addition, all their
custom calling features, including three-way calling, call-forwarding,
and call-waiting, continue to work wherever they go.

The locations currently linked to Cantel are: Pittsburgh, Johnstown
and Erie, Pa., Wheeling, W. Va., Albany, Rochester, and Buffalo, N.Y.,
Detroit, Ann Arbor, Flint, Grand Rapids, Muskegon, and Saginaw, Mich.,
Toledo and Lima, Ohio, Jacksonville, Daytona, Orlando, Tampa, St.
Petersburg, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and Miami, Fla.

All the "A" systems in Washington and Oregon are in the process of
being linked; they work at the moment if your Cantel number is a
British Columbia number, and will work for all Cantel numbers within a
few months.  Presumably other Ericsson systems will be linked to
Cantel (and to each other) as time goes on.

Next time I travel in these areas, I'll have the option (and the need
to decide) to use either my NYNEX number and Follow-Me-Roaming or my
Cantel number and Call-Following.

Of course, IS-41 is supposed to make all this possible so that all
systems everywhere get interconnected, but the Judge Greene problem
still exists for any cellular companies owned by Baby Bells -- and
this includes those Cellular Ones owned by Southwestern Bell, or by
PacTel, or by U.S. West.

Cellular One in San Francisco (Bay Area Cellular) is a partnership of
PacTel, McCaw, and one other minority owner.


john

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

Date: Wed,  5 Jun 91 16:46:11 EDT
From: William F Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Organization: Tex and Edna Boil's Prairie Warehouse and Curio Emporium


 From article <[e-mail]>, by netnews@ulysses.
att.com (Steve Bellovin):

> Note that AT&T will *NOT* be providing card verification to other
> interexchange carriers.  This should deal with the oft-expressed
> concerns of our customers that they not be billed by an AOS for calls
> placed on an AT&T Card.

> I hope this sets your mind at ease.

>> Now I don't consider my friends, parents, and relatives to be all that
>> ignorant on how to use a telephone, but I just can't see how THIS is
>> going to be explained to them by AT&T and/or the BOCs.  AT&T and the
>> BOCs sure didn't do a good job when it came to warning people about
>> AOSs until quite late in the game; I am wondering how much more
>> confusion this nonsense will cause.

> Tell them to use their AT&T Card.  Period.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ

Andy couldn't be more correct.  All you have to use in the future for
calling card calls will be your NEW (and I stress NEW) AT&T calling
card.

Let me clear up some common misconceptions.  First, there are three
formats for the new AT&T calling card: a CCITT Full Format 21 digit
card, an abbreviated 17 digit card, and what's known as a hyperdialed
14 digit calling card.  All you will have to dial is 14 digits,
period. Forever.

The AT&T formats, as discussed by someone else, are as follows:

CCITT Full Format 21 digit:
891288 XXXXXX XXXX L PINN where L is a Luhn check digit
891253 XXXXXX XXXX L PINN   "   "  " "  "      "    "

Abbreviated 17 digit dialing:
288 XXXXXX XXXX PINN
253 XXXXXX XXXX PINN

Hyperdialed 14 digit dialing:
XXXXXX XXXX PINN

You will only have to dial the 14 digits.  So you only have to
remember one new calling card number. And yes, you can bill your
intralata calls to your AT&T card, but they are not carried by AT&T
(of course).  As far as I've heard, you will be able to choose your
own PIN also.  Most of these cards will be issued by the end of this
year.

Some of the cards already issued (Universal Cards, for example) start
out with 507 and 508 as the Issuer ID.  The fourth digit of a 14 digit
AT&T issued calling card (the new ones, remember) will always be a 0
or a 1 (just like the old "shared" RAO cards).

I hope I've answered some questions that you may have.  You can drop
me a line if you have any more questions.


Bill Thompson    att!ihlpf!foz

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

From: "Robert L. Oliver" <cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Organization: Rabbit Software Corp.
Date:  5 Jun 91 22:20:17 GMT


[e-mail] (Bill Huttig) writes:

> ... the old non-subscriber cards are issued in area
> code 507 and 508 with a exchange that is inposible (starting with a 0
> or 1) and are handled through various BOC's, I had one that was billed
> by Cincinatti Bell a few years ago....

My Universal Card uses a number like this also.


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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 10:31:25 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World


The ABCDEF codes apparently are those in the British Telecom booklet
dated September 1990 which I received recently.  It shows Denmark as
BD, not ED; apparently this is intended for people calling from the
U.K.

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor?
Date: 5 Jun 91 17:48:25 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, Marc Unangst <mju@mudos.
ann-arbor.mi.us> writes:

> I recently had one modem in the middle of a 15-line hunt group go out.
> Not wanting to move the rest of the modems up a line each, I did some
> investigation with a VOM and a telephone, and discovered that plugging
> a 270 ohm resistor into the phone line (across tip and ring) should
> have almost the exact same effect as an off-hook telephone does --
> thus busying out the line.  Now, my question is, is there anything
> wrong with doing something like this?  Will a 1/2W resistor be enough?
> Is this an "accepted" way of busying out a phone line?

The FCC has said that it will no longer allow Part 68 registration of
modems that busy out the line in this manner (i.e., by just going
"off-hook").  Centrex is supposed to have a way to tell the CO that a
particular line in a hunt group is unavailable.  Bellcore is working
on a DTMF signal that can be sent on the line to tell the switch that
the circuit is busied-out (like the "Do Not Disturb" function on many
PBXes).  And FCC already specifies an RJ4MB data jack, in which, if
you close the MB/MBC pair, notifies the switch that the circuit is
busied-out.  Nobody likes the RJ4MB solution, though, because it takes
up an extra pair of wires for every circuit.  The DTMF solution is
what everybody is looking for.  In the meantime, about the only way
you can do it is by going "off-hook".

Not being a hardware engineer, I can't comment on whether the resistor
value you've chosen is appropriate for this function.  I assume some
of the telco experts here will comment for you.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #427
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02795;
          6 Jun 91 6:03 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10181;
          6 Jun 91 4:32 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19954;
          6 Jun 91 3:16 CDT
Date:     Thu, 6 Jun 91 2:09:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #428
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 6 Jun 91 02:09:12 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 428

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Hot Chips Symposium III [Martin Freeman]
    Fibre to the Home Conference [borys]
    What Will Turn the Telcos On [Peter Marshall]
    World War III [Ed Hopper]
    Programmable Modem Wanted [Chuck Hsiano]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Martin Freeman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hot Chips Symposium III
Organization: Center for Integrated Systems, Stanford University, California
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 19:48:47 GMT


           Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go On Vacation:

                         HOT CHIPS SYMPOSIUM III
                  A Symposium on High-Performance Chips
                            (Advance Program)

                 Sponsored by the IEEE Computer Society
                 Technical Committee on Microprocessors

               Stanford University, Palo, Alto, California
                           August 26-27, 1991

Attend HOT Chips III, a symposium on high-performance chips, which
will bring together researchers and developers of chips used to
construct high-performance workstations and systems. Enjoy the
informal format offering interaction with speakers. This first two HOT
Chips Symposiums were huge successes and prompted articles in three
special issues of IEEE Micro magazine. This year's HOT Chips III will
again bring you the latest developments in chip technology.

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

General Chairman:            Martin Freeman, Philips Research
Program Co-Chairmen:         Forest Baskett, Silicon Graphics
                             John Hennessy,  Stanford University
Finance Chairman:            Hasan AlKhatib, Santa Clara University
Registration Chairman:       Robert Stewart, Stewart Research
Publication Chairman:        Nam Ling, Santa Clara University
Publicity Chairman:          Andrew Goforth, NASA Ames Research Center
Local Arrangements Chairman: Robert Stewart, Stewart Research


PROGRAM COMMITTEE

Forest Baskett, Silicon Graphics (Program Co-Chair)
John Crawford, Intel
David Ditzel, Sun Microsystems
John Hennessy, Stanford University (Program Co-Chair)
John Mashey, MIPS Computer Systems
Teresa Meng, Stanford University
Alan Smith, U.C. Berkeley

PROGRAM

August 26, 1991 - Dinkelspiel Auditorium


7:30 - 8:30    Onsite Registration

8:30 - 8:45    Welcome and Opening Remarks
        Martin Freeman, General Chair
          Forest Baskett and John Hennessy, Program Co-Chairs

8:45 - 10:15    High-Performance Processors - I

        . Viking: A Superscalar SPARC Processor
          Greg Blanck, Sun Microsystems &
          Steve Krueger, Texas Instruments

        . R4000 Technical Overview
                Tom Riordan, MIPS Computer Systems

        . High-Performance PA-RISC Processor for "Snakes" Workstation
          Mark Forsyth, Charles Kohlhardt, &
                  Ruby Lee, Hewlett Packard

10:15 - 10:45    BREAK

10:45 - 12:15    Highly Parallel Chips

        . The LIFE Family of High-Performance Single Chip VLIWs
          Gerrit Slavenburg, Philips Research Palo Alto

        . The Message-Driven Processor
          William Dally, J. Stewart Fiske, Waldemar Horwat,
          John Keen, Richard Lethin, Michael Noakes, & Peter Nuth
                    MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
          D. Scott Wills
          University of Central Florida
          Andrew Chien
          University of Illinois
          Salim Ahmed, Paul Carrick, Roy Davison, Greg Fyler,
          Steve Lear, Mark Vestrich, & Ted Nguyen
          Intel

        . The TRW CPUAX Superchip: A 4.1 Million Transistor CMOS CPU
          A. Miscione, R. Almeida, H. Hennecke, & R. Mann
          TRW Micro Electronics

12:15 - 1:45    LUNCH

1:45 - 3:15    High-Performance Processors - II

        . An 80 MHz 64-Bit Floating Point RISC Processor with
          Direct DRAM Support
          James Hesson, Micron Technology

        . The 80860XP: 2nd Generation of the i860(tm) RISC
          Processor Family
          David Perlmutter & Michael Kagan, Intel Israel

        . Beyond Claims of Free Transistors and Abundant
          Instruction-Level Parallelism
          Michael Smith, Stanford University

3:15 - 3:45    BREAK

3:45 - 5:15    Low Power and Low Cost

        . SPARC System Chipset
          Greg Favor, Tera Microsystems

        . The SparKIT Chipset: How to Clone a Sparcstation
          Mohammed Wasfi, LSI Logic Corporation

        . SMM, The "Virtual 386(tm)"
          Dave Vannier, Intel

5:15 - 7:15    RECEPTION

7:30        EVENING PANEL SESSION: "Five Instructions Per Clock:
        Truth or Consequences"
        Alan Smith, U.C. Berkeley
        John Mashey, MIPS Computer Systems


August 27, 1991 - Dinkelspiel Auditorium


8:00 - 9:00    Onsite Registration

9:00 - 10:30    Communications

        . A GaAs 200 Mbps 64x64 Crosspoint Chip
          Ron Cates, Vitesse Semiconductor

        . RN1: Low-Latency, Dilated, Crossbar Router
          Henry Minsky, Tom Knight, Andre' DeHon

        . The NEURON Chip Family Architecture
          Robert Dolin, Echelon

        . The Protocol Engine Chipset
          Greg Chesson, Silicon Graphics

10:30 - 11:00    BREAK

11:00 - 12:30    Caches and Floating Point

        . R4000 Cache Design Tradeoffs and Performance
          Earl Killian, MIPS Computer Systems

        . The Megacell Differentiated Floating Point Product Family
          Merrick Darley, Don Steiss, Peter Groves, David Bural,
          Maria Gill, & Tod Wolf
          Texas Instruments

        . High-Integration 2nd Level Cache for the i486 CPU
          Adi Gobert, Intel Corporation

12:30 - 2:00    LUNCH

2:00 - 3:30    Special Processors

        . C-Cube CL950 MPEG Video Decoder/Processor
          Stephen Purcell, C-Cube Microsystems

        . A Smart Frame Buffer
          Joel McCormack, DEC Western Research Laboratory

        . A High-Performance, Low-Cost Neural Chip
          Gary Tahara, Inova Microelectronics

3:30 - 4:00    BREAK


4:00 - 5:30    High-Performance Processors - III

        . National's Swordfish - A Superscalar with DSP
          Reuven Marko & Motti Beck, National Semiconductor

        . H1: A Superscalar Pipelined CPU
          Bob Krysiak, Richard Forsythe & Roger Sheperd
          INMOS Ltd.

        . The Pinnacle SPARC Module
          Raju Vegeshna, Ross Technology

5:30        Closing Remarks


HOUSING INFORMATION

Housing is available on the Stanford University campus in Stern Hall,
a short walk from Dinkelspiel Auditorium where the symposium will be
held. Housing is in student residences with central lavatory
facilities and costs $40 per night. A key deposit is required that
will be refunded at checkout. Housing arrangements on the Stanford
campus must be mase by July 26.

Housing is also available at numerous hotels and motels on the
peninsula in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, and Los Altos close
to Stanford University.

If you would like additional housing information, please check the
housing information request box on the registration form.

QUESTIONS?

For more information on registration and local arrangements contact
Dr. Robert Stewart at [phone] or [e-mail] (use
email after June 1).

REGISTRATION FEES

                                     Postmarked by           Subsequent
                                        July 26             Registration

IEEE Computer Society                   $170                   $240
or ACM Member

Non-Member                              $240                   $290

Full-Time Student                       $75                    $100


Instead of payment by check, registration may be charged to VISA or
MasterCard.  Registration charged to a credit card may be FAXed to Dr.
Robert Stewart at [phone].

REGISTRATION INCLUDES

* Attendance                        * Sunday evening wine & cheese reception
* One copy of the notes             * Monday evening reception
* Two luncheons                     * Coffee breaks
* Parking at Florence Moore Hall

On-site registration is available Sunday evening at the wine and
cheese reception, and each morning at the symposium.

WINE & CHEESE RECEPTION

* Sunday, August 25 --- 5:00-7:00 PM
* Rodin Gardens, Stanford University
* A guided tour of the statuary will be provided.


                      HOT CHIPS III REGISTRATION FORM


Name________________________________________________________________________

Affiliation_________________________________________________________________

Address_____________________________________________________________________

City/State/Zip______________________________________________________________

Country_____________________________________________________________________

Area Code/Phone #___________________________________________________________

Email Address_______________________________________________________________

Membership:       IEEE______          ACM_______

Membership Number___________________________________________________________

Check One:

  ______Check drawn on a U.S. Bank                    ______MasterCard
        Make Check Payable To:
        Hot Chips Symposium                           ______VISA

Name on Credit Card_________________________________________________________

Credit Card #_______________________________________________________________

Expiration Date_____________________________________________________________

Signature___________________________________________________________________

Amount Enclosed_____________________________________________________________

Mail To:

            Dr. Robert G. Stewart
            Stewart Research Enterprises
            1658 Belvoir Drive
            Los Altos, CA  94024


  ______Housing Information Requested

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1991 04:00:21 -0600
From: borys <tek![e-mail]>
Subject: Fibre to the Home Conference


TRLabs (formerly Alberta Telecommunications Research Centre) presents:

                        FIBRE TO THE HOME
               Trends in Residential Fibre Access
                      August 28 and 29, 1991
                     Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

This is the first conference dedicated to this topic in Canada, and
will be of interest to engineering, management, regulatory, and
marketing staff of both cable TV companies and telcos.  Sessions cover
such topics as:

- Fibre to the Curb systems and trials
- Broadband Fibre to the Home systems and trials
- Potential Services and the economics of Fibre in the Loop
- Implementation Issues
- Fibre in the Feeder systems for cable TV
- A panel discussion featuring the CRTC (regulators), the cable
  industry, and the telephone industry on the topic of a shared
  broadband network.

Registration is limited to 150 people to permit maximum interaction with the
speakers and other attendees.  For more information, please call:

          Myron Borys, FTTH Conference Director
          TRLabs
          [phone]
          FAX: [phone]
          atrc![e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 10:01:19 -0700
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Will Turn the Telcos On


 From an article by Victor Toth in a recent issue of "STC Lines,"
entitled "Don't Give Up, You Can Never Tell What Will Turn the Telcos
on":

Believe it or not, "little guys" can still have an impact on shaping
the network, or at least the services which it makes possible.

The principal of a company known as Phone Spots, Inc., recently
appeared before the IILC(an industry organization dominated by BOCs
and formed to promote the deployment and use of...ONA features and
services)to present his idea and solicit telco changes to the network
that would make it work. Believe it or not, he got the BOCs real "hot"
over his gimmick, and now they are falling all over themselves trying
to come up with a network solution.

Phone Spots holds a patent on the concept of directly accessing an
originating client's transmission path during the audible ringing
portion of a call during call set-up and delivering an audible message
or signal to the caller between the ringing signals without delaying
the call progress. Expressed in its more likely and intended context,
this firm intends to launch a business of delivering ten second
recorded advertising messages between ringing signals simultaneously
on a potentially very large number of telephone lines.  When offered
in the residential market, it is contemplated that subscribers will
receive a discount on their monthly bill for tolerating the ads.

The technical obstacle that the BOCs have undertaken to resolve for
Phone Spots is one of facilitating an interface at the end office
which will permit bridging the mass announcement equipment across a
very large number of lines...  to permit detection ... yet guarantee
electrical disconnection when conversation begins.

It is ... curious, indeed, tonote how unusually responsive teh BOCs
have been in nursing this idea all along. It will be just as
interesting to see whether, after a year or two, the concept survives
as a competitive vendor service, ot whether it finds its way into the
central office as monopoly product.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Jun  5 07:44:06 CDT 1991
Subject: World War III


In a previous posting there was a discussion of the false alert that
was distributed on the news wires.  I was on duty at the late KSET in
El Paso, Texas that morning and remember the event vividly.  Since the
facts were a little vague in the previous post, let me fill them out.

The alert occured on February 20, 1971 at 9:33AM EST.  It was
originated by the personnel on duty at NORAD, Cheyenne Mountain.  At
that time, they had the ability to override the AP and UPI wires.  The
alert that was issued was actually a declaration of national emergency
and not an attack warning.

Quite frankly, it shook me up, a lot.  Fortunately, I did have the
presence of mind to hold off on putting the alert on the air, however,
in doing so I was undoubtedly in technical violation of FCC rules.

The authenticator words were a list of activate and cancel codes sent
out on a quarterly basis by the FCC.  They were in bright, flourescent
red envelopes.  The authenticator word for that day was "hatefulness"
and the cancel code was "impish".  Unfortunately, NORADs first attempt
to undo the mess they caused was to send out a cancel message with the
"hatefulness" code.  This was *INCORRECT* and, by the book, we should
have stayed in emergency operation mode.

In my case, I had a Mutual Broadcasting System newscast on the air at
that time. Since Mutual operates from Washington and was operating
normally, I decided to sit on it until I got a bulletin from MBS.

A lot of things grew out of that disaster.  At that time, EBS
signaling was based upon five seconds on, five seconds off of carrier
for 30 seconds and then 30 seconds of 1Khz tone.  A lot of stations
did a really lousy job of implementing that scheme.  They wouldn't do
the carrier on/off switch and would just play a tape of a 1Khz tone.
Tape being what it was in those days it sure wasn't 1Khz.  As a
result, FCC type accepted EBS tone generators and monitors were
required in all stations.  I often wonder if this requirement was ever
extended to cable.  With about a third of the TV audience watching
HBO, ESPN, etc, it should be.  (HBO did carry a news bulletin at the
onset of the Gulf War, I understand).  The two tone "beat" tone that
is used now was also instituted as part of those reforms.

There was some mention of this being the AP's mistake.  Not so.  I, in
fact, received the message on UPI.  NORAD, at that time, had the
ability to physically override the AP and UPI.  That capability was
removed after thius fiasco.  Now, as I understand it, the White House
would originate a conference call with the networks and the wire
services.

As I mentioned, it was traumatic.  I did have a few nightmares after
that.  I wonder if I can apply for benefits as a veteran of WW III?


Ed Hopper

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

From: Chuck Hsiao <[e-mail]>
Subject: Programmable Modem Wanted
Date: 3 Jun 91 23:41:41 GMT


I am looking for a modem which is implemented using a DSP chip such
that I can modify its code for a data communication experiment.

Any information or pointers will be greately appreciated.


Chuck

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #428
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02637;
          7 Jun 91 3:34 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10896;
          7 Jun 91 1:59 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17365;
          7 Jun 91 0:53 CDT
Date:     Fri, 7 Jun 91 0:46:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #429
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 7 Jun 91 00:45:54 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 429

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Language Line Costs [Will Martin]
    Visit to California [Carl Moore]
    Caller ID Comes to Florida [David E. Bernholdt]
    Ctrl-A's at Beginning and End of Digest [Bill Berbenich]
    LAN Power Protection [Jeff Sicherman]
    Emergency Highway Phones [Darren Alex Griffiths]
    ZUM "Expansion" [Eliot Moore]
    Pulse Dial Charge? [Jim Redelfs]
    Question About PC Pursuit and MNP [Steve Forrette]
    Questions on LAPD [Stanfield L. Smith]
    Wrong Recordings [Charles Hoequist]
    The Princess Returns [Roger Clark Swann]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 8:50:28 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Language Line Costs


There's been some mention on the list in the past of the AT&T Language
Line, and I recall at least one correspondent posted an account of
his/her experiences along with a citation of the costs involved. I had
always thought of it as a "pay-as-you-go" service, available to
anyone. But I just received a brochure from AT&T on it which includes
a couple comments that imply otherwise.

The first is "For more information or to sign up, call 1 800 544-5721."
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[Emphasis added] "Sign up"?

The other is "Sign up for AT&T Language Line Services before August
30, 1991 and save $500 off the service initiation fee of $1,000."

[My comment: "!!!!!"]

Are there two different services here, one a non-scheduled, call up
and be charged by the minute type and the other a subscription service
with a retainer charge and a lower per-minute or per-service charge?


Regards,

Will   [e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 10:26:49 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Visit to California


I'm just back from Los Angeles.  Various remarks:

Vista United (already noted for Disney World in Florida?) is the
default long distance carrier from Disneyland in Anaheim.

0+NPA+7D and 0+7D apparently both work for 0+ within 213.

I think I heard "GTE" as local carrier for an intra-LATA 0+ call I
made.  Would the default carrier be GTE or PacBell as the case may be
(depending on where you are calling from) for intra-LATA?

The latest phone books (PacBell) in L.A. area discuss both new area
codes in California:

415/510 -- points out that the boundary is easy to remember (the S.F.
Bay).

213/310 -- prefix list provided for 213 with asterisk to show if a
prefix or range of prefixes is moving to 310.  There is a 310 PREFIX
(huh?) listed for Santa Monica, which is moving to 310.  The only
prefixes staying in 213 will be Los Angeles (including FX lines
serving places which are otherwise in 818 and in the future 310) and
Montebello.  Everything else in the present 213 will move to 310.
(The L.A. airport, which is in the Inglewood exchange along the ocean,
will move to 310.)

I should also mention there is a West Los Angeles exchange which is
not to be confused with Los Angeles, as West Los Angeles is being put
in 310.

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

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Comes to Florida
Date: 4 Jun 91 16:19:43 GMT
Organization: Quantum Theory Project, Univ. of Florida


In my monthly Southern Bell bill was a page-long message about Caller
ID coming to "areas where the technology is available" effective July
1, 1991.

Per-call blocking will be available dialing *67 (tone) or 1167 (pulse)
before the call. "There will be no charge for blocking the
transmission of the number.  Blocking may not operate from coin
telephones and trunk-type services, e.g. motels, hotels and private
branch exchanges (PBXs)."

"Per-line blocking is availabble to law enforcement agencies' office
lines aas well as domestic violence intervention agencies' access
lines at established shelters." It then gives an address where "law
enforcement agencies and/or domestic violence intervention agencies"
can write to apply for per-line blocking or for more information.

Looks like they have some pretty specific ideas about who they're
going to give per-line blocking to.


David Bernholdt            [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project        [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611        904/392 6365

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Ctrl-A's at Beginning and End of Digest
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 13:59:33 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


These Ctrl-A's are a result of Pat's NWU host using the MMDF mailer.
MMDF is a MTA (mail transport agent), sometimes used in place of the
bundled Unix 'sendmail' MTA.

I could tell when they switched MTAs on the NWU host because my
"Return-receipt-to:", which is standard in all my off-site mail
headers, no longer sent a return receipt.  MMDF does not support
return-receipt-to.  At least not yet and not as far as I know.


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


[Moderator's Note: You are correct about the use of mmdf as the mail
agent at this site. When various messages are kept in a mailbox here,
the control A's are separators between them. You should not usually
see these because they are stripped away. When I remailed those three
issues the other day (mainly because MCI upchucked and dumped the
whole thing several issues in a row) I took copies from my archives
files to retransmit, and forgot to remove the control A's between
them. Although your return-receipt-to does not work here, *most* mail
to [e-mail] gets an autoreply from me. There are some
technical reasons why a few of you never get the autoreply.    PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 11:23:19 -0700
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: LAN Power Protection
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  I tried comp.dcom.lans first but no response so ...

  How much risk is there that a power problem at a workstation on a
LAN will propogate through the LAN and damage other workstations ?
(Note that I am not particularly concerned with transmission
disruption but with physical/electrical discombuberation (sp?) of the
equipment.

  DO NIC's have any built-in protection for this or is there something
that can be done when installing the LAN (extra parts, wiring methods)
to eliminate or minimize this risk. I assume that putting power
protection devices on every workstation will help and is necessary to
try and keep the problem from getting into any of the machines in the
first place but would like a little extra power protection for the LAn
as a whole.


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: Darren Alex Griffiths <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Emergency Highway Phones
Date: 4 Jun 91 17:26:59 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


A local newscast reported on some interesting highway emergency phones
this morning.  It seems that CalTrans is installing phones throughout
the San Francisco bay area on major highways.  The phones connect you
directly to to highway patrol and in will be spaced as close as a
half-mile apart.  The phones will be installed in pairs, on each side
of the highway, to discourage people from crossing busy roads.

All that is fairly standard, the interesting part is that the phones
are all cellular and run on solar power so no wires are needed to hook
'em up.  The reported said that the phones could be installed in about
twenty minutes.  They are all being paid for by a one dollar surcharge
on vehicle registration. They did not mention which cellular carrier
the phones operate on and whether that company is getting any money.
All bay area counties are getting the phones except SF, Marin and Napa
because voters in those counties turned down the surcharge.

The idea is pretty neat, but it does raise a few interesting
questions. I wonder what kind of security measures are taken. I'm not
to worried about some bad guy over hearing a distress call from an
helpless motorist at four in the morning and getting there before the
cops. I would be interested in whether or not someone could steal the
serial number to one of the phones and reprogram their own phone in
order to make calls at someone else's expense.  It would also be
interesting to see if most of the phones have the same serial number
or if they are all different, and whether or not the phones are smart
enough to send their location to the dispatcher when a call is placed.


Cheers,

darren alex griffiths    [phone]      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eliot Moore)
Subject: ZUM "Expansion"
Date: 5 Jun 91 03:13:08 GMT
Organization: Public Access Info Network  (818/776-1447)


How soon we forget ...

PacBell / GTE's generous "expansion" plan of June 1, 1991 follows the
new geography of December 10th, 1990, in which many local calls became
tolls.

For those with longer memories, you will recall the decimation of
October 1981, where some calling areas shrunk over 50%!

GTE, naturally, has been awarded a 6% basic rate increase in return
for their "gift".


Regards,

Elmo

                            techsys!pain!elmo
              Public Access Information Network  (818/776-1447)
                            ++ Waffle BBS v1.64 ++

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

Date: Sun, 02 Jun 91 18:37:21 CST
From: Jim Redelfs <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Pulse Dial Charge?
Reply-To: ivgate!macnet![e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


R. Kevin Oberman wrote:

> Craig Watts of Pacific Bell is quoted
> that 23% of California households have rotary phones. (First time
> I've heard that number. I wonder where he got it.)

That figure doesn't surprise me AT ALL.  As a residence repair
technician for US WEST Communications in Omaha, I still see rotary
sets regularly - frequently, in fact.  The fact that they are the most
durable telephones ever made is certainly the primary factor to their
longevity.

> I wonder when COs will start dropping support for rotory phones into
> electronic switches? I suspect it's coming now that tone dialing is
> "free" in California.

Don't hold your breath.  The Telephone Company has been committed for
YEARS to providing "reverse compatibility" and the above "23%" is an
excellent reason.

Also, I suspect that accomodating pulse dialing is one of the least
sophisticated functions required of an ESS Central Office.  Providing
pulse capability probably doesn't increase the cost of an ESS on iota.

The Nebraska Public Service Commission ordered telcos to stop charging
for TouchTone(tm) several years ago.  It has been long enough that I
am going on foggy recollection, but I remember that they ordered our
company to PROVE how much of the Local Monthly Service amount went to
cover the ACTUAL cost of providing TTS - for which we were charging
$1.20/line.  As I recall, the best we could come up with was SEVEN
CENTS!!!!!

Boom!  With the rap of a gavel and the stroke of a pen, everyone got
it for "free"!  HA!

[Disclaimer:  These are MY words and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and/or policies of my employer.]


JR
 Tabby 2.2
 MacNet Omaha 402-289-2899 On loan from Mrs MacWidow (1:285/14)

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

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 22:44:08 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question About PC Pursuit and MNP


I hope that someone familiar with PC Pursuit or MNP-compatible modems
in general can help me with this one:

I need to know how to tell an MNP-compatible modem to pretend that it
doesn't have MNP, so that when it calls out and reaches another MNP
modem, it will "play dumb" and not enable MNP mode.  In other words,
the connection will be a standard 2400 baud connection.

Presumably, this is done with an ATS command on the dialing end, prior
to the dialing command.

My situation is that I'm dialing into Telenet using a standard 2400
baud modem.  The outdial modem in the remote city is dialing to an MNP
(I think 5) modem, and returning a "CONNECT 2400 EC", indicating an
MNP connection.  The problem is that if the remote host sends data
continuously for more than a screen or so, there is tremendous data
corruption and loss.  When the remote modems connect in standard,
non-MNP mode, everything works dandy.

The Customer Service people at Telenet were of no help - they couldn't
quite understand the problem, and said that the only valid commands to
give an outdial modem were ATZ and ATDT.  I suspect that some other
commands, such as ATS might work as well, but they would not tell me
about them.

Anyone have an answer?  Thanks!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed 05 Jun 91 08:07:15
From: "Stanfield L. Smith  " <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions on LAPD


I need HELP in trying to understand how LAPD is going to work on the
ISDN B channel of the telephone network.

What I have been able to find out is there are many DIFFERENT
standards for LAPD, the CCITT, ATT, French and others.  I have the
CCITT book, but no documentation about the other variations.

1) Does anyone have documentation on the non-CCITT "standards" that is
   Emailable or suitable to FTP?

2) Can anyone explain how these different incarnations for LAPD are going
   to inter-operate as a world wide telephone system?

Thanks in advance,


Stanfield L. Smith   [e-mail]   516-277-0203

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

Date: 5 Jun 91 11:51:00 EDT
From: Charles Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wrong Recordings


Steve Forrette, in reference to his and Tim Irvin's difficulty with
inappropriate automatic-intercept recordings from Pac Bell, asks what,
if anything, can be done to correct this. Well, as always, 'it depends
 ...', in this case on where the problem lies and how Pac Bell stores
its recordings.

If this is in fact a software problem (the switch is programmed to
play the "line is being checked" message at the wrong time), the
correction will wait until subscriber irritation forces Pac Bell to
have a patch made. Since the problem doesn't actually cripple the
switch, the patch would go out at whatever interval Pac Bell's
supplier releases patches and upgrades. (where do they get their
switch software?)

Assuming it's a case of the wrong recording being in place (and that
Pac Bell no longer uses tape loops :), then fixing it could be simple
or next to impossible. The latter is the case if the telco has its
intercept announcements burned into a PROM in the switch somewhere.
Burning a new PROM is both tedious and supports an old technology, so
they won't want to do it.  On the other hand, if the guilty
announcement is just a file sitting on a disk that the switch reads in
as needed, then replacement can be just about as quick and dirty as
the telco wants.


Charles Hoequist  [e-mail]
BNR Inc.   PO Box 13478   Research Triangle Park NC 27709-3478, USA

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: The Princess Returns
Date: 6 Jun 91 04:37:37 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


I was into my local ATT Phone Center this week and spotted something
that I haven't seen for some time: Princess (R) phones !  ( I think
that the Princess name is/was a registered trademark ... ) I asked the
sales person and he told me that ATT had just recently brought them
back due to popular demand. They are even in a new set of colors that
weren't available in the past. And of course, available in either push
button or rotary dial versions. However, he said that they were for
lease only, no purchases.

I wonder if the insides are the same as the old ones I remember?


    Roger Swann               |    uucp:  uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark
         @                    |     fax:  [phone]
The Boeing Company            |   voice:  206-773-5491

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #429
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05792;
          7 Jun 91 4:47 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09560;
          7 Jun 91 3:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10896;
          7 Jun 91 2:00 CDT
Date:     Fri, 7 Jun 91 1:49:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #430
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 7 Jun 91 01:48:48 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 430

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Caller ID Approved in NC; So Bell Unhappy [News & Record via W. T. Sykes]
    Caller ID Plan OK'd in NC [Raleigh News & Observer via Henry E. Schaffer]
    Fax/Phone Switch Information Wanted [Harri Valkama]
    Re: How do You Deal With Central Office Problems? [Bill Woodcock]
    Address of MaxTrek, Inc. [Francesco Caserta]
    SWBT Computer Outage [J. Philip Miller]
    N.Y. Metro North Commuter Railroad [Carl Moore]
    Western Electric Guitar Amplifier [Billy Bradford]
    Radio Advertisement For Area 908 [Carl Moore]
    Modem Trouble on Subscriber Loop Carrier [Jim Hickstein]
    MCI, PictureTel Marketing [Roger Clark Swann]
    Last Laugh! Voice Mail Tricks; or One Hell of a Time [Tim Smith]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: wts1 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Approved in NC; Southern Bell Unhappy With Restrictions
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1991 15:18:05 GMT


Reprinted _with_ permission from the Greensboro (NC) {News & Record},
Sunday, June 2, 1991.

"Caller ID Service OK'd"

RALEIGH - Southern Bell received permission Friday to offer Caller ID,
a service that flashes the telephone number from which an incoming
call has originated, to customers in Raleigh, Charlotte and
Burlington.

But while permitting Caller ID, the state Utilities Commission issued
a number of restrictions meant to protect privacy.

Caller ID allows a subscriber to purchase a special device by which he
or she can see the number of the telephone from which the call is
being made before picking up the receiver.

The commission, in its 12-page order, ruled that Southern Bell must
provide a free blocking service for anyone who does not want his
number flashed into the home or business he is calling.  A subscriber
must also have the blocking ability when he uses other telephones, if
he chooses, the commission said.

And every six months, customers must be notified of their right to
obtain free blocking.

Those restrictions are designed to protect a person's right to
privacy, said Jo Anne Sanford, a special deputy attorney general who
handles utility matters.

She said she thought the ruling is the toughest issued in any Caller
ID case in the nation.

Southern Bell representatives, however, said restrictions might keep
the company from following through with plans to offer the service to
its North Carolina customers.

The phone company estimated the monthly price of the service at $7.50
a month for residences, $10 for businesses."

END OF REPRINTED ARTICLE

Pat,

Yesterday I called Southern Bell to see if any plans had been made as
to an availability date, and got a decidedly cool response from the
business office.  It appears SB is not very happy with the blocking
restrictions (evidently per line and per call, with twice yearly
notification) and may punt. I want my Caller ID.


William T. Sykes  AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies  Burlington, NC
UUCP: att!burl!wts  att!cbnewsb!wts1

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

From: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Plan OK'd in NC
Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1991 19:08:20 GMT


  The NC Utilities Commission gave Southern Bell permission to offer
Caller ID to customers in Raleigh, Charlotte and Burlington.  This was
approved last Friday, with some restrictions that Southern Bell (a
BellSouth Company) said might keep it from offering the service.  From
a Saturday Raleigh {News and Observer} story:

  "The commission, in a 12 page order, ruled that Southern Bell must
provide free blocking service ... a subscriber also must have the
blocking ability when using other telephones, if he chooses, the
commission said."

  This sounds like free per-line and per-call blocking.

The article continued:

  "And customers must be notified every six months of their right to
obtain free blocking."

  "Those restrictions were designed to protect a person's right to
privacy, said Jo Anne Sanford, a special deputy state attorney general
who handles utility matters."

[Moderator's Note: Same story as previous item, mostly deleted here.  PAT]

  "A southern Bell representative, however, said the restrictions
might keep the company from following through with plans to offer the
service to its North Carolina customers."

                           ---------

  Southern Bell had originally proposed Caller ID in Oct., 1989, said
it would decrease annoying/harassing calles and estimated the service
price as $7.50 for residences, $10 for businesses, and included no
provisions to block displays for callers who did not want their
numbers transmitted.  A modification of their proposal offered
blocking to selected law enforcement and human resources agencies.


henry schaffer  n c state univ

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

From: Harri Valkama <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fax/Phone Switch Information Wanted
Organization: University of Vaasa, Finland
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 19:21:27 GMT


Who can recommend for me an automatic fax/phone switch that has a
reasonable price. Let's say under $100.  It should sniff the incoming
call and whether it is a phone call or a fax call direct it to my
telephone or fax modem.  Here in Finland they are overlypriced; the
local telephone company tried to sell me one that cost 1500FIM (about
$350) !!!

Also a fax number for the company that sells these is very welcome. I
guess this device should work the same whether it is used in US or
Europe or what.  Power supply is perhaps different but not a real
problem. I mean that it should work with phone and fax signals or are
there any differences concerning this kind of scheme.


Harri Valkama, University of Vaasa, Finland
 P.O. Box 700, 65101 VAASA, Finland (tel:[phone] fax:[phone])
 Anon ftp garbo.uwasa.fi (128.214.12.37) & nic.funet.fi (128.214.6.100)
 [e-mail] [e-mail] /s=hv/o=uwasa/prdm=inet/amdm=fumail/c=fi

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

From: Bill Woodcock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How do You Deal With Central Office Problems?
Date: 5 Jun 91 23:38:42 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


Steve Forrette writes:

> Does anyone have ideas as to how to get these
> types of problems resolved?  I've tried in vain on couple of occasions
> to get Pacific Bell to fix wrong recordings or other minor CO trouble,
> and Repair Service seems very uninterested.  At first, they can't
> understand the problem, and resort to "we just tested your line, and
> didn't find anything wrong."  Once I convince them that it's not "in
> my line", they take the report, the ticket soon gets cleared, and the
> problem is still there.  I've all but given up.

Your line is almost certainly served out of one of the two switches at
2116 Bancroft.  There's an NT DMS100 and an AT&T 1AESS there, and
between the two of them, they serve almost all of Berkeley and north
Oakland. The phone numbers there are as follows:

   (reasonably) Techie folks:  [phone]
            Management folks:  [phone]

Or at least those were the numbers last fall, when I last enjoyed the
inestimable pleasure of business dealings with Pac*Bell.  <groan>


[e-mail]
2355.virginia.st..berkeley.ca.94709.1315

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

From: Francesco Caserta <[e-mail]>
Subject: Address of MaxTrek, Inc.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 23:55:55 GMT


Could somebody please provide me with the address of MaxTrek, Inc. One
of their products I'm interested in is a modem/fax/phone switch called
SmartMax II which seems pretty nice.

Thanks a lot.


Francesco Caserta

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: SWBT Computer Outage
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 22:29:47 CDT


I had expected to see a posting from someone else here in St. Louis
because it has been front page news for the last several days that a
SWBT computer went out last friday with serious outages.  No technical
details were given, but apparently some 2500 data lines were affected,
producing the following outages:

* several hundred ATM terminals were not functional.
* teller terminals within some branch banks were not functional.
* money transfers for the Federal Reserve bank were disrupted.
* off track betting at a local race track was not operational.

What I find most puzzling is that according to the press it took over
THREE DAYS to "reprogram" all of the connections.  No backups?

Anyone know the real story?


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 12:01:15 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: N.Y. Metro North Commuter Railroad


The New York MetroNorth commuter railroad has lines which run from
Manhattan (New York City) into the northern suburbs.

The New York MetroNorth commuter railroad has a toll-free number which
accepts input consisting of the first four letters of your
destination!  I ended up using that system on Sunday, May 5 of this
year.  I had originally planned to go from Tarrytown to Grand Central
Station, so I called 800-METRO-INFO (800-638-7646) and when asked for
the station I was going from, I punched in TARR (8277).  But then I
planned to check into a hotel in Chappaqua, and on my way up the Saw
Mill River Parkway enroute there, I saw a station I'd seen before, at
Chappaqua, so I was able to call 800-METRO-INFO again and this time
punch in CHAP (2427) and then go on the train from there.

Note: PORT (7678) requires further prompted input to distinguish
between Port Jervis and Port Chester.

Also, the toll-free number worked from Maryland when I was making the
original plan to go from Tarrytown.

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 12:48:58 EDT
From: Billy Bradford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Western Electric Guitar Amplifier


[Moderator's Note: This message was forwarded to the Digest from the
PC Pursuit Net Exchange BBS.   PAT]


  No. 123  06/05/91   01:16:35
  From: Billy Bradford              To: Patrick Townson
  Subject: Western Electric Guitar Amplifier

I've been reading the Western Electric sound-recording thread for
quite a while now, and came across something interesting.

I bought an old guitar amplifier about three weeks ago.  On the back,
it says "LICENSED UNDER PATENTS OF WESTERN ELECTRIC AND AMERICAN
TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO.  LAUREL ELECTRONICS CO., SAN ANTONIO,
TEXAS.  110-120 VOLTS AC 40 WATTS".  It uses three vacuum tubes, a
12AU6, a 50C5, and a 35W4.  Do any of you great telecom gurus out
there know what patents are being used?  It's just got two instrument
inputs and a volume knob, and a built-in speaker.

I really enjoy reading this newsgroup.  Glad to see that John Higdon
is, as Aerosmith puts it, "Back in the Saddle Again." 8-)


Billy Bradford       | I'm just a 16-year old hacker (of the old
POB 1374             |  definition) with nothing to do but learn.
Anadarko, OK  73005  |  You people are making it INTERESTING! 8-)
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Billy neglected to mention in his .signature that
he is also an honors student, and *the* computer expert in his school.
He desparately is trying to find a unix account somewhere with a local
area dialup if anyone can help.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 13:56:11 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Advertisement For Area 908


KYW news-radio (1060 AM in Philadelphia) is running an ad for area
code 908.  It depicts a woman moving out (on her husband?) and taking
the dog, etc. to central New Jersey, which is going to have the new
area code.  Here in telecom, we know that 908 is already useable; this
ad obviously warns of the FULL CUTOVER, without using those words.
Earlier warning noted for phone company offices: brace yourselves when
a full cutover approaches!

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

From: Jim Hickstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modem Trouble on Subscriber Loop Carrier
Date: 6 Jun 91 01:16:49 GMT
Organization: Teradyne, Inc. San Jose CA


One of my users tried to dial in from home recently, only to discover
that the modem spit out garbage continually.  He thought it looked
like a bad case of a noisy line, but voice calls sounds "crystal
clear."  I noted that his use of "crystal" indicated that something
had gotten better than it was; he said that seemed to be the case.

Two such 1200-baud modems showed the same behavior (although one had a
history of such problems, and had had its 600-Ohm transformer replaced
a while back).

Even on calls from one of his residential lines to the other, the same
symptoms arise.  So this lets out the modem on my end, and the network
between his serving office and anywhere else; the two directory
numbers have the same exchange, so I suppose they are in the same
switch.

Thinking fast, I explained that certain adaptive compression and other
fancy techniques can cause trouble for modem users.  He mentioned that
a representative of Pac*Bell had said that they "guarantee service
only for voice data [sic]".  And the modem worked last week; it just
suddenly stopped working.  But I thought these techniques were only
economical in the long-haul network.

Is it possible that the little box on the corner suddenly has a
newfangled subscriber loop carrier terminal in it that does some
really sophisticated compression, or otherwise makes assumptions about
the sort of traffic that will be handled?  There has been enormous
growth in his neighborhood (he said they had run low on directory
numbers, but this doesn't necessarily imply a shortage in the loop
plant, I suppose).  Are they starting to use something other than
straight digitizing on SLCs?  Or did both of his modems go south in
the same week?


Jim Hickstein, Teradyne/Attain, San Jose CA, [phone] FAX -0252
[e-mail] ...!{decwrl!teda,apple}!attain!jxh

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: MCI, PictureTel Marketing
Date: 5 Jun 91 21:44:43 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


 From June 3, 1991 issue of {PC Week};

MCI, PictureTel Plan Marketing Marriage  - Michael R. Zimmerman

[ just a summary ]

MCI Communications Corp. and PictureTel Corp. announce a joint
marketing agreement to boost videoconferencing. They will market each
other's products - MCI's Switched 56 and PictureTel's system 4000.
PictureTel nabbed 74 percent of the low-bandwidth market in 1989.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Voice Mail Tricks; or, One Hell of a Time
Date: Thu,  6 Jun 91 04:51:11 PDT


Tom Perrine asked:

> PS: I am also looking for any "stupid phonemail(tm) tricks" that
> anyone can suggest. I have a sense of humor that has been described as
> "strange, demented but never intentionally hostile". Something we can
> all laugh at here, as a way to make the new phone system a little less
> scary for some of our more telephobic employees. We have ROLM
> PhoneMail, Release 5.0.

The voice mail system where I work lets us send messages with delayed
delivery.  It appears that one can set a message for delivery several
months ahead.  I've thought of leaving a message for my boss set to go
off in about six months.  Every month I could then cancel this and
resend it for six months ahead.

Thus, this message would only get delivered to my boss if I failed to
cancel and resend it, which should only happen if I die.

The message would be something like this:

"Hello, this is Tim!  It's real hot here, and I miss you quite a bit.
The good news is I've seen the list and you are scheduled to join me
here!  Having a hell of a time, hope to see you soon. -- Tim"


Tim Smith


[Moderator's Note: I'll probably join you, since I want to be with all
my friends, and they all enjoy spending their summer vacation at that
nice resort in Hell, Michigan.  (Area 313, just southwest of Ann Arbor
for the curious among you.)  It has been one hell of a long day here,
so I think I will quit for tonight and go to bed.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #430
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08279;
          7 Jun 91 5:47 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21309;
          7 Jun 91 4:16 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09560;
          7 Jun 91 3:07 CDT
Date:     Fri, 7 Jun 91 2:15:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  Telecom in Eastern Europe
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


Here is a lengthy message I received about recent developments in
telecommunications in Eastern Europe which I thought you would enjoy.
Send comments directly to the poster.  PAT


 Date: Thu, 06 Jun 91 23:03:27 EDT
 From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
 Subject: Electronic Mail in Eastern Europe

 Received: by MARIST (Mailer R2.07) id 8189; Fri, 08 Mar 91 18:47:06 EST
 Date:         Wed, 6 Mar 91 14:47:59 EST
 Reply-To:     Discussion of Polish EARN topics <[e-mail]>
 Sender:       Discussion of Polish EARN topics <[e-mail]>
 From:         Zbigniew Jan Pasek <[e-mail]>
 Subject:      Networking in Eastern Europe
 X-To:         [e-mail]
 To:           "Richard Budd KLUB@MARISTB" <[e-mail]>

Zbigniew Pasek, a professor at the University of Michigan, posted this
article about three months ago on POLAND-L.  It provides information
about the status of electronic mail and computer networks in the
former East bloc.  Considering there was virtually no local area or
wide area networks in these countries two years ago (most of the
residents did not even have telephones), the development of extensive
e-mail networks, particularly in Poland, has been impressive.

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


Subject of Interest: Telecommunications and networking in Central and
Eastern Europe.


[e-mail] quotes in PLEARN-L of 6 March 1991 the
following article:


     Networking and Electronic Mail in Eastern European Countries

                     Claudio Allocchio, INFN


   This small note summarizes the results of a survey perfored among
parteci- pants to the First International School on Network Management
and Analysis, held in Trieste from Dec 4th to Dec 16th 1990. The
situation can differ a lot from country to country: some have alreay
networking structures available, some other still lack the basics, but
in all countries there is a strong push to establish connections and
to open conctacts with other nations. The major common problems are
the bad financial situation and licensing. Also know-how is a lacking
point in many situations. A final table tries to compare the different
situations. This note is only a first and non-exausting survey, but I
hope it can help. Let's now look more in detalis the various
situations.

Hungary:

There is currently available a national experimental X.25 network
called IIF "Information Infrastructure Network" of the Hunagarian
Academy of Sciences.  This network is a semi-private infrasctructure
for a closed community (the R&D community) but it is operated by
Hungarian PTT. On this network volume charghing is applied. There are
currently one EARN node and one EUnet node, both interfaced with IIF
network. There are plans to increase a lot networking capabilities
within the country in the near future; during 1991 the public X.25
service, interconnected with other PSDNs will be established. The
intention is to run OSI services on the X.25 network, but also a
number of tcp/ip point to point connections are foreseen. A tcp/ip
connection to HEPnet via CERN is also in preparation. E-mail in
Hungary is available via the ELLA system, with an x.400-like user
agent developed locally, running on top of IIF X.25. There is a
gateway connecting ELLA with EUnet and EARN. The plans are to
implement an X.400 MHS as soon as the public x.25 service will be
available.

Poland:

   Since a few years there is an experimental x.25 network connecting
8 sites via leased lines. This is supposed to be the kernel of the
Counry Academic Computer Network (KASK) wich is supposed to be
completed at mid 1991, covering 16 sites, and having gateways to EARN
and DFN. There is alrady an EARN con- nection in Warsaw and Wroclaw,
and two DECnet connections to CERN from Cracow and Warsaw. E-mail:
EARN and HEPnet nodes are reachable with their native protocols, but
there is no current gateway to the national x.25 infrastructure.

Romania:

   There are currently only a few and poor quality connection in the
country at 4800 bps joining single instituations, and no international
links are available. However the PTT started a program to make
available networking capabilities (x.25) in the country. It will take
some years. For international connectivity satellite links are
probably the correct solution.

USSR:

    The USSR situation is very fragmented and there is not what can be
called a 'nation wide' networking strategy. Public X.25 service
(IASNET) is available and is connected to the major PSDNs in the
world, using both ground and satellite links. The research community
had free access to this facility, but starting from 1991 each
Institute will have to pay the service and this is a major problem.
The largest research institutes have some small local private X.25
networks, and DECnet technology is also used locally. Leased lines are
obtainable, but due to the country geographical situation satellite
links are more reliable. Any institute is trying to provide its user
with connectivity with the foreign countries, but often local
connectivity is much less implemented, showing real cooperation
problems exist. The PAD access to remote sites providing services is
the most diffused situation. Apart from public X.25 the cooperative
"DEMOS", settled in Moscow, is the recognized Internet entry point for
domain '.su' and has a link to Helsinki (Finland). It provides access
using UUCP to about 30 sites. Many other institutes join the services
via dial-up connections (remote login) to DEMOS and using Kermit to
transfer data to their remote account. The DEMOS services are
expanding to reach more sites and to improve quality. There is also a
planned EARN link from Moscow to Poland and plans to establish DECnet
connections on top of public x.25 links to the HEPnet community. The
most used connectivity method however is still remote login to some
foreign institute to access its services. Electronic mail is avaiable
from DEMOS sites, via EUnet, but most of other institutes access to it
indirectly via remote login to collaborating remote partners.

Czecholslovakia:

    The networking in the country is currently based on 9.6 Kbps lines
used for the national EARN backbone and on 2.4 Kbps dial up lines used
within the EUnet community. International connectivity is assured by
an EARN link joining Pague to Linz (Austria) and an EUnet link joining
Bratislava to Vienna. In 1992 the public X.25 service will be
available with international connectivity. The intention is to build a
national backbone enabling multi- protocol transport (at least SNA,
TCP/IP and X.25) and to have a 64 Kbps link to Internet. Electronic
mail is available directly, using both EARN ans EUnet facilities.

                Summary of Networking is Eastern European Countries

                | Hungary               | Poland              | Romania
                  -------                 ------                -------
 Public X.25    | Expected 1991         | NO (experimental    | NO
 available      | IIF (semi-private     | network 8 nodes)    |
                | network for academic  |                     |
                | community, 200 DTEs)  |                     |
                |                       |                     |
 Pad Access     | YES                   | NO                  | NO
 available      |                       |                     |
                |                       |                     |
 Leased lines   | YES (but takes        | YES                 | YES (very
 available      | long time)            |                     | poor quality)
                |                       |                     |
 Available      | up to 9600 bps        | up to 9600 bps      | up to 4800 bps
 Speed          |                       |                     |
                |                       |                     |
 Satellite/     | ground                | ground              | ground
 Ground lines   |                       |                     |
                |                       |                     |
 DECnet net     | some Local            | some local          | NO
 exists         | implementations       | one link to CERN    |
                |                       |                     |
 TCP/IP net     | some local            | 1 local             | NO
 exists         | implementations       | implementation      |
                |                       |                     |
 EARN net       | one link to           | one int'l link,     | NO
 exists         | TU-Wien               | 5 nodes             |
                |                       |                     |
 EUnet net      | one link              | NO                  | NO
 exists         |                       |                     |
                |                       |                     |
 Other net      | IIF nation            | exper. X.25         | NO
 exists         | wide X.25             | nation wide         |
                |                       |                     |
 Planned        | YES                   | YES                 | --
 DECnet         | nation wide           | some sites          |
                |                       |                     |
 Planned        | YES                   | YES                 | --
 TCP/IP         | nation wide           | nation wide         |
                |                       |                     |
 Planned        | YES                   | YES (SNA)           | YES
 EARN           | nation wide           | nation wide         |
                |                       |                     |
 Planned        | YES                   | --                  | --
 EUnet          | nation wide           |                     |
                |                       |                     |
 LAN            | NOVELL,               | NOVELL              | NOVELL
 technology     | DECnet                |                     |
                |                       |                     |
 E-mail         | YES                   | YES                 | NO
 available      | directly              | directly            |
                |                       |                     |
 E-mail         | ELLA, UUCP            | VMSmail,            | N/A
 protocols      | RSCS                  | RSCS                |


                 | USSR                  | Czechoslovakia
                   ----                    ---------------

 Public X.25    | YES, IASNET connected | NO (expected in
 available      | to most of PSDN in    | 1992)
                | Europe and USA        |
                |                       |
 Pad Access     | YES (x.21) but not    | NO
 available      | from all sites        |
                |                       |
 Leased lines   | YES, but sometines    | YES
 available      | with poor quality     |
                |                       |
 Available      | up to 9600 bps        | up to 9600 bps
 Speed          |                       |
                |                       |
 Satellite/     | ground & satellite    | ground
 Ground lines   |                       |
                |                       |
 DECnet net     | some Local            | NO
 exists         | implementations       |
                |                       |
 TCP/IP net     | NO                    | NO
 exists         |                       |
                |                       |
 EARN net       | NO                    | one int'l link,
 exists         |                       | 5 nodes
                |                       |
 EUnet net      | YES, link to Finland  | YES
 exists         |                       |
                |                       |
 Other net      | --                    | --
 exists         |                       |
                |                       |
 Planned        | YES                   | NO
 DECnet         | nation wide           |
                |                       |
 Planned        | YES                   | YES
 TCP/IP         | nation wide           | nation wide
                |                       |
 Planned        | YES                   | YES
 EARN           | nation wide           | nation wide
                |                       |
 Planned        | YES                   | --
 EUnet          | nation wide           |
                |                       |
 LAN            | Ethernet,             | Ethernet
 technology     | DECnet                |
                |                       |
 E-mail         | YES, directly from    | YES
 available      | some sites            | directly
                |                       |
 E-mail         | UUCP                  | UUCP,
 protocols      |                       | RSCS


Yugoslavia:

3123 YUBGEF51 YUBGSS21 Electrical Engineering Faculty, Universit JNET  90/07/03
0063 YUBGSS21 AEARN    Republicki Zavod za Statistiku SR Srbije  JES2  90/08/17

Hungary:

3224 HUEARN   AEARN    Computer and Automation Institute Budapes RSCS  90/07/03

Czechoslovakia:

3223 CSEARN   AEARN    Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech RSCS  90/11/30
1128 CSPGAS11 CSEARN   Institute of Information Theory and Autom RSCS  90/11/30
1024 CSPGCE11 CSEARN   Faculty of Civil Engineering of CVUT,Prag RSCS  90/11/30
1037 CSPGEU11 CSEARN   Prague School of Economics                RSCS  90/11/30
1055 CSPUNI12 CSEARN   Czech Technical University, Prague, Czech RSCS  90/11/30



 -










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24252;
          7 Jun 91 22:00 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19191;
          7 Jun 91 20:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00659;
          7 Jun 91 19:24 CDT
Date:     Fri, 7 Jun 91 19:24:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #431
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 7 Jun 91 19:23:57 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 431

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Hollings and Pac*Bell [John Higdon]
    Alternative LD from Vancouver, B.C. (Answers) [David Rabson]
    Nokia P-30 Handheld Cellphone Accessories [Bill Nickless]
    Calling Card Calls from Canada [Maurice R. Baker]
    Interesting Article in IEEE Proceedings [Maurice R. Baker]
    Mass DPU Agrees Second Unlisted Line is No Charge [John R. Levine]
    RBOCs Own Cellular [Ken Jongsma]
    Easy Fax to ASCII? [Adam M. Gaffin]
    Phone/PC Interface Hardware [Jonathan Mark]
    Service Overlap [Jim Rees]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 10:39 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Hollings and Pac*Bell


Pac*Bell has given those of us who care to look a glimpse of the
future under the Hollings bill that permits the RBOCs to enter the
world of equipment manufacturing. It is call "The Message Center", and
while it is not exactly "hardware", it is a good example of how
Pac*Bell intends to compete in the marketplace.

The "Message Center" is a voicemail service that directly competes
with voicemail service bureaus. It will answer your phone after a
preset number of rings, allow you to retrieve your messages from
anywhere, and will put "stutter" dial tone on your phone if there are
messages waiting.

What is wrong with this? First, it is priced well below most service
bureaus. Using the vast capital resources available courtesy of its
ratepayers, Pac*Bell can offer this service at a preditory price that
is designed to murder the competition. When the field has been thinned
out sufficiently, then the price can be whatever it wants.

With a service bureau, it is necessary to forward calls to the special
number it provides for your mail box. This results in at least local
charges for the forwarded calls. Pac*Bell, being "the phone company"
does not worry about this and will tout this as an advantage for its
own system (no local charges).

And no service bureau can provide "stutter" dial tone on your
telephone if you have messages holding. Another EXCLUSIVE Pac*Bell
advantage -- exploiting the fact that it controls the network.

This is how Pac*Bell would play in the equipment market. "Buy our
system. It has special features that no other system can provide." And
it would have those features because if you bought the Pac*Bell
system, special signals or what-have-you could be sent from the CO to
enable the exclusive selling points--signals that would be denied
ordinary vendors. In other words, Pac*Bell would use its capital from
the regulated services to subsidize preditory pricing, while using its
position as controller of the network to provide "exclusive" services.

If you doubt this, just look at "The Message Center" and ask yourself
these questions:

1. Why does "The Message Center" offer features I can't get anywhere
   else?

2. Why does it cost less than any other comparable service?

3. What will it cost when the competition is driven out of the market?

What would you think of ConEd or PG&E selling appliances, claiming
that this would advance the state of the art, benefit the handicapped,
improve the quality of life, etc., etc.?

Let us hope the Hollings bill dies a well-deserved death in the House.


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


[Moderator's Note: But actually, in Chicago the Commonwealth Edison
Company does offer 'light bulb service'. For every paid electric bill
you turn in, you can have four bulbs (various wattages) for every ten
dollars or so on the bill.  No one complains about it, and I am not
about to complain about Ameritech/Illinois Bell's voicemail service
here. I think it beats out any of the others at half the price.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 12:11:15 EDT
From: David Rabson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alternative LD From Vancouver, B.C. (Answers)
Organization: Cornell Theory Center


Some months ago, before moving to Canada, I called all the US
long-distance companies to enquire about calling-card rates from
Canada to the U.S.  MCI quoted very favourable figures, which I
verified on two subsequent calls to customer service.  When I received
my bill, I found that they had charged between double and quadruple
the rates they had quoted me (taking into account the calling-card
surcharge, naturally).  To their credit, MCI eventually adjusted my
bill to reflect the originally-quoted rates, rebating my account about
$40.  I would not recommend using either MCI or Sprint from Canada;
both charge more than B.C. Telephone.

After abandoning MCI, I found that while Canadian regulations have
apparently prevented the establishment of large, national alternative
long-distance carriers as in the U.S., there are numerous local
outfits in Vacncouver.  Most I called had moderately large volume
requirements.  One, however, is well suited to the average home user.
CamNet charges 35% less than B.C. Tel during all rate periods to the
U.S., 25% less to Ontario and Quebec, and roughly 10% less on most
international calls.  Set-up is $10 (CDN), and there is a $2/month
service charge.  This puts them about where I remember MCI being ten
or twelve years ago.  Users can also call U.S. 800 numbers for a flat
charge of 30c/minute.  They apparently do not have call supervision,
for some calls of less than 15 seconds seem not to be billed.  Access
is through a local number and touch-tone code.  They do not advertise,
and most people here have never heard of them.

I hope this will be of some use to readers living in or moving to B.C.

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 12:14:56 CDT
From: Bill Nickless <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nokia P-30 Handheld Cellphone Accessories


Pat, I seem to recall you bought a Radio Shack CT-301, and you've done
business with Cellular Products Distributors.  I ordered from them a
battery eliminatator; it fits on the phone where the battery goes but
plugs into the cigarette lighter in my car.  Works great -- and should
save wear on the batteries.  Haven't you had to replace the battery on
the phone more than once?


Bill Nickless     [e-mail] or [e-mail]
                  [phone] or [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I've had to replace the battery twice on the Radio
Shack phone. Both times, the old one got pretty well hosed from
getting charged too often, or not enough, etc. I also have the battery
eliminator from the same company, and it works great in the car.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu,  6 Jun 91 13:34:31 EDT
From: Maurice R Baker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Card Calls From Canada
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


After the recent spate of articles about "ringing tones around the
world" and "a view of telephone service in the U.K.", I thought that I
would share my recent telephonic experience while visiting Toronto,
Ontario, Canada earlier this week.

I had occasion to make a few business and personal calls back home to
the U.S., and opted for the "Bell" payphone in the lobby of the Westin
Harbour Castle Hotel to avoid the $1.00 'service' charge on each call
from my room.

I used both my AT&T Universal Card and AT&T Calling Card, with
identical results:

Dial the number as 0+XXX+YYY+ZZZZ.
Wait for the "bong", and enter my card number/pin.
After a few seconds, get a synthesized (or recorded) message:
    "Please hold for operator assistance"
Then a ringback or two, followed by a real live human operator:
    "Please hold for card verification"
I could hear her keying in something from the buttons clicking.
Frequently I would then hear a spurt of (what sounded to me) 2600 Hz.
    perhaps as a trunk was seized.
Then another "bong" tone, with some more audible keyboard pressing.
Finally, the operator would say:
    "I'll put your call through now"
Optionally followed by "have a nice day" or whatever, but never
    "Thank you for using Bell Canada"

I interpret this to mean that Network Interconnect between U.S. and
Canada has not been completely implemented, and CCS7 messages can't be
automatically exchanged across the border yet to the AT&T NCPs, etc.

Of more immediate interest is the question:

Will I (should I) be charged for an operator-assisted call even though
I dialed the called-party and my credit card/pin number myself?


M. R. Baker     AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel
homxc!jj1028  -or-  jj1028 at homxc.att.com

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

Date: Thu,  6 Jun 91 13:41:36 EDT
From: Maurice R Baker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting Article in IEEE Proceedings
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Just a brief mention of an interesting and well-written journal
article which will ikely be of interest to many readers of this
newsgroup:

    "The Intelligent Network-Changing the Face of Telecommunications"

    by Richard B. Robrock II of Bellcore

    in "Proceedings of the IEEE", Vol. 79, Number 1, January 1991.

The title does not do it justice ... it contains a nice historical
perspective on common channel signalling (CCS6 & CCS7), 800 services,
CLASS, etc.  while providing an abundant amount of technical detail
and an excellent list of references.

"Proceedings of the IEEE" should be available in any well-stocked
college/ university library (associated with a school offering
classes/coursework related to EE or the like) not to mention many
technically-oriented company libraries.  I'm sure you could also order
a reprint from the IEEE, if necessary.


M. R. Baker    AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel
homxc!jj1028  -or-  jj1028 at homxc.att.com

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

Subject: Mass DPU Agrees Second Unlisted Line is No Charge
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 17:03:08 EDT
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


A few months ago I called up New England Tel to get Ringmate, their
distinctive ringing service, on my second phone line.  Although NET
for some reason cannot combine multiple residential lines on a single
bill, it has always been the case that unlisting the second and
subsequent phone numbers was free.  My second number has always been
unlisted, so I had the two new Ringmate numbers unlisted as well,
since they were for data and fax modems.

A week or so later I got a handwritten postcard from NET saying they'd
been unable to contact me and I should call them.  When I did, they
said that if I wanted any of the numbers unlisted, even the number I
already had, they would charge $1.81 per number, the usual unlisted
rate.  When I pressed them and pointed out that the unlisted number
had always been free, they insisted that the tariff had changed.  I
told them to list them all under the name of T. H. Sophia who lives
here but gets few phone calls because she's a dog.

The next call was to the state Department of Public Utilities to
complain, because this whole business sounded pretty bogus.  They took
my complaint and said they'd look into it.  Nothing happened for
several months.  The DPU called back last week and said they agreed
that I was right and NET was wrong, there is no charge for unlisting
second and subsequent phone numbers and thank you for bringing it to
their attention.

Knowing NET, they won't tell anyone else.  If you are a Massachusetts
phone customer and have been charged for an unlisted second line or
Ringmate number, you are presumably entitled to get your money back.
For further info you can call Jack Warshall at the DPU, 617-727-3531.


Regards,

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


[Moderator's Note: I'm surprised you had this much trouble with NET.
Illinois Bell has always maintained that <one> non-pub listing was as
good as a dozen in their records. They either give your number to the
seeker, or advise it is non-pub. One transaction, one fee. Of course
if you want more than one free listing per line, you do pay for the
extra listings; i.e. two lines, two free listings.  PAT]

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

From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>
Subject: RBOCs Own Cellular
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 8:58:01 EDT


It would appear the more things change, the more they stay the same.
From the June 10 issue of _Business Week_:

In the latest acquisition of an independent cellular telephone outfit
by a deep pocketed traditional phone company, Ameritech on May 28
agreed to purchase Cybertel RSA Cellular and Cybertel financial for
$512 million. The Cybertel acquisitions will extend the Chicago based
Baby Bell's cellular reach from the Great Lakes region south to nearby
St. Louis.

Of the top 10 cellular carriers, only No. 1 McCaw Cellular
Communications is not now owned by a conventional "wireline" phone
company. Indeed, phone companies are mainly battling one another:
Ameritech and Southwestern Bell will go head to head in St. Louis and
Chicago.

                          ---------

I find the second paragrah very disturbing. Some may claim that there
is no way that the local service ratepayer subsidizes this business,
but at the very least, it distracts the RBOCs from doing what they
ought to be. That is, delivering improved local wireline service.

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

From: Adam M Gaffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Easy Fax to ASCII?
Organization: The World
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1991 00:37:55 GMT


If this one has already been beaten to death, please forgive me, but...

Probably nobody gets more junk fax than a newsroom, and we are getting
tired of going through reams of expensive fax paper, so we're looking
at replacing the machine with a computer and fax board. Our computer
gurus have found some software that will turn a fax message into a PCX
or TIFF file and another program that will convert THAT into ASCII,
and want to write a bath file to transmit that into our main system.

The problem is this has to be done for each individual fax, because
the software they want to use (ReadRight is one of the programs)
apparently can't be automated. Unfortunately, it all seems more
complex than the average reporter or editor is willing to deal with,
especially since we probably get 40-50 faxes (maybe more; I've never
counted) a day. Does anybody know of any decent software for turning
fax into ASCII, preferably automatically, or, at the least, through
macros? Any help would be most appreciated!

Thanks!


Adam Gaffin   Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass.
[e-mail]     Voice: [phone].
Fred the Middlesex News Computer: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jonathan MARK)
Subject: Phone/PC Interface Hardware
Date: 6 Jun 91 16:20:41 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jonathan MARK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA


I'm curious about what kind of gear I would need to have my PC answer
the phone for me.  Can anyone point me to a vendor or mail-order shop
which would have such a thing?  I can do whatever programming is
needed but I'm not adept at hardware hacking.

Desired features would be:
    * send voice greeting (hopefully my voice, not a chip voice)
    * read incoming voice messages to memory/disk
    * recognize a data call and connect via my modem
    * receive Caller ID if available

Thanks for any ideas ...

Jonathan Mark    uunet!microsoft!jonm    [not speaking for my employer]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Service Overlap
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 18:03:49 GMT


I have recently moved from an apartment to a house half a block away,
on the same (aerial) cable.  When I called TPC to get my phone
changed, they offered to provide service at both locations for a
while.

This works just like an extension phone, as far as I can tell.  It's a
great convenience.  The cost is the same as the cost of having a
second line, so it's not terribly cheap, but for ten days it will only
cost me $5 or so.

They had this all set up within two hours of my call to them.  I was
impressed.

How is this physically done in the CO?  Is it just software in the
switch (mine is a 1AESS)?  What would happen if I picked up phones in
both houses at the same time?  I may try this just to see.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #431
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23709;
          8 Jun 91 22:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19571;
          8 Jun 91 20:44 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17523;
          8 Jun 91 19:39 CDT
Date:     Sat, 8 Jun 91 18:41:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #432
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Jun 91 18:41:25 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 432

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads) [Jamie Mason]
    Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads) [Brad Hicks]
    Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads) [Cliff H. Wallach]
    Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads) [Greg Andrews]
    Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads) [Al L. Varney]
    Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads) [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads) [Peter Creath]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads)
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1991 02:34:24 -0400


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

> [Moderator's Note: Register S-6 in many modems sets the length of time
> to wait off hook before dialing. In the USR, the command ATX6
> overrides the two second delay and dials immediatly. The ten attempt

    Oops.  I looked *right past* that in my modem manual.  You are
right: S6 (default) "Number of seconds modem waits before dialing."

    However, the modem does not dial immediately after picking up
the phone -- it waits for a dial tone.  And even X does it: "If set to
X2, X4 or X6, modem ignores this regiser and dials as soon as it
detects a dial tone."

    I don't find this unreasonable.  The two second delay is to
stop the equiptment from dialing before the CO switch is ready.  If
there is a dial tone (even before two seconds), then the switch is
ready --- that is what the dial tone means.  This takes about 1sec on
my exchange.  Of course I could set S6 to a lower value than two, but
why bother when my modem can detect dial tone?

> limit is to prevent repeated harassment of people who get wronh number
> calls intended for modems. Telco's repeat dialing feature won't change
> this; the modem does not care if it dials 7-D or *66. After ten tries,
> it will stop dialing.   PAT]

    *66 and *69 don't just call the appropriate number here.  The
call the number, then if it is busy, they 'camp on' in.  That is to
say, they switch calls *me* back to let me know that the number is
free.  When I pick up the phone, it calls the number automatically.

    So it does not have to try ten times -- just once.  Then the
network tries all by itself.  That's why "this is obsolete".


Jamie


[Moderator's Note: Sure, and when the network connects, it will ring
you back, and your modem will respomd in *answer mode* to the ringing
phone. Or do you manually intercept it at that point and gie ATD to
the modem to force it to go on line?    PAT]

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

Date: 06 Jun 91 10:33:51 EDT
From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads)


> Also, I have heard of, but never heard officially, of a telco
> tariff which requires that autodialers not retry the same number
> more than ten times in a row automatically.

Doubtless some legal type will look this up for us and cite the exact
ruling, but it's not a tariff, it's a law.  It was passed by Congress
in the aftermath of that guy who got hacked off at one of the
televangelists (I can't remember if it was Falwell, Roberts, or
Robertson) and set up his modem to dial their fund-raising 800 number
every minute or so for several weeks.  Since they got charged $1 for
every "completed" call, this guy ran up a bill on their nickle that
reached into the tens of thousands of dollars.

Since the guy left it going for a LONG time, it was trivial to trace
the calls back to him.  The "ministry" in question tried to bring
phone harrassment charges against him, but due to a quirk in the law
of the time, phone harrassment couldn't be brought in a case where the
person charged never spoke into the phone, or some such triviality.

That's when Congress got involved. (Televangelists + Congresscritters =
Danger.)  Some Congresscritter held hearings on the matter, which
concluded that (a) what this guy had done was Bad and should be
stopped, and (b) lots of other people were complaining about getting
repeated redials from modems when BBS listings were wrong or out of
date.  Result was new legislation making it illegal to dial the same
number more than ten times in a row.

This may well be the most worthless piece of legislation short of
National Rutabaga Day, since (a) the telcos don't enforce it in any
way, so most modem users ignore it, and (b) it doesn't achieve the
stated goal, since there's nothing that requires you to actually DO
anything to confirm the phone number ... just dial "time and temp"
once after every tenth try, and you're in the clear.  So I guess it's
just in there to have something to throw at guys like Perpetrator "A"
above.

Of course, this didn't rescue the televangelists, either.  Did you
hear about the 800 Club?

In the aftermath of all of the above, a Minneapolitan (active in both
gay rights and Pagan rights, among other political causes, and a
member of the Minnesota Democratic Farm Labor Party) came up with the
bright idea of putting together a single sheet with a list of the 800
numbers of all of the televangelists that she perceived were using
tax-exempt donations to attack the civil rights of gays or Pagans,
with instructions that all you had to do "join" the "800 Club" was to
dial one of the phone numbers every day; preferably a different
number each day.  Minimum "compliance" was to get the person on the
other end to answer; "bonus points" were allotted if you could draw
them out into a conversation.  (My favorite: Caller: "Excuse me, but
what time is it?"  Operator, startled, usually answers.  Caller hangs
up.  Drove several operators crazy enough to quit, we heard.)

At its peak three years ago or so, I heard an estimate that there were
literally thousands of "members" of this club.  The activist who
started it claimed that during her calls, almost all of the ministries
told her that because of those "awful gays and satanists" tying up the
lines and adding so much to the phone bills, most of the ministries
were going to have to give up fund-raising in this manner.

And all as legal as church on Sunday -- to turn a phrase.

   - J. Brad Hicks

[Please send direct responses to [e-mail], not to the
address above.  Thank you!]


[Moderators Note: All quite legal? Maybe ... all quite petty? A
definite ten-four, good buddies ... People who hide behind a phone
line to harass and play games do NOT get any sympathy from me,
regardless of the validity of their cause otherwise.  I have to wonder
how (for example) {The Advocate} -- which advocated harassing Falwell
in this way -- or the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force or other gay
rights organizations would like seeing *their* 800 numbers polluted
like this, giving them a multi-thousand dollar phone bill and forcing
them to disconnect the number and preventing people who need to call
them on that line from doing so?

Actually, the guy in Georgia who did that to Falwell ran the bill up
more than 'several thousand dollars'.  It was about a hundred-thousand
dollars, and Falwell's only loss was the time spemt by a dozen
operators answering bogus calls once a minute and the time spent
during one month by the Director of Telecom Services for Falwell's
organization and the local telco in tracking down the problem. (At
first they thought it was a failure in their own equipment (they take
incoming calls through an ACD behind a centrex).  AT&T (his 800
carrier) took a goodwill charge-off for the whole thing, and I think
the originating telco agreed to accept a chargeback for some of what
AT&T wrote off.  So who lost money? Only us ratepayers, that's all.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 12:47:28 CDT
From: "Cliff H. Wallach" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads)
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]> is written:
-X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 423, Message 13 of 13

> Since my switch will reliably take 36ms, I see no reason to not allow
> me to dial at that speed.  Anybody (Toby?) know why the newer modems
> are handicapped/differently-abled in this manner?

Some foreign administrations have laws about the minimum DTMF time.
Modem chip vendors hardwire some limit so they can sell chips to
multiple markets.  US Robotics designs their own modem datapumps, so
any DTMF time limit is governed by the supervisory software.  We used
the modems that we designed.

> [Moderator's Note: And while Toby is answering that, here is another
> question: how come US Robotics has a condition you can set which
> allows for 'quick dialing', or dialing without waiting the obligitory
> two seconds before starting?  Hayes used to claim (maybe still do)
> that telco tariffs require a two second pause before dialing. You
> could not set that particular S-register less than 2.  Telebit seems
> to feel the same way ... but USR lets you go off hook and bang those
> digits right out if you set the register for it.   PAT]

The fast dial mode checks for dial tone before dialing.  I believe
this is the only US telco requirement.  USR has advertised fast
dialing for seven years with any complaints.  How many people will pick up
a handset and start dialing without waiting two seconds?


Cliff Wallach        uunet!motcid!wallach

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

From: Greg Andrews <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System 408 241-9760
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1991 19:34:40 GMT


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

> This reminds me of a "pet peeve" (sic?) that I have with the newer
> modems.  Both the Hayes 9600 V-series and the $74 2400 card-modem I
> have won't accept an ATS11 value (DTMF duration) of less than 50ms.
> The default seems to be 100ms.  The Hayes will take a smaller value,
> but use 50 during tone generation.  The clone returns ERROR for a
> value less than 50.  The old 1200 geniune Hayes that I have will take
> values down to 1ms, and actually do it as well.

Hmmm.  You want your modem to use 36 ms instead of 50?

So exactly how much time would you save with that extra 14 ms?  I note
that the S11 register controls the duration AND spacing of the tones,
so every tone would be 14 ms faster and the space in between would be
14 ms faster.

Seven digit numbers would be seven multiplied by the S11 setting,
multiplied by two:

   555-1212 = 7 x 50 ms x 2 = 0.7 seconds to dial the number
   555-1212 = 7 x 36 ms x 2 = 0.5 seconds to dial the number

   A savings of 0.2 seconds

Eleven digit numbers (ten digit with a leading 1 or 0):

   1-408-555-1212 = 11 x 50 ms x 2 = 1.1 seconds to dial
   1-408-555-1212 = 11 x 36 ms x 2 = 0.8 seconds to dial

   A savings of 0.3 seconds


So for every eleven digits that the modem dials, the user can save 1/3
of a second if the modem uses 36 ms tones instead of 50 ms tones.

How many switches in this country (and the world) can reliably handle
DTMF tones faster than 50 ms?  How many can handle them even that
fast?

Should modem manufacturers take steps to ensure their equipment works
reliably with the broad range of switches out in the field, even at
the expense of 0.2 - 0.3 seconds per call?  Are modem users such speed
demons that 0.3 seconds is begrudged?

In my humble opinion, it's a little silly to get upset over such a
small amount of time.  Of course, I happen to work for Telebit
technical support, so that may explain my viewpoint a little bit...


Greg Andrews   |       UUCP: {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!gandrews
               |   Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu,  6 Jun 91 18:37:03 CDT
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads)
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

>    Anyone know *why* 35ms (or 36ms) seems to be a universal limit
> on modern exchanges?  Is this designed in?

Yup, designed in.  In order to meet the goal of less than one
occurrence of false digit simulation in 1500 calls from room noise,
etc., the digit tones have to be present for a period of time with no
other significant frequencies, except dial tone must be ignored.  Thus
the standard for requiring 40 msec. as a lower bound, for both the
digits and the inter-digital interval.  Switches should reject digits
shorter than 23 msec., and since the loop can distort signals somewhat
(Right, Toby?), the transmitter should use about 50 msec.  Switches
use 50 msec. when using DTMF to PBXes.


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL  [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads)
Date: 8 Jun 91 03:22:43 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Since my switch will reliably take 36ms, I see no reason to not allow
> me to dial at that speed.  Anybody (Toby?) know why the newer modems
> are handicapped/differently-abled in this manner?

The noise picked up by a telephone mic, including some human voices,
may contain brief bursts of energy that may be mistaken for touch tone
signaling.  Many touch tone signaling receivers are designed to reject
tone signals shorter than 50 msec in an attempt to reduce their
sensitivity to these false signals.  Perhaps the modem makers are
trying to prevent you from mis-dialing when using one of these
switches.

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

>     Also, I have heard of, but never heard officially, of a telco
> tariff which requires that autodialers not retry the same number more
> than ten times in a row automatically.  This lead to: a) some
> crippled terminal programs which won't do more than ten retries before
> having to be restarted, and b) crippled hardware -- my DUoFone 195 (an
> old Radio Shack gadget) has an auto redialer which keeps trying till
> there's no more busy.  But it will only try a maximum of ten times.
> Of course, this is all obsolete now, in the days of Call Return, where
> the Network does it for you.

The reason they don't allow an autodialer to dial too many times or
too rapidly is to prevent 'gridlock' in the network.  If a bunch of
people with auto-redial equipment are rapidly redialing each other and
getting busy signals because the called party is also busy redialing,
the network tends to block, and all with non-revenue calls!  If your
auto-redial equipment backs off a bit, it lets some of those calls
reach you.

Call*Return does not do its work by continually redialing, but by
queueing a request in a database common to your switch and the called
switch.  This does not result in network blockage from busy attempts,
as CPE rapid-dialing does.


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 Creath <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads)
Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1991 16:56:28 GMT


Telco's desire for a two-second delay is to give their equipment time
to register your line and give you a dial tone.  You forgot to mention
that the only way a USR (at least that's what it says in MY manual)
can skip the delay is to listen for the dial tone and begin dialing as
soon (read about 1 or 2 ms) as it hears the dial tone.  The difference
between ATX5 and ATX6 is that X6 listens for dial tone and gives you
the ability to speed dial.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #432
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25709;
          8 Jun 91 23:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac04508;
          8 Jun 91 21:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19571;
          8 Jun 91 20:45 CDT
Date:     Sat, 8 Jun 91 20:11:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #433
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Jun 91 20:10:53 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 433

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MCI $20 Promotion [Guy R Berentsen]
    Re: MCI $20 Promotion [Robert Savery]
    Re: MCI $20 Promotion [Tim Smith]
    Re: MCI $20 Promotion [John Eaton]
    Re: Telecom in New Zealand [Ross Keatinge]
    Re: How do You Deal With Central Office Problems? [Terry Kennedy]
    Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security [Ehud Gavron]
    Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone [Steven S. Brack]
    Re: Cellular Modems [John Richard Bruni]
    Re: PacBell Does Something Right [John Higdon]
    Re: Did Western Electric Also Make Sound Recordings? [Brett G. Person]
    Re: N.Y. Metro North Commuter Railroad [Howard Pierpont]
    Re: 908 Area Code Switchover [Dave Levenson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed,  5 Jun 91 19:38:28 EDT
From: Guy R Berentsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI $20 Promotion
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


1.) The version I recieved was pushing a service package with a
monthly fee, so even If I switched back I would be liable for all or
part of the monthly fee.

2.) Some of the fine print said that I would have to pay the BOC fee to
switch.

3.) After the part of the agreement that said I would selecting MCI as
my primary long distance carrier by signing the check, there was more
fine print that said If I select more than one carrier none of my
selections would be considered valid. To me this sounds like one could
cash the check, but invalidate the selection wihtout technically
violating the agreement. Of course, that would certainly violate the
spirit of the agreement, and could cost more than $20 if you have to
pay several switch over fees.

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

Date: Mon, 03 Jun 91 23:26:58 CST
From: Robert Savery <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI $20 Promotion
Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs![e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In a message of <30 May 91 20:26:50>, Rick Anderson writes:

> I believe MCI is currently undergoing a nationwide promotion whereby
> they will give you $20 if you switch over to them as your primary
> carrier.  I recently received a check in the mail from MCI for $20.
> The check was a normal check on the front, but on the back, it said if
> I endorsed and cashed the check, I would be switched over to MCI.

> My question to the net: is it legally feasible to cross out this
> endorsement message, sign the check, collect the $20, and then legally
> expect to not be switched over to MCI??

Legally I don't know. But since everyone agrees that "getting it in
writing" is the best way to kill slamming, and MCI'll have it in ink,
you should be switched.

I'd go ahead and cash the check. Then, after you're switched to MCI,
call the Telco and switch back to your carrier of choice. If your
Telco charges the same as US West in Omaha does ( $5.00 per switch),
you'll make a $10.00 profit.

Or, since the Telco is so used to slamming calls, you can call and
claim you didn't order the switch. Chances are you'll get full credit.
But I didn't suggest that! ;-)

Then again, since I have my account flagged to never ever be switched
with out my going down to the office, I just might make $20.

Now, if MCI'll just send me the promo!


Bob

 msged 1.99S ZTC
 [200:5010/666.5@Metronet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista Ne.


[Moderator's Note: He could *claim* he did not order the switch, but
his signature on the check would be produced by MCI to demonstrate he
certainly knew something was going to happen.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MCI $20 Promotion
Date: Thu,  6 Jun 91 04:29:22 PDT


Let me see if I understand this offer from MCI.  If I am willing to
prefix all my long distance calls with 10288, I can stay with AT&T
but get a free $20 from MCI?  Is this right?

Sounds like a pretty darn good deal to me!


Tim Smith

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

From: John Eaton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI's $20 Promotion
Date: 6 Jun 91 18:06:57 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, WA


> After a period of time, the customer could initiate a PIC-change to
> another carrier, incurring yet another $5 charge by the RBOC.  At that
> point, the net value of MCI's promotion to the end user is a CLEAR,
> $10!

> Not a bad deal, really.  It just depends on how much value one
> places on his / her time - to place the PIC-change order.

Better go back and read the fine print. You are agreeing to sign up
for MCI's PLUS program which charges you a fee of $7.50 a month. If
you can do it in a single month you only make $2.50.

Getting out of these programs is not as easy as one might think. Last
March I called the ATT customer disservice line and asked to be taken
off the Reach Out America plan. The charge was still on the April bill
so I called again. Ditto for May. I'm as patient as the next man but
if it is still there in June then we are going to war. If anyone has
any hints on the best way to attack a problem like this then please
let me know.


John Eaton    !hp-vcd!johne

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

From: [e-mail] (Ross Keatinge)
Subject: Re: Telecom in New Zealand
Date: 31 May 91 00:50:42 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (ross Keatinge)
Organization: Thomas Cook NZ Head Office, Auckland, NZ


I am new to this group and have found the discussions interesting.
Some of you may be interested in some of the quirks and features of
our telecom system in New Zealand which has had major changes over the
last few years.

Until a few years ago the N.Z. Post Office ran and controlled all
phone systems in N.Z.  Then the Government made it into a 'state owned
enterprise', ie a commercial company but still owned by the people of
N.Z.  Recently a part of Telecom N.Z. has been sold to Bell Atlantic
and Ameritech. The public can buy shares in the rest.

The good part of all this is that we now have a very modern system.

Some technicalities:

Our rotary phones (just about all gone now) had the dial numbering
opposite to most countries, ie 0 was in the same place but then it
went 123456789 instead of the more common 987654321. I guess the logic
was that to dial N it sent N pulses, except 0 which sent 10.  This
obviously caused problems with overseas sourced modems etc, to get a
modem to dial say 234-9876 you had to program it as 876-1234.  Our
emergency number was and still is 111 when the rest of the world was
999 ( we never had 199 which would be the equivalent of 911 !). I am
please to say we now have standard DTMF tones.

Our ringing signal is a double  -- -- -- type ring. - - - - means busy.

They are in the process of rationalizing area codes throughout the
country.  We used to have a real mix of anything from one to seven
digit numbers with area codes from one to five digits.  We will now
have only five single digit area codes and all seven digit numbers.

All private local calls are 'free'. ie there is a fixed fee charged.
Businesses pay about 4c per minute. (They were also free until recently).

No, you cannot call US 800 numbers from here or Australian 008 which is their
equivalent.

We have 800 and 900 numbers just like the US.

We have most of the modern features like call redirection, call
waiting etc.  My phone at home beeps if there is a call waiting and I
can hit the hookswitch and toggle between the two callers.

Our cellphone system seems quite good.  It operates just like another
area code across the whole country. Likewise for pagers.

The debate about the pros and cons of caller identification has begun
here.

There are similar arguments here along the "telco's making too much
money" line. Yesterday Telecom N.Z. laid off about 500 staff in
Auckland and Northland.


Ross Keatinge, Systems Engineer ([e-mail])
Thomas Cook N.Z. Limited, PO Box 24, Auckland CPO, New Zealand, Ph [phone]
Disclaimer : I am not an official spokesperson for Thomas Cook

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How do You Deal With Central Office Problems?
Date: 5 Jun 91 16:47:58 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


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

> Does anyone have ideas as to how to get these types of problems
> resolved?  I've tried in vain on a couple of occasions to get Pacific
> Bell to fix wrong recordings or other minor CO trouble, and Repair
> Service seems very uninterested.  At first, they can't understand the
> problem, and resort to "we just tested your line, and didn't find
> anything wrong."  Once I convince them that it's not "in my line",
> they take the report, the ticket soon gets cleared, and the problem is
> still there.  I've all but given up.

  For over a year (from the day the exchange was activated), the
201-915 1A ESS had garbled messages. For example, dialing an invalid
number would give a very noisy recording:

  "Your call cannot be com<splssstttthhh>as in the system."

  At first, I thought this was due to a Centrex configuration - the
"not in the system" message was used for unassigned extensions.
However, I tried it from a 915 coin station, and had the same problem.
Repeated calls to repair failed to clear it. Finally, I called the
person in charge of configuration on the switch and __he__ couldn't
get it fixed.  Finally he had them change something in the switch
hardware and we now have clean (and LOUD!) messages that make sense.
The unassigned extension message is now "We're sorry, your call can
not be completed as dialed.  Please check the number or ask your
attendant to help you."

  I suppose they are reluctant to fix it because there's no revenue
loss in a bad recording. Still, you'd think they'd pay some attention
to it.

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

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

From: Ehud Gavron <sunquest!alpha![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular "Harrassment" at Airport Security
Date: 5 Jun 91 22:49:34 GMT
Reply-To: sunquest!alpha![e-mail]
Organization: Sunquest VMS Internals, Tucson AZ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Patton M. Turner) writes...

> At one time Israel placed all baggage in a decompression chamber
> before loading it on planes. I guess they still do.  No wonder they
> don't have any sucessful bombing/skyjacking since the days of Entebe.

Not that this is topical to telecom any longer, but the Entebbe
hijacking was of an Air-France flight which was boarded at Athens.
Not since the early 60s has an Israeli plane been skyjacked.  None has
ever been blown up -- even in all five wars.


Ehud Gavron        (EG76)   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone
From: "Steven S. Brack" <nstar!bluemoon![e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 91 15:08:05 EDT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[0][2][4])


cbmvax!.UUCP![e-mail] (Robert L. Oliver) writes:

> It makes flashing easier: you don't have that annoying problem of
> trying to flash but realizing that you haven't held the hook down long
> enough.  Used to happen to me all the time until I convinced our ITT
> maintenance people to change the flash interval; it was ridiculously
> high.

On our NT SL100 PBX, the individual 2500 sets have a "tap" button,
which, pressed once, sends a flash of the correct length.  It seems to
be some sort of capacitor arrangement, but since OSU is more paranoid
than ATT about people opening up their phones, I haven't investigated.

The tap button also houses the voicemail waiting lamp.  This lamp also
lights when ring current is applied to the instrument.  What is the
relation between the light and the ringer?


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] or 419 474 1010  |  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Modems
Date: Wed,  5 Jun 91 22:27:11 PDT


Aw c'mon guys, deep cycle batteries for laptops???  And warnings about
running laptops off 12 volt 'hostile' environments.  Any decent chip
designed to convert DC-to-DC should handle this, and to h... with the
power loss.  We're talking *CAR* batteries running laptops for gosh
sakes, not C cells running Honolulu Light & Power.  Just do it!

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 02:07 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: PacBell Does Something Right


Dave Levenson <[e-mail]> writes:

> Hey, John, is looks like one of your ten single-drop loops may be
> unbalanced!

The ONE thing I cannot complain about regarding my marginal phone
service is the transmission quality. There are no buzzes, clicks,
hums, or other noises of any kind. On any line.

> Is that $300/month in addition to the monthly rate for service on the
> ten loops?

But of course. Only Pac*Bell can so cheerfully charge you, and then
charge you again. If you order a phone in a distant city and have it
delivered to you via T1 on which you pay mileage, Pac*Bell will also
tack on FOREIGN EXCHANGE charges!


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

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

From: Brett G Person  <plains![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Did Western Electric Also Make Sound Recordings?
Date: 7 Jun 91 05:57:13 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND


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

> Re: 16-2/3 RPM recordings - I suspect they are still in use as
> "talking books for the blind" though they may have been supplanted by
> cassettes by now.  Your public librarian could probably tell you.  At

> [Moderator's Note: I've done volunteer work for ten years for the
> Chicago Public Library producing programs for visually-handicapped
> people. The 16 2/3 rpm records were gone *long* before I started.  PAT]

Actually, they still do produce some of the magazines for talking
books in this format.  I also beleive that the rpm is closer to 8.  I
haven't actually used my talking book turntable for a few years, so my
mind may be slipping.

I still get those flexible records every week though.  And yes, they
have gone over to cassettes for most things.


Brett G. Person    North Dakota State University
uunet!plains!person | [e-mail] | [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 05:23:01 PDT
From: Howard Pierpont <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: N.Y. Metro North Commuter Railroad


In TELECOM Digest Volume 11 : Issue 430 Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> The New York MetroNorth commuter railroad has lines which run from
> Manhattan (New York City) into the northern suburbs.

I have used this system am I am VERY impressed. The functionality that
it provides is amazing. The number of easy selections that you can
make are almost unbelievable.

Does anyone know who designed this system? I would like to nominate it
for a "Best in Class" award.


Howard Pierpont       Standard disclaimers apply
Digital Equipment Corp
77 Reed Road                49 Carter St
Hudson, MA 01749            Danielson, CT 06239-3500
508.568.6165                203.779.2570

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 908 Area Code Switchover
Date: 8 Jun 91 03:31:26 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> I believe the 908 area code became available in January 1991 (not
> 1990).

908 became _available_ to some of us in January of 1990.  It was
available to all by June of 1990.  It became official (documented) in
January of 1991, and will become mandatory June 8, 1991!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #433
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27641;
          9 Jun 91 0:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23847;
          8 Jun 91 22:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04508;
          8 Jun 91 21:45 CDT
Date:     Sat, 8 Jun 91 20:41:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #434
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Jun 91 20:41:23 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 434

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor? [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor? [Mike Bell]
    Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor? [Al L. Varney]
    Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor? [Bob Schreibmaier]
    Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor? [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor? [Paul Cook]
    Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [Tom Ace]
    Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [David E. Martin]
    Ring-Busy Problem: Causes? [Gil Kloepfer Jr.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor?
Date: 6 Jun 91 03:20:53 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Marc Unangst) writes:

> I recently had one modem in the middle of a 15-line hunt group go out.
> Not wanting to move the rest of the modems up a line each, I did some
> investigation with a VOM and a telephone, and discovered that plugging
> a 270 ohm resistor into the phone line (across tip and ring) should

Back in pre-electronic days, your line was apt to be fed by a balanced
pair of 200 ohm relay windings fed 48 volts DC. That is 400 ohms
total, and a short rignt in the CO would pull 120 ma.

Many 1A2 KTU cards used a 135 ohm 5 watt resistor for hold. If that
resistor were to be put right across the line in the CO, it would only
get 1.1 watts.  Any farther out on the loop, obviously gets less. Sure
there were dial long line units that used 96 volt battery, but those
were on LONG LINES.

At the other end, a TT pad spec expects 23 ma min to work. Sure many
run with less. If you were on a VERY long loop, you might want
something lower that you picked to really hold the line busy reliably.

For years our NYC office busied ALL lines except the first at night.
The answering machine was on the first line, and 135 ohm resistors
were slammed across all others by a 12 pole wire spring relay. If they
went up on permanent signal,and 'dropped a card' each night, so what.
Every morning everything would go back to normal. If the test board
ever looked at it, they soon knew what to expect and ignored it. I bet
in NYC they never noticed.

Today I never bother with a resistor. Take a four inch piece of
modular cord, crunch a plug on one end, strip the outer jacket about
an inch on the other, and stuff the two center wires into a 'chicklet'
(eight connector, or whatever) and squeeze it in a presser to connect
T + R together. This will never fail to busy a loop start line.  There
is no reason to try to be 'nice' with a resistor. To busy a ground
start line, you could just ground ring, but for several reasons it is
best to ground BOTH tip and ring.

The simple answer is just short Tip to Ring and be done with it.

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

From: Mike Bell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor?
Organization: Spar Aerospace Ltd, Toronto, Canada
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 09:42:46 EDT


In article <[e-mail]>, Marc Unangst <mju@mudos.
ann-arbor.mi.us> writes:

> I recently had one modem in the middle of a 15-line hunt group go out.
> Not wanting to move the rest of the modems up a line each, I did some

Dumb question: couldn't you just move the modem at the end of the hunt
group into the broken modem's position?

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

Date: Thu,  6 Jun 91 18:22:22 CDT
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor?
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

> In article <[e-mail]>, Marc Unangst <mju@mudos.
> ann-arbor.mi.us> writes:

>> I recently had one modem in the middle of a 15-line hunt group go out.
>> Not wanting to move the rest of the modems up a line each, I did some
>> investigation with a VOM and a telephone, and discovered that plugging
>> a 270 ohm resistor into the phone line (across tip and ring) should

     Any DC value less than 330 ohms should do it, if it's legal.

>> Is this an "accepted" way of busying out a phone line?

> The FCC has said that it will no longer allow Part 68 registration of
> modems that busy out the line in this manner (i.e., by just going
> "off-hook").

   On the other hand, would a modem that had a switch that caused the
modem to refuse to drop new calls still conform to Part 68?  The first
incoming call would "hang" the line, but you wouldn't have made it
"busy" by just going "off-hook".  How picky is the FCC on this section?

> Centrex is supposed to have a way to tell the CO that a
  ^^^^^^^
I believe this can be ANY line, for a price.  Another option is to use
a Hunt Group option that doesn't always start from the same line,
assuming that there aren't many "bad" modems.

> Bellcore is working

> on a DTMF signal that can be sent on the line to tell the switch that
> the circuit is busied-out (like the "Do Not Disturb" function on many
> PBXes).

     And what will this "feature" cost on a per-line basis???

Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor?
Date: 6 Jun 91 09:49:11 EDT (Thu)
From: Bob Schreibmaier <dxis.att.com![e-mail]>

[e-mail] (Marc Unangst):

> I recently had one modem in the middle of a 15-line hunt group go out.
> Not wanting to move the rest of the modems up a line each, I did some
> investigation with a VOM and a telephone, and discovered that plugging
> a 270 ohm resistor into the phone line (across tip and ring) should
> have almost the exact same effect as an off-hook telephone does --
> thus busying out the line.  Now, my question is, is there anything
> wrong with doing something like this?  Will a 1/2W resistor be enough?
> Is this an "accepted" way of busying out a phone line?

On most lines the 1/2 watt resistor would be plenty.  However, if you
happened to be REAL close to a central office you could see as much as
24 volts across the resistor and, therefore, might have to dissipate
as much as two watts.  As long as you have that VOM handy, measure the
voltage across the 270 ohm resistor.  Then, square the voltage reading
and divide by 270.  That is the amount of power you are asking the
resistor to dissipate.  Should be 1/4 watt or less if you want to use
a 1/2 watt resistor (safety factor of two).

By the way, I have used this trick myself and it seems to work.
Doesn't seem to be any problem with the telco "siren" signal that they
put on off-hook lines that are not calling anyone.


Bob Schreibmaier K2PH  | UUCP:     ...!att!dxis!k2ph
a.k.a. "The QRPer"     | Internet: [e-mail]
Middletown, New Jersey | ICBM:     40o21'N, 74o8'W

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor?
Date: 6 Jun 91 15:03:42 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Marc Unangst) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 425, Message 15 of 15

> I recently had one modem in the middle of a 15-line hunt group go out.
> Not wanting to move the rest of the modems up a line each, I did some
> investigation with a VOM and a telephone, and discovered that plugging
> a 270 ohm resistor into the phone line (across tip and ring) should
> have almost the exact same effect as an off-hook telephone does --
> thus busying out the line.  Now, my question is, is there anything
> wrong with doing something like this?  Will a 1/2W resistor be enough?
> Is this an "accepted" way of busying out a phone line?

    A regular telephone measured with an Ohm Meter looks pretty
much like a 300 Ohm resistor. As I recall the "DC Resistance" Used for
testing phone devices is considered to be 200 Ohms. But a real phone
(AT&T, ITT, Comdial et al), has "Loop Compensation", this is a usually
a silicon carbide varistor. The varistor resistance drops as the
voltage is raised. This works as an "Automatic Gain Control (AGC)", so
if you are near the CO, the audio won't clean the wax out of your
ears. When the phone is on a short loop (Short loop means close to the
CO and the loop of wire between your phone and the CO is short), the
resistance is quite low. This means there is no absolute DC value for
a phone. But read on, and you will see that it doesn't really matter.

    Part of the whole equation is, how far are you from the CO.
Here is why that matters. You can consider that the average distance
from a CO is 15 Kilo-Feet (This is another dumb US measurement, the
rest of the world uses Kilometers). The wire is a pair, that is a
total of 30,000 feet of wire. The wire is usually 24 AWG (0.5mm). The
resitance of this wire is 26.17 Ohms per thousand feet.  So you will
have about 785.1 Ohms worth of resistance between you and the CO. Add
to this, about 400 Ohms for the CO. So if you shorted your wires, the
total current that can flow assuming the CO voltage is 48V DC is 40
Ma.  So for the hell of it, clear the short and add a phone. This adds
200 Ohms more to the loop resistance for a grand total of 1385 Ohms.
Your loop current is now 34.6 Ma.

    My point is, it doesn't really matter whether you put a paper
clip across the line or a 300 Ohm resistor. But yes, a half Watt
resistor is fine, as is the paper clip. The paper clip has better
transient handling capabilities though. Note that after all this
resistance drop, what was 48 Volts at the CO is now between 3 and 9
volts depending on your loop length. I have used 1,000 Ohm resistors
in the past to busy out lines. Note that many COs will go off hook and
feed dialtone supplying only 8 Ma of current. Not many phones will
work with 8 Ma. The US minimum current is 20 Ma. The lowest current
spec is Sweden with 12 Ma. Sweden is a big country with not many
people. Like the Western US, they have some very long loops.

    I recall when this question last came up, Brian Kantor
mentioned that he used an LED and resistor combo which lit up and
reminded him that he had a bad line or modem at that location. This is
an excellent idea. It is also cheap and simple to implement.

    Note that the above discussion has been strictly about the DC
characteristics of a phone line. They do not address the complex
impedances of miles of wet cable, aerial wire, bad splices and crummy
quad cable.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]
N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA 742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA
90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 18:25 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor?


In issue 425, Marc Unangst writes:

> I recently had one modem in the middle of a 15-line hunt group go out.
> Not wanting to move the rest of the modems up a line each, I did some
> investigation with a VOM and a telephone, and discovered that plugging
> a 270 ohm resistor into the phone line (across tip and ring) should
> have almost the exact same effect as an off-hook telephone does --
> thus busying out the line.  Now, my question is, is there anything
> wrong with doing something like this?  Will a 1/2W resistor be enough?

A half watt resistor is not enough.  The worst case would be if you
were next door to an old C.O. running fixed battery feed of 52 vdc and
A-relay resistance of about 400 ohms.  This would give you about 78 ma
of loop current and the resistor would have to dissipate around 1.6
watts.  So that the resistor wont heat up too bad, it is best to spec
the resistor wattage around twice that, so figure a three watt
resistor.

As long as you can draw at least 20 ma of loop current, the C.O.
should detect an off hook condition.  A safe bet is to use a 400 ohm
resistor, which will give you a lower current draw.  But the higher
the resistance, the more power must be dissipated by the resistor for
a GIVEN amount of current.  If the C.O. battery was 48 volts and total
loop resistance was about 700 ohms, the power load on the 400 ohm
resistor (this all is emitted as heat) would be about 3/4 watt.


Paul Cook    Proctor & Associates   Redmond, WA
 206-881-7000   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 10:21:09 PDT
From: Tom Ace <crux![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> ... If the reason you are hearing an unusual ringing
> signal involves a PBX, it is probably a DID connection. Answer
> supervision occurs when, and only when, the call is picked up by the
> ringing extension. Busy, no answer, and even local customer intercept
> recordings do not return supervision on a properly set up PBX.

> In essence, the PBX becomes the terminating CO.

It seems there's a potential for fraud here.  I assume there are rules
for what may be sent out as a local intercept without returning answer
supervision.  I assume that a call answered by a "we're closed now,
call back in the morning" recording ought to be paid for.  Are
businesses with DID on an honor system in this regard?


Tom Ace     [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu,  6 Jun 91 16:24:11 EDT
From: David E Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, IL


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

> The double ring will indicate that the destination has answered your
> call on its own equipment. The real implication of this is that you
> are now being billed for the time that you are listening to ringing.

Only if the PBX returns answer supervision at that point.  PBX's can
transfer you all over the place before signaling the calling CO that
the call is connected and billing should start.


David Martin, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL
[e-mail], [phone]

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

Subject: Ring-Busy Problem: Causes?
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 16:54:38 CDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Southwest Systems Development Labs, Houston, TX
From: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." <[e-mail]>


I've recently noticed a problem I originally thought was CO-related,
but am now thinking is CPE related, and I need to know about the
following scenario from those "in the know".  To start, I know (from
talking to the phone guy who came to install my lines) that I'm on a
AT&T #5ESS.

The situation is this: You call your telephone line, and you "hear"
one ring, then a busy signal.  Your phone line at home is DEFINITELY
free, that is nobody is using it and it SHOULD be clear.  The line is
NOT on a SLC-96, so it shouldn't be a problem where the line isn't
accessable for some reason.  What I have found is that a bad phone can
busy the line out in this manner by seemingly "picking up" the phone
RIGHT BEFORE the first audiable ring is heard on the CALLED line (I
made it happen in this manner).

Here's my problem: I originally had this problem once with a bad
phone.  Now I'm having the same problems with a device I built to
decode the different ring patterns for my personalized ring numbers.
The device is essentially a resistor (15K) in series with a .22uF
capacitor and the AC input to a bridge rectifier.  The output of the
bridge rectifier feeds a 12V zener and RC filter to smooth out the
signal, and ultimately an opto-isolator.  I know I should technically
be using a FCC certified DAA, but let's not get into that discussion
here.

Can anyone think of a reason why this circuit should produce the
results I describe?  Does anyone have specs on what kind of current
drain a typical residential subscriber line can tolerate during ring
before an "answer" is detected?  Can a proliferation of these
.22uF/15K resistor combos produce some kind of capacitive "kick" which
the CO thinks is line trouble and/or something using the phone line
(and what are the specs for this)?

Thanks in advance for any info y'all can provide!


Gil Kloepfer, Jr.              [e-mail]   ...!ames!limbic!gil

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #434
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27854;
          9 Jun 91 0:30 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23847;
          8 Jun 91 22:59 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad04508;
          8 Jun 91 21:50 CDT
Date:     Sat, 8 Jun 91 21:22:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #435
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Jun 91 21:22:03 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 435

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Emergency Highway Phones [Brian Kantor]
    Re: Emergency Highway Phones [Brian Cuthie]
    Re: Cellular Modems [Joshua Putnam]
    Re: Cellular Modems [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Surprise!! [Brian Gordon]
    Re: Surprise!! [John Higdon]
    Re: Surprise!! [John Higdon]
    Re: Surprise!! [Dennis Blyth]
    Re: Surprise!! [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Question About PC Pursuit and MNP [Earl Hall]
    Re: Question About PC Pursuit and MNP [Michael Schuster]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Emergency Highway Phones
Date: 7 Jun 91 21:02:04 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


In article <[e-mail]> decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!
[e-mail] (Darren Alex Griffiths) writes:

> A local newscast reported on some interesting highway emergency phones
> this morning.  It seems that CalTrans is installing phones throughout
> the San Francisco bay area on major highways....

Yes, they are solar-powered cellphones.  When you open the door on the
phone box (a bright yellow weatherproof housing about a cubic foot or
so), the phone autodials the local CHP office on a special hunt group,
downline signals its identification code (which is mapped by a
computer at the CHP office to the location), and then cuts through to
voice so you can speak to the dispatcher or phone attendant, who will
take care of your problem or patch you through to someone who can.

That means that even if you can't make an intelligible noise, they'll
ask the beat patrol unit to stop by and check on a phone that's open,
so it's enough to stagger from the burning wreck, grab the door open,
then faint.

The phones also have other sensors to signal low battery [presumably
solar supply failure], tampering, tilt, or self-check diagnostic
failure.

I'm assuming the ones in SF are the same as the ones we've had here in
SoCal for a couple of years; they're manufactured here and just over
the border in Mexico by a division of Cubic Corp, and checked and
installed by their techs.

I'm told the phone number dialled, ident, and other such things are
burnt into a ROM in the phone controller which also holds the
software; apparently it's designed to make it difficult to use the
phone for any other purpose were you to liberate one from its roadside
loneliness.

[This is from a friend of mine who is a senior field install/repair
tech for these, and has travelled all over the state supervising
installations.  I didn't take notes but I think the previous
description is fairly accurate.]


Brian

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

From: Brian Cuthie <umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Emergency Highway Phones
Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1991 23:10:46 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!
[e-mail] (Darren Alex Griffiths) writes:

> A local newscast reported on some interesting highway emergency phones
> this morning.  It seems that CalTrans is installing phones throughout
> the San Francisco bay area on major highways.  The phones connect you

> All that is fairly standard, the interesting part is that the phones
> are all cellular and run on solar power so no wires are needed to hook
> 'em up.  The reported said that the phones could be installed in about

We have had those here on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway for some
time now.  Pretty neat idea.  As far as I know, the cellular companies
cannot charge for emergency 911 calls.  Whether this applies to
non-911 emergency calls from the phones in question, I don't know.
Even if the local government was required to pay for the calls, it's
nothing like the cost ofinstalling wiring to each location.


brian

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

From: Joshua_Putnam <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Modems
Date: 6 Jun 91 19:23:24 GMT
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Platt) writes:

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

>> Seeing as how a car battery can provide a substantial amount of power,
>> I was wondering if anyone knew of any product that would allow us to
>> run something like this off of the car's lighter jack, or even to hook
>> directly to the battery if necessary.  Or of any portable with that
>> much power and a slot that you can take along with your cellular
>> phone.

> If you want to run a laptop, cellular, etc. from an auto's electrical
> system, you'll probably have to buy an external high-amperage 12-volt-
> to-5-volt stepdown regulator (probably a switcher, with extensive
> surge protection and some big filter capacitors), and a "cheater"
> which will let you plug the regulator's output into the laptop's
> charger input or directly to the battery-compartment contacts.

A power inverter (like the guts of a UPS) will turn your 12v DC into
120v AC, letting you use your standard AC adapter.  Not very efficient
having so many power conversions, but probably one of the simplest to
plug together.  You could use it in a car, or with a separate 12v
battery pack.

You'd probably want to be sure the inverter produces a regulated
sine-wave output considering the fluctuations in the car's electrical
system.  Some of the cheaper inverters produce noisy square wave power
with no regulation or filtering.  I don't think I'd want to run my
computer on that.

I can't recall the brand name, but I've seen lots of ads lately for a
fairly compact 100 watt inverter that plugs straight into the lighter
socket of a car.  For any load larger than that, I wouldn't want to
trust the car's standard wiring.  If you always drive the same car,
just install a 500 watt inverter and put a 120v outlet in your glove
box. :)  Watch out for dead batteries, though.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Modems
Date: 8 Jun 91 03:12:49 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

[ regarding the use of lap-top computers and cellular phones from an
automobile 12-volt electrical system]

> If you want to run a laptop, cellular, etc. from an auto's electrical
> system, you'll probably have to buy an external high-amperage 12-volt-
> to-5-volt stepdown regulator (probably a switcher, with extensive
> surge protection and some big filter capacitors)...

Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought that most cellular phones are
designed specifically for operation from an automobile electrical
system!  Mine certainly is!

On the subject of operating computers in cars, you might want to check
out TrippLite and others who make inverters.  These devices take
12-volt DC and deliver 120 volts AC.  They are used on boats and in
motor homes to operate small household appliances.  Some inverter
power supplies are clean enough to operate computers.


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: Wed, 5 Jun 91 09:03:33 PDT
From: Brian Gordon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Surprise!!


I just talked to my local business office about the change in the
"permissive" 1+ dialing change.  To my surprise, they seemed to know
exactly what I was talking about.  Their rule is that the leading "1"
indicates a toll call.  Before the widening of the local area on
Saturday, the numbers of interest to me (415/336-xxxx, for example)
were toll calls, and now they are not.  Hence it used to be
permissible to dial 1-415/336-xxxx and now it is not -- is is, in
essence, rejected by the toll-call processing equipemnt.

So I get cheaper calls, but have to change a lot of entries for my
modem's phonebook.

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 01:49 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Surprise!!


Dennis Blyth <[e-mail]> writes:

> BTW, is this the furthest distance one can go, 'toll free' in the
> states.  (Pls, no flames for 800 service, I'm new to the net and
> somewhat sensitive!)

Have you checked out the Mojave Desert area of California, various and
sundry areas of Nevada, or, for that matter, the big island, Hawaii?
Do these areas count as being "in the states"?

Nick Sayer <[e-mail]> writes:

> Given the post-Greene reality, would it not make a BIT of sense to
> reform area codes a bit? How about one simple rule: No area code could
> be in two LATAs?

Given that we are just about out of area codes, this would be a very
bad idea (tm). In California alone no less than five new area codes
would be required to fulfill your reform proposal.

1. The Chico LATA shares 916 with Sacramento.

2. Monterey shares 408 with San Francisco.

3. San Luis Obispo shares 805 with Bakersfield.

4. San Diego shares 619 with Los Angeles.

5. Stockton shares 209 with Fresno.

And that is just in California.


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

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

From: Dennis Blyth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Surprise!!
Date: 6 Jun 91 17:59:49 GMT
Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Dennis Blyth)
Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton


Regarding the suggestion to re-align area codes to handle situations
like Cincinnati's where the metropolitan area includes three codes in
three states:

There have to be many locales with this situation.  What about:
Louisville, Saint Louis, Minneapolis-St Paul, Omaha-Council Bluffs,
Philadelphia-Camden, Washington DC-Alexandria, etc. etc.  So is that a
practical suggestion, given how many would be affected?

Apologies for lack of knowledge of geography and area code structure
:-) Pls, flames and corrections by e-mail, not this newsgroup.

It is interesting that the e-mail replies to my earlier post arrived
to our NCR TOWER system before the newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom did.
Ain't it so, the person most involved/concerned is usually the *last*
to know?  :-)

BTW, might there be any interest in creating a news category for
marketing research, and especially high technology marketing
research??  I know this is not the place for such discussion, and if
enough interest develops, I'll post to the net (in another newsgroup).
I'm primarily interested in marketing research for both the
telecommunications and computer fields, but have interests in other
industries and topics as well.  One hot topic in the research field is
'customer satisfaction' research tracking.  May sound mundane, but
there are a lot of ways to go about it, and enough organizations do it
so there might be enough interest for a network newsgroup.  (Here at
NCR we have a separate, company private newgroup for quality. This is
nothing new, but is almost always interesting.

OR, feel free to have 'private' e-mail discussions with me.


[e-mail]      NCR/AT&T
Marketing Research     NCR Europe Group PMD
AT&T: 1-513-445-6580   Fax: [phone]

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Surprise!!
Date: 7 Jun 91 16:26:09 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
ncr.com (Dennis Blyth) writes:

(Speaking of Hamilton, OH to Covington, KY, which from the description
sounds like about 45 miles ...)

> BTW, is this the furthest distance one can go, 'toll free' in the
> states.  (Pls, no flames for 800 service, I'm new to the net and
> somewhat sensitive!)

If it's 45 miles or so, that may not be the longest.  This is another
old topic ... frequently discussed here in the past.  Castle Rock to
Boulder CO is a local call at 58 miles.


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: Fri, 7 Jun 91 04:43:38 PDT
From: cdp![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Question About PC Pursuit and MNP


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> I need to know how to tell an MNP-compatible modem to pretend that it
> doesn't have MNP, so that when it calls out and reaches another MNP
> modem, it will "play dumb" and not enable MNP mode.  In other words,
> the connection will be a standard 2400 baud connection.

[Describes problems when Outdial modem connects with MNP enabled.]

> The Customer Service people at Telenet were of no help - they couldn't
> quite understand the problem, and said that the only valid commands to
> give an outdial modem were ATZ and ATDT.

The PC Pursuit people should have known this one.  The following is
from one of the help files available on their own Net Exchange support
BBS (from the '@' prompt, do a "c pursuit" to access it):

       "To modify MNP setting in the Hayes command mode:
             AT*E0      No MNP
             AT*E1      Auto MNP
             AT*E2      Force MNP (call will fail if MNP unavailable)"

The ATZ command will reset the Outdial modem to default settings,
including disabling of its MNP4 capability.  It's wise to do that as
soon as you connect to it, then enable MNP with AT*E1 if you want.

The problem you're experiencing (with garbled data when MNP is
enabled) seems to be caused by incorrect flow-control at the far end.
Some BBSes I call work fine (EXEC-PC, for instance), while others
(Channel1, in Boston, included) seem to ignore requests from
SprintNet's side to stop sending data.  If they continue to send,
SprintNet's X.25 network has no choice but to throw away packets of
data.  I keep track of which ones don't work properly and don't enable
MNP for those calls.


Earl Hall     | via PeaceNet:                   | GEnie: ERHALL
Chicago IL    | cdp![e-mail]  | [phone]

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

From: Michael Schuster <panix![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Question About PC Pursuit and MNP
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 00:32:32 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY


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

> I need to know how to tell an MNP-compatible modem to pretend that it
> doesn't have MNP, so that when it calls out and reaches another MNP
> modem, it will "play dumb" and not enable MNP mode.  In other words,
> the connection will be a standard 2400 baud connection.

There are two possible ways to do this. One is from Racal mode (enter
control-E then <ENTER> after an ATZ; enter I [idle] to return to Hayes
mode). I'll spare you the details, since there seems to be a security
block now which prevents you form altering the option tables in Racal
mode (PHOOEY!!)

On my RV 2400VP you also could toggle the EC from Hayes mode using the
AT*En command, where (if I remember correctly)

    n=0 disabled error correction
    n=1 allowed for error correction with fallback to "vanilla" mode
        n=2 disconnected if EC mode could not be negotiated.

These are different modems, so the options might be different. Try a
few.  But AT*E0 might just do the trick for you.


                Mike Schuster                      |   -CIS: 70346,1745
-NY Public Access UNIX:  [e-mail]        |   -MCI Mail, GENIE:
-The Portal (R) System:  [e-mail]   |           MSCHUSTER

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #435
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00328;
          9 Jun 91 1:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18147;
          9 Jun 91 0:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac23847;
          8 Jun 91 22:59 CDT
Date:     Sat, 8 Jun 91 22:05:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #436
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Jun 91 22:05:32 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 436

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular One Dialing Procedures [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Talking Books For the Blind [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Movie Review: The President's Analyst [William Hawkins]
    Re: Caller ID Comes to Florida [David Lesher]
    Re: 908 Area Code Switchover [Paul S. R. Chisholm]
    Re: Western Electric Guitar Amplifier [Scott Dorsey]
    Re: Modem Trouble on Subscriber Loop Carrier [John Higdon]
    Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [Mark Terrible]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Gordon D. Woods]
    Re: Emergency Highway Phones [David Lemson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 23:43:13 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular One Dialing Procedures
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Ole J Jacobson writes:

> I am trying to convince Cellular One here in the Bay Area that they
> need to start accepting "canonical numbers" from cellular phones in
> order to be in compliance with generally accepted industry standards.
> (I've heard that there is even an IEA recommendation for this.) If you
> can help me put forward my case I'd be grateful.

> By "canonical numbers" I mean 10 digit numbers of the form:
>    <10 digits without a preceeding 1>

> I am trying to get them to accept canonical dialling *AS WELL AS*
> their current silly scheme, but so far I have not had much luck
> finding anyone who even understands what I am talking about. Some of
> the answers I have received so far include: "All our calls are
> routed through Pac*Bell, so we have to follow Pac*Bell's dialling
> procedures!"

This has long been a sore point for me as well.  When did the most
recent change occur?  Eleven-digit dialing for local calls worked for me
until I moved form the Bay Area just two weeks ago.

I had made several attempts to find out why ten digit dialing was not
allowed for long distance calls, and got nowhere each time.  They
would mostly compare it to regular phones, and say it works just like
them, so why should I complain?  "Pacific Bell requires it, so that's
why!"  I would offer that Pacific Bell does not allow ten digit
dialing of local calls, but it worked on their system, so the MTSO had
to be capable of reformatting numbers before handing them off to
Pacific Bell.  Additionally, I brought up the fact that all the other
cellular systems in California (and elsewhere) allow ten digit
dialing, even though the local companies that serve them require
eleven digits.

Of course, I got nowhere.  They either didn't understand those points,
or just ignored them, going back to the "Pacific Bell requires it"
argument.  The thing that really annoys me is not that the reps don't
know much about the technology, but rather that they can't reason
things out based on evidence presented to them.

So, I would say that you'll just have to live with it.  Part of the reason
may be that Pacific Bell owns a substantial minority of Cellular One of
SF, and doesn't want anybody getting fancy ideas about ten digit long
distance (or, heaven forbid, LOCAL) dialing.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 01:09:18 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Talking Books For the Blind
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>     Since virtually all of the books which are turned into Talking
> Books are copywrited, the Library of Congress or any other
> organization which wants to transcribe a book onto an audio tape must
> get permission from the publisher.  Such permission is usually granted
> as long as the information in the book or article is not modified in
> any way.

In fact, the government promotes giving such permission.  There is a
check-off box right on the copyright filing form where you can give
the Library of Congress permission to do the conversion.  I would
imagine that just about everybody does so (I did!).


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 23:00:07 CDT
From: William Hawkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Movie Review: The President's Analyst

You happen to be talking about a truly classic Coburn spoof, not
some mediocre effort.  This is one of my favorite movies (the
other one is High Society, or maybe Forbidden Planet ... but, I
digress).  The funniest spoof starts in a scene without words.
The President's analyst is aboard a yacht, having been rescued
from the FBI (who had orders to kill him) by the Russian spy.
When he awakens from a drugged sleep, he finds a loaded gun left
over from the previous struggle.  He picks up the gun - and the
most interesting grin spreads across his face.  He puts the gun
down, and the next thing you know, he has talked the Russian spy
into admitting that he hates his father.  The spy then wants to
keep him out of trouble so he can be cured by analysis.  Coburn
and the spy are heading back into the States when they have the
trouble with the phone booth while trying to call Godfrey Cam-
bridge, the CIA spy.

Obtelecom:  When Coburn is rescued from the phone booth, while in
Telephone Central (with lots of armed guards - did the real PC
ever used armed guards within a facility?) he goes over to the
bland, smiling, businessman who said he was the head of TPC, but
went quiet when the power failed.  In the back of his right shoe
heel, he finds a standard (tip and ring, round) phone plug and
cord leading away.  The movie ends with a Christmas get-together
of heros and heroines, and then pans back to show a view of the
scene on a screen in Telephone Central, being watched by a whole
lot of bland, smiling businessmen, with cords coming out of their
right heels.  Great stuff!

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Comes to Florida
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 7:37:46 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


> Per-call blocking will be available dialing *67 (tone) or 1167 (pulse)
> before the call.

> "Per-line blocking is availabble to law enforcement agencies' office
> lines aas well as domestic violence intervention agencies' access
> lines at established shelters."

> Looks like they have some pretty specific ideas about who they're
> going to give per-line blocking to.

This does not do justice to the fight that's being going on here. SBT
was bound and determined to give NOBODY either blocking. First they
"gave in" a little - they'd offer some LE/Shelters per-call block.
Hearing, complaints and more hearings followed.

The PSC came up with the "compromise" reported above. But it sounds as
if Bell South still wants its pound of salt. I hear they've also set
up *67 for a per-call UNBLOCK on a blocked line. So the cop (who has
NO way of confirming that the line she's using is/isn't line-blocked)
dials the same *67 she uses at home, and guess what ...


[e-mail]        (305) 255-RTFM


[Moderator's Note: As before, may I suggest that any continuation on
this thread be conducted in the telecom-priv group.  Thanks.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri,  7 Jun 91 10:12:50 EDT
From: Paul S R Chisholm <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 908 Area Code Switchover
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Tom Neff <[e-mail]> writes:

> Just a reminder that New Jersey's 908 area code becomes mandatory on
> Saturday, June 8, 1991 at 2 A.M.  This affects 1.5 million phones
> (314 exchanges) in central New Jersey, formerly part of 201.  The
> area code has been available since January 1990.  As of Saturday you
> will get a recording if you still dial 201.

(I think it's been mostly working since June 1990, though certain
operations in the network didn't accept 908 until January 1991.)

I'm typing this on Friday (10 a.m. EDT), and my office mate just made
a discovery: from a phone in 908, trying to dial a number that will
still be 201 tomorrow results in the following message: "Your call
cannot be completed as dialed.  Please check the number and try again.
201-2T."


Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories,
[e-mail], AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 10:37:06 EDT
From: Scott Dorsey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Western Electric Guitar Amplifier
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center


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

> I bought an old guitar amplifier about three weeks ago.  On the back,
> it says "LICENSED UNDER PATENTS OF WESTERN ELECTRIC AND AMERICAN
> TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO.  LAUREL ELECTRONICS CO., SAN ANTONIO,
> TEXAS.  110-120 VOLTS AC 40 WATTS".  It uses three vacuum tubes, a
> 12AU6, a 50C5, and a 35W4.  Do any of you great telecom gurus out
> there know what patents are being used?  It's just got two instrument
> inputs and a volume knob, and a built-in speaker.

    You have yourself a pretty valuable piece of equipment.  From the
tube complement I'd say this was one of the later WE guitar amps, but
I have no idea which one.  Which cabinet did you get?  Is there a horn
driver in addition to the main speaker?

    These were two or three watt amps, but with very efficient
speakers that could get decent sound.  For an example of how good
these things can actually be, get your hands on some Charlie Christian
recordings.  For most of his stuff with the Benny Goodman band, he was
using WE amps.

    By the way, it is still possible to get good quality 50C5 tubes.
E-mail me if you want more details.


Scott

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 08:49 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Modem Trouble on Subscriber Loop Carrier


Jim Hickstein <[e-mail]> writes:

> One of my users tried to dial in from home recently, only to discover
> that the modem spit out garbage continually.

I notice in your .signature a number that is in the Junction Ave.
office. This place is packed with 5ESS, so what you describe could
very well be a bad subscriber interface card in the switch. With
digital, it can sound perfect and be totally unusable for data, for
reasons I'll let others explain.

> Thinking fast, I explained that certain adaptive compression and other
> fancy techniques can cause trouble for modem users.  He mentioned that
> a representative of Pac*Bell had said that they "guarantee service
> only for voice data [sic]".

Call them back and tell them to check the handbook again. Pac*Bell
considers the line to be meeting minimal spec IF it passes 2400 bps
data. This they do guarantee. In other words, if you cannot get your
2400 bps modem to work through Pac*Bell facilities, then there is
prima facie evidence that the line is not meeting minimal voice spec
and someone should look into it.

Oh, and do not be afraid to suggest things such as subscriber interface
circuits (on the 5ESS). The days are long gone where those who knew
ANYTHING about telco were immediately suspect.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus
Date: 8 Jun 91 03:28:25 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> The double ring will indicate that the destination has answered your
> call on its own equipment. The real implication of this is that you
> are now being billed for the time that you are listening to ringing.

This could be true, but may not be.  If a DID PBX is generating the
double-ring tone, it probably has not sent off-hook supervision.
(There may be some other customer-provided-equipment that does go
off-hook and then send ring tone.)


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

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

Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 03:04:04 -0400
From: westmark!mole-end![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus


>>> Were you calling a commercial establishment?  A college dorm or campus?
>>> Some other place where you were dialing directly to an extension of a large
>>> private network?

>> To answer your question: I heard the double-ring when calling the
>> "Management Services" department at Toronto City Hall.

> The double ring will indicate that the destination has answered your
> call on its own equipment. The real implication of this is that you
> are now being billed for the time that you are listening to ringing.

I don't believe so.  If it's DID into a PBX, you shouldn't be billed
until the PBX indicates that the call has been answered; the PBX can
(and must, to be registered with the FCC) generate certain `call
progress' tones before giving the electrical indication that the call
has been answered (``returning answer supervision'').  On the other
hand, if you get an ``all of our agents are busy; please hold on''
message, the PBX should have returned answer supervision and you are
being charged.


(This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end      Mark Terribile

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

Date: Wed,  5 Jun 91 12:48:00 EDT
From: Gordon D Woods <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Bill
Huttig) writes:

> I was surprised that the number 253 was used as Carrier ID and not 288
> like the PIC. It would have made more sense to use the PIC's.

What is a PIC? I've seen it several times and no one has defined it.


[Moderator's Note: His reference was to the five-digit carrier codes
which can be used at the start of a long distance dialing sequence to
route the call via a particular carrier; i.e. 10222 = MCI; 10777 = Sprint;
10288 = AT&T. These are a few, there are many more.     PAT]

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Emergency Highway Phones
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1991 19:28:21 GMT


decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail] (Darren Alex Griffiths)
writes:

> A local newscast reported on some interesting highway emergency phones
> this morning.  It seems that CalTrans is installing phones throughout
> the San Francisco bay area on major highways.  The phones connect you

> All that is fairly standard, the interesting part is that the phones
> are all cellular and run on solar power so no wires are needed to hook
> 'em up.  The reported said that the phones could be installed in about

Are you sure they're cellular?  We have those along I-270 between St.
Louis, MO and Collinsville, IL, and I believe they are either VHF or
UHF, judging by the antennas.  It's easier to build a lower-power-
requiring radio that's VHF than Cellular!  Also, these types of radios
would be cheaper to operate, I'm sure (since you "cut out the middleman"
by not using a cellular carrier).

Also, I've seen these types of radios in Israel, where it's not
surprising to see solar-powered utilities on the sides of the road.
The radios there all have a little "Motorola" flag on them ... free
advertising, which must have them gotten a break on the price of the
phones.


David Lemson   University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant
Internet : [e-mail]         UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #436
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02890;
          9 Jun 91 2:41 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07057;
          9 Jun 91 1:11 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18147;
          9 Jun 91 0:05 CDT
Date:     Sat, 8 Jun 91 23:25:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #437
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Jun 91 23:25:30 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 437

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Fax/Phone Switch Information Wanted [Francesco Caserta]
    Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell [Bob Frankston]
    Re: MCI $20 Promotion [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: Visit to California [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: Question About PC Pursuit and MNP [David Lemson]
    Re: The President's Analyst [Colston Sanger]
    Re: Questions on LAPD [Marco S. Hyman]
    Re: Ctrl-A's at Beginning and End of Digest [Fred E.J. Linton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Francesco Caserta <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fax/Phone Switch Information Wanted
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 91 00:52:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Harri Valkama)
writes:

> Who can recommend for me an automatic fax/phone switch that has a
> reasonable price. Let's say under $100.  It should sniff the incoming
> call and whether it is a phone call or a fax call direct it to my
> telephone or fax modem.  Here in Finland they are overlypriced; the
> local telephone company tried to sell me one that cost 1500FIM (about
> $350) !!!

> Also a fax number for the company that sells these is very welcome. I
> guess this device should work the same whether it is used in US or
> Europe or what.  Power supply is perhaps different but not a real
> problem. I mean that it should work with phone and fax signals or are
> there any differences concerning this kind of scheme.

I'm also in the market for one of these devices, although, more
specifically, for a fax/modem/a.m./phone switch. Lately I've done some
`homework' and come up with the following products.

Before I start the list, I should premise a few considerations. I've
been told that even among G3 fax machines there is no guaranty that
they will issue a CNG tone when calling. I've heard that it's
mandatory in Europe, but not in North America. I don't know if this is
true and if, anyway, the exceptions are actually very few. The
behaviuor of modems seems even more unpredictable regarding the
issueing of a distintive tone. I hope that someone more knowledgeable
will clarify this for us on this matter, because otherwise it's better
to forget that these boxes do any good.

1) Hello-Direct sells two of these devices: the Crosspoint
Autoswitcher I and the Crosspoint Autoswitcher II. The former is a
fax/modem/a.m./phone switch, the latter is a fax/a.m./phone switch.
Some of the options include: customized access codes, ring delay,
phone and auxiliary ring count, ring deduction, open line
notification, automatic fax detection.

  Crosspoint Autoswitcher I $229     Crosspoint Autoswitcher II $129

  Hello-Direct, 140 Great Oaks Blvd., San Jose, CA 95119-1347
  1-800-444-3556, 1-408-972-1990, (fax) 1-408-972-8155

2) VSI sells SmartMaxII. Model 6000 is a fax/phone switching, while
model 6500 adds an auxiliary port for a computer modem or another
accessory.

 VSI sells also many other of these switches. You may want to contact
 them at 1-800-999-8232, 1-714-687-2492, (fax) 1-714-687-2513.

3) FAX MANIA is another source. They can be contacted at
1-800-33-FAX-55, (fax) 1-804-498-3263.

COMMENTS: I have the impression that Hello-Direct's C.A._I is actually
the same as the ASAP TF 555 made by Command Communications and sold
for much less (~$170) by Lechmere.


Francesco Caserta

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jun 91 01:28 GMT
From: Bob Frankston <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell


The issue of protocols raises its ugly head.

Pac*Bell is able to provide some compelling features because it owns
the network.  The issue is not simply one of pricing but rather the
fact that it can create the protocols it needs to provide the services.
In fact, many of the protocols are intranetwork protocols that are
generally available to telcos.

A common theme of my messages is that these protocols must be
exportable.  Unfortunately, protocols generally means CCITT and a
design cycle that guarantees irrelevance.

In the spirit of naive optimism I'd like to see a law that allows
telcos to offer these services but with the condition that the
services be done with an arms length subsidiary and that any protocols
used would be made generally available to third parties.

Understanding the difficulty of designing good protocols, there would
be a grace period in which they can experiment with protocols without
invoking the full standards wrath but that they would have to have a
process for advancing the protocols beyond their initial design.
Perhaps they would also be allowed a not-for-profit grace period in
which they can experimentally try out the services.

I do appreciate the difficulty of creating good protocols and I don't
want to inhibit the process but with transition from POTS to ISDN and
other digital interfaces, we need to realize that the ability to offer
these services, even in arms-length subsidiaries with no revenue
sharing, is based on a policy of proprietary protocols.

Making these protocols available external raises many network
integrity and performance issues, but these issues must be faced
otherwise the Judge Greene error is for naught.


[Moderator's Note: One of the nicest features of telco-operated voice
mail is the stutter dialtone which advises the subscriber of new
messages waiting. It should not be that hard for telco to provide this
to the competitors: A third-party voice mail system would send
messages to the serving CO (of the subscriber) saying 'turn on
stutter' or 'turn off stutter'. They'd send this message on a special
data circuit, and your CO would toggle it on or off, just as it does
now for telco's own voicemail service.  Also, telco *could* now
provide 'programmable forward on busy / no answer' if they wanted to.
Ameritech Mobile presently allows me to toggle 'forward on busy / no
answer' as I wish; AND program it to any number, anywhere, but
Illinois Bell (my hardwired service) insists that this feature can
only be programmed in the CO on a work order (that of course means a
fee), and that it cannot be turned off or on (except by CO action),
and that forwarding MUST be to another number in the same exchange!
Phooey on that ... it is useless to me. So they could give these two
items to competing voicemail operators if they wanted to.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 08 Jun 91 19:03 PDT
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI $20 Promotion


In Telecom Digest V. 11 # Rob Stampfli <colnet![e-mail]>
says:

> I am not a lawyer, and neither are you.  I have tried very diligently
> to get an answer to this question (not related to the MCI offer,
> incidently) and the best that I could ascertain was that it is far
> from a clearly defined point of contract law.  I may morally agree
> with what you say, but I don't believe it would make a strong case in
> a court of law.

I AM NOT QUALIFIED TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER ... But that doesn't stop me
from shooting my keyboard off.....

While a mere undergraduate at the fine institution that hosts this
excellent forum, I took a course in Business Law (so named).  In that
course, I was instructed, and confirmed in the tome of all such great
knowledge (The textbook by Weast), that, according to the Uniform
Commercial Code: In cases where the payment of a bill or other such
compensation for a contract is IN DISPUTE, one can indicate on the
check, (or include a statement attached to some other item of value so
designated), something to the effect that the check, (or item) is
payment for all debts, past and present.

If the party owed payment accepts the check or item (a pen was given
as example), then its over, they got paid, and that's that.  Note the
two sections in all caps.  I'm not a lawyer, I took that course ten
years ago, and the part about dispute is the key. If there was no
legitimate dispute due to variations in the terms of the contract,
then you're gonna look mighty foolish in court trying to use a cheap
device to wheedle out of the deal. That I think gets at the heart of
the matter.

Advice on the clock: Don't try this with commercial contracts, Holmes,
unless you really know what you're doing.  I would guess that with the
MCI slam check, a judge may attempt to simply reach the status quo,
i.e., they give you control of your phone service back, and you give
them their $20 back.


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


[Moderator's Note: As you noted, 'satisfaction amd accord' is a very
tricky area. Without some legitimate written correspondence outlining
your DISPUTE, and something from the other side indicating a
willingness to accept partial payment as full satisfaction, the court
is quite likely to rule that you unjustly enriched yourself at the
expense of MCI.  Remember also that when remittances go to a lockbox,
the courts have said more than once that a minimum-wage employee for
the bank processing hundreds of checks daily as agent for the bank's
customers cannot bind the bank's customer to any agreement.

A lawyer here in Chicago tried that stunt with Diner's Club: he owed
them a thousand dollars on his bill, and sent them ten dollars marked
'payment in full'. It went through the lockbox, and later on, Diner's
tried to collect the balance, eventually placing him with an agency
when he kept resisting further payment.  Finally, Diner's returned his
ten dollars and sued him for the full amount. The Attorney
Registration and Disciplinary Committee found out and the guy damn
near lost his license to practice law here. The ARDC told him, "you
are an attorney and you know better than that ... you don't stiff your
creditors and abuse some eighteen-year old kid working for Diner's
lockbox remittance processing center."  ARDC complaints about judges
and attornies here go directly to the Supreme Court for administrative
review, and the court accepted the ARDC ruling completely, especially
since the guy was an attorney.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 08 Jun 91 19:04 PDT
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Visit to California


Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> writes:

> 213/310 -- prefix list provided for 213 with asterisk to show if a
> prefix or range of prefixes is moving to 310.  There is a 310 PREFIX
> (huh?) listed for Santa Monica, which is moving to 310.  The only
> prefixes staying in 213 will be Los Angeles (including FX lines
> serving places which are otherwise in 818 and in the future 310) and

The 310 prefix is for GTE internal offices. No subscriber lines are on
this prefix. Very few of these numbers are ever given out to the
public.  Several I know are translations of 800 numbers for various
flavors of customer service. It will be curious to see if this prefix
persists after the cutover to the new 310 area code. If it does, it
may be unique in being the only prefix identical to its own area code.
(No reason why not really).


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

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Question About PC Pursuit and MNP
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1991 19:23:42 GMT


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> quite understand the problem, and said that the only valid commands to
> give an outdial modem were ATZ and ATDT.  I suspect that some other
> commands, such as ATS might work as well, but they would not tell me
> about them.

Unfortunately, I haven't had PC Pursuit for a while, and don't still
have all of my lists of commands, but I can tell you that all of the
outdial modems are Racal-Vadic modems, so if anyone can look up the
command for disabling MNP on a Racal-Vadic modem, that's what you
need.  I have a more Hayes-ish modem that needs AT&E0 to disable MNP,
but I doubt that will work for you.


David Lemson   University of Illinois Computing Services Consultant
Internet : [e-mail]         UUCP :...!uiucuxc!uiucux1!lemson

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

Subject: Re: The President's Analyst
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 21:00:01 BST
From: Colston Sanger <[e-mail]>


Patrick,

TELECOM Digest readers in London, UK may be interested to know that
the film `The President's Analyst' (discussed in recent Digests) is
showing at the National Film Theatre on Saturday, 27 July at 6.15 pm.


Regards,

Colston Sanger

GID Ltd    69 Kings Road     Tel/Fax: [phone]
Haslemere  Surrey GU27 2QG, UK  UUCP: [e-mail]

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

From: Marco S Hyman <aria![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions on LAPD
Date: 7 Jun 91 21:05:43 GMT
Organization: Ascend Communications -- San Francisco


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stanfield
L. Smith ) writes:

> I need HELP in trying to understand how LAPD is going to work on the
> ISDN B channel of the telephone network.

LAPD runs on the D channel.  One of the many "rate adaption" protocols
that runs on a B channel is V.120 which is based upon LAPD.

> What I have been able to find out is there are many DIFFERENT
> standards for LAPD, the CCITT, ATT, French and others.  I have the
> CCITT book, but no documentation about the other variations.

Forget LAPD.  What you are really talking about is Q.921 (layer two
signaling between the switch and CPE) and Q.931 (layer three).  Layer
two is quite standard, layer three -- the call control layer -- is
another story.  While some countries mandate strict conformance to
CCITT what you need to know is what type of switch you'll be
connecting to and then grab the documentation from the switch vendor.

Examples are AT&T's "5ESS Switch: ISDN BASIC RATE INTERFACE
SPECIFICATION" which has version for the various generics and Nothern
Telecom's "ISDN BASIC RATE ACCESS USER-NETWORK INTERFACE
SPECIFICATION".  The CCITT specs are in Fascicle VI of the Blue Books
and are only available in hard copy.  Call the switch vendor for
information about ordering their manuals.

> 2) Can anyone explain how these different incarnations for LAPD are going
>    to inter-operate as a world wide telephone system?

You only need CPE that talks to your switch.  Once you get to your
switch it's the switches job to get the call the rest of the way.
Rate adapted data on the B channel does require use of the same
standard.  The common standards in use are DMI Mode 2 (an AT&T
proprietary protocol used by AT&T 7500 series phones and terminal
adapters), V.110 (defines which bits will be used to for data), and
V.120 (the Q.921/LAPD look-alike).  Fujitsu phones and TA's probably
define the "standard" V.120.  At least that's the TA you see in many
test labs when testing interworking.


marc
work: [e-mail]          uunet!aria!marc
home: [e-mail]    {ames,sun}!pacbell!dumbcat!marc

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

Date: 7-JUN-1991 22:40:45.49
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ctrl-A's at Beginning and End of Digest


In <[e-mail]>, the Moderator writes:

> When various messages are kept in a mailbox here,
> the control A's are separators between them.

Good thing I wasn't using the old AT&T 1300 "Video Transaction
Terminal" I started modeming with -- an incoming control A would have
locked the keyboard irretrievably!  [Reminiscence mode on: these were
the little beasts banks like ChemBank of New York and Union Trust of
New Haven were pushing, at about $50.00, for use as Pronto(tm) Home
Banking terminals, with a little help from a (now defunct?) consortium
including ChenBank, AT&T, Time-Life, and an outfit called (I think)
Covidea; not too different from the AT&T 1310 appearing a few years
later as a TDD-compatible 300-baud KSR-modem for the deaf -- er,
hearing-impaired.]


Fred  <[e-mail]>  or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #437
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05926;
          9 Jun 91 3:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16428;
          9 Jun 91 2:17 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07057;
          9 Jun 91 1:12 CDT
Date:     Sun, 9 Jun 91 0:17:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #438
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 9 Jun 91 00:17:04 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 438

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What Will Turn the Telcos On [Darren Alex Griffiths]
    Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads) [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: RBOCs Own Cellular [John Higdon]
    Re: Calling Card Calls From Canada [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Caller ID in the UK [Andrew Morley]
    Re: Surprise!!! [[e-mail]]
    Re: Ringing Tones Around the World [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: Wrong Recordings [Floyd Davidson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Darren Alex Griffiths <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Will Turn the Telcos On
Date: 7 Jun 91 21:20:25 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


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

> Phone Spots holds a patent on the concept of directly accessing an
> originating client's transmission path during the audible ringing
> portion of a call during call set-up and delivering an audible message
> or signal to the caller between the ringing signals without delaying
> the call progress. Expressed in its more likely and intended context,
> this firm intends to launch a business of delivering ten second
> recorded advertising messages between ringing signals simultaneously
> on a potentially very large number of telephone lines.  When offered
> in the residential market, it is contemplated that subscribers will
> receive a discount on their monthly bill for tolerating the ads.

Ick!!!  Next thing you know we'll be getting advertisements during
calls to 911, people trying to hock "real Rolex" watches to us while
we sit in an emergency room waiting for a doctor, lawyers sticking ads
above the stretcher in ambulances, lord the opputunities are endless.
I can just see calling 1-900-1RIP-OFF at $50 a second and getting ads
for 1-900-GET-MUGGed while waiting for it to pickup.

Actually, I don't see how this would work.  There's a whole bunch of
enduser equpiment and older, smaller switches that expect rings to be
uniform.  I'd get extremely agitated if my modem insisted that a line
was busy because some dork was trying to sell me insurance between
rings.  Smart people word refuse to have the "service" on lines that
are likely to receive modem calls, but what about switches at hotels
and companies that do billing based on when someone answers by
listening to the ring.  I understand that newer switches don't do this
and older switches also assume that someone answers after a certain
time so they can deal with unusual rings, but it still seems like
things would break in some cases.  I'd bet that a few COCOTs would get
confused as well ... hmm, this might not be a bad idea after all  :-).


Cheers,

darren alex griffiths    [phone]      [e-mail]

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads)
Date: 9 Jun 91 03:39:04 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(76012,300 Brad Hicks) writes:

>> Also, I have heard of, but never heard officially, of a telco
>> tariff which requires that autodialers not retry the same number
>> more than ten times in a row automatically.

> it's a law.  It was passed by Congress in the aftermath of that
> guy who got hacked off at one of the televangelists ...

First off, I believe the limit is 16 retries.  And I'm pretty sure the
law was passed because of what happened when Bruce Springsteen tickets
went on sale in D.C. and the network came to a standstill due to the
number of people trying to call the ticket vendor.

The real solution would have been to put such numbers on a high-volume
prefix, or as they do here in L.A., the number to Ticketron is a
special case in all local switches and tandems.

But it being D.C., our lawmakers thought they had to pass a law.
Never mind that I doubt that autodialers were a significant portion of
the traffic that day.  Most autodialers try only once every thirty or
sixty seconds.  More probable were people doing multiple manual repeat
dials.

If I press the Last-Number-Dialed button 17 times, do I go to jail :-) ?

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell
Date: 08 Jun 91 18:14:41


In a recent posting, John Higdon attacks Pac*Bell's new voicemail
service, because it is priced "well below" that of Pac*Bell's
competitors, and because it offers features which the local telephone
company is uniquely capable of providing. He claims that this is part
of a strategy of "predatory pric[ing] designed to murder the
competition," and argues that Pac*Bell's voicemail service offers "a
glimpse of the future under the Hollings bill" (which would permit
RBOC's to manufacture telephone equipment) and goes on to call for the
bill to be defeated in the House.  Although I take no position on the
Hollings bill itself, it sounds perverse to me to attack a company for
offering quality service at a low price.

    It must be remembered that antitrust law generally (and the Bell
divestiture in particular) was designed to benefit *consumers* not
competitors.  "Predatory pricing," for example, is defined as selling
a product *below the cost of production* for the purpose of eventually
monopolizing a market. Mr. Higdon provides no evidence that Pac*Bell
has priced its voicemail service below the cost of providing it; on
the contrary, he himself shows that Pac*Bell's size and credit rating
give it easier access to capital, which lowers its cost of providing
the service. This is a natural advantage which large, established
companies have over smaller ones; pricing one's goods to reflect one's
lower cost structure is neither anticompetative nor "unfair."

    Mr. Higdon also writes that "[w]hen the field has been thinned out
sufficiently, then the price can be whatever [Pac*Bell] wants." It
should be clear that Pac*Bell cannot raise the price of voicemail in
the future above what independent providers currently charge, without
allowing the competition to reestablish itself.  Given this
limitation, any such "predatory pricing" strategy would be decidedly
unprofitable.

    Likewise, his argument that Pac*Bell should be prevented from
offering voicemail, because it alone is in a technical position to
provide special services (such as "stutter" dialtone and free call
forwarding), is similarly flawed. Consumers would not be better off by
making these desirable features unavailable merely to protect
inefficient competition. (Of course, if it is possible to extend these
feature to competitors' services, Pac*Bell should be required to.)
The key concept here should be service to consumers, and not
"fairness" to competitors.

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

Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 22:29 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: RBOCs Own Cellular


Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]> writes:

(quoting)

> Of the top 10 cellular carriers, only No. 1 McCaw Cellular
> Communications is not now owned by a conventional "wireline" phone
> company. Indeed, phone companies are mainly battling one another:
> Ameritech and Southwestern Bell will go head to head in St. Louis and
> Chicago.

And in San Francisco, even McCaw's Cellular One is held in partnership
with Pacific Telesis (Pac*Bell). This means that you have, in essence,
GTE battling Pac*Bell.

> I find the second paragrah very disturbing. Some may claim that there
> is no way that the local service ratepayer subsidizes this business,
> but at the very least, it distracts the RBOCs from doing what they
> ought to be. That is, delivering improved local wireline service.

And judging from the way Pac*Bell's wireline service is deteriorating,
there is probably some truth to this. Oh, you would like some
examples?

The business office has now gone to 'automated attendent'. Most COs
are completely unmanned after hours. The program services department
has gone completely to hell. The right hand has no idea what the left
hand is doing anymore. Frankly, I have never seen worse service from
Pac*Bell, and it appears to be going down hill rapidly.

Rather than offering The Message Center, Centrex, Cable TV, Cellular
Service, Long Distance, and a host of other non-regulated products, I
would like to have an LEC that can provide what I cannot go anywhere
else to get: telephone and leased line service that works.

Weeks ago I ordered a pair of 15Khz program circuits for a radio
station in preparation for a repeater project. Last week's due date
was missed because the circuit was engineered BACKWARDS. That is
right: it was designed to carry audio from the repeater site back to
the studio. Very useful indeed. A new due date was scheduled for
Wednesday (last).  Instead, the day before (Tuesday) I got a surprise
call: could I let them into the repeater site for an end to end test
and turn-up? No, but we rescheduled for today (Friday). After standing
around ALL DAY with the installer, it turns out that no one had
bothered to check some interoffice equalizations and the line was not
ready for turn-up after all. They will try again on Monday.

I have never seen such incompetence in a quarter-century of
professional dealings with telephone companies. I have seen GTE
perform substantially better than that which has come from the most
recent transactions with Pac*Bell. What is happening?

Insiders tell me that the most intense handwringing at Pacific Telesis
centers around the inevitable loss of the intraLATA monopoly. This has
been the cash engine since divestiture. In preparation for this, there
has been considerable "fat trimming" in addition to the expected
search for new revenue sources. Apparently, some of the meat has been
removed with the fat, since the number of competent people available
to customers has noticeably dropped. As mentioned before, since
Pac*Bell is afraid to increase business rates much for fear of bypass,
affordable residence service may become a thing of the past. Look for
a substantial rise in the not-so-distant future. Unlike big business,
you and I have nowhere else to go.

I have said it before and I will say it again: prevent companies
providing regulated LEC service from branching out. Let these holding
companies sell their monopolies to investors who would like to provide
telephone service for a nice guaranteed rate of return. And break up
the RBOCs.

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

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

From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Card Calls From Canada
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> M. R. Baker writes:

> Dial the number as 0+XXX+YYY+ZZZZ.
> Wait for the "bong", and enter my card number/pin.
> After a few seconds, get a synthesized (or recorded) message:
>    "Please hold for operator assistance"

> I interpret this to mean that Network Interconnect between U.S. and
> Canada has not been completely implemented, and CCS7 messages can't be
> automatically exchanged across the border yet to the AT&T NCPs, etc.

At least in British Columbia, it is automatic.  I've called from the phone
at the ski lodge at the top of the mountain at Whistler to Los Angeles,
using my AT&T Calling Card.  Just 0+213+xxx+xxxx, wait for kabong, then my
card number.  The call then went right through, just like in the U.S.  This
was about two years ago.

My card was a "Traditional" Calling Card, related to my phone number.
Perhaps the Universal Cards and the new random calling cards are not supported
in an automated fasion by the current system.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Morley A.B.)
Subject: Re: Caller ID in the UK
Date: 5 Jun 91 15:04:11 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott A.
McIntyre) writes:

> As far as I am aware, this is the first of these devices to be on the
> UK market.  I would think that it will not be trememdously successful
> since most of the UK is not on Tone yet (the device requires it).

I think that this came up on telecom some time ago.  Apparently the
box doesn't receive caller ID (neither Telecom nor Mercury transmit
it), but automatically answers any incoming call with a digitized
voice saying "Please enter the number you are calling from".
Therefore there is nothing to make them tell the truth and if the
caller hasn't got Tone then they cannot get through at all!

A bit of a con really.


Andrew Morley, - [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

From: The unknown Florentine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Surprise!!!
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 21:58:16 PDT
Organization: Sunshine in a box


[e-mail] (Brian Gordon) writes:

> The good news is that, as of today, 01 Jun 91, PacBell has expanded its
> local calling area, so I can call work, for example, without incurring
> toll charges.

> The bad news is that, without notice, the "permissive" 1-plus dialing
> has stopped working.  The normal dialing from 408 has been, for
> example, just 415-336-xxxx.  It was permissible, however, to dial
> 1-415-336-xxxx, which, I presume, will someday become the norm.  As of
> this morning, using the "1-" form reaches a reorder tone ...

In 415 land where I work, they did that to us a year ago.  Our phone
people here reprogrammed the phone system to prepend a 1 to any number
that is long enough to include an area code( unless it already has
one) .  It is amazing the lengths we will go to to stay lazy.

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringing Tones Around the World
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 07:18:32 GMT


[e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> The ABCDEF codes apparently are those in the British Telecom booklet
> dated September 1990 which I received recently.  It shows Denmark as
> BD, not ED; apparently this is intended for people calling from the
> U.K.

The codes are identical in the OTC International Direct Dial pages of
Telecom Australia phone books - and Denmark is listed as Ring=B, Busy=D.


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

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Recordings
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1991 11:41:08 GMT


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

> Steve Forrette, in reference to his and Tim Irvin's difficulty with
> inappropriate automatic-intercept recordings from Pac Bell, asks what,
> if anything, can be done to correct this. Well, as always, 'it depends
> ...', in this case on where the problem lies and how Pac Bell stores
> its recordings.

> If this is in fact a software problem (the switch is programmed to
> play the "line is being checked" message at the wrong time), the
> correction will wait until subscriber irritation forces Pac Bell to
> have a patch made.

The software that selects intercept recordings would certainly be
different with every switch.  But one would hope that most if not all
the larger switches do it the way the ones programmed by BNR do it!
It is table driven on the DMS-100/200 and Super Node switches so that
telco personnel can select routing to intercepts in just about any way
they choose.  The number of different intercepts may be restricted
however, due to not enough equipment assigned and equipped for
recorded announcements.  In that case it may well take an earthquake
to get anyone to upgrade the switch to allow reasonable intercepts.

DMS-10's may do it differently, I don't know.  There are lots of
smaller switches (Redcom and Harris for instance) that do burn
everything into a PROM, and it becomes a political nightmare trying to
get one changed.

All of it comes down the the equipment can do it, if only the people
realize it and are willing to pay for it.


Floyd L. Davidson   | Alascom, Inc. pays me, |UA Fairbanks Institute of Marine
[e-mail]| but not for opinions.  |Science suffers me as a guest.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #438
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25991;
          10 Jun 91 0:00 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06710;
          9 Jun 91 22:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14859;
          9 Jun 91 21:19 CDT
Date:     Sun, 9 Jun 91 20:49:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #439
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 9 Jun 91 20:49:08 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 439

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Another Legend About Cyrus Field [westmark!mole-end![e-mail]]
    Modem Dialing Speed and Delay [Toby Nixon]
    USR's 'Fast Dial' Feature [Charlie Mingo]
    GTE Airphone [Carl Moore]
    Canadian Regulations on Auto Dialing, etc. [Tony Harminc]
    How to Connect (Cheaply) From Marin to Berkeley? [Richard Stanton]
    Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel [Bj|rn Remseth]
    Ease of Getting Info From Telco [David Gast]
    Clicks on Line After Hangup [Ken Levitt]
    Caller ID / Per Line Blocking [Rob Boudrie]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 12:57:30 -0400
From: westmark!mole-end![e-mail]
Subject: Another Legend About Cyrus Field


In Vol 11, Issue 373, Donald E. Kimberlin writes:

>        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 ...  Field really
> got his technology (and eventually his capital) from England.

I know at least one legend on this note.  Verse VI of *Peter Cooper's
Table at McSorley's Bar* runs:

        Peter Cooper's cable was the third unreeled.
        Most of all the credit went to Cyrus Field,
        But canny Peter Cooper made the durn thing yield.
        Is it any wonder that he died well-heeled?

(Peter Cooper was a 19th century New York industrialist and philanthropist
who sunk most of his considerable glue and iron fortunes into what he
planned to call ``The Union for the Advancement of Science and Art'',
and which was incorporated over his objections as ``The Cooper Union for
the Advancement ...'' It's still giving full scholarship educations in
engineering, architecture and art ... yes, on Cooper Square right around
the corner from McSorley's Old Alehouse.)


(This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end                Mark Terribile

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Modem Dialing Speed and Delay
Date: 5 Jun 91 17:47:31 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

> Since my switch will reliably take 36ms, I see no reason to not allow
> me to dial at that speed.  Anybody (Toby?) know why the newer modems
> are handicapped/differently-abled in this manner?

CCITT Q.24 specifies that COs must be able to accept DTMF signals that
are at least 40 ms long, so I'm not surprised that your switch accepts
36 ms.  But with the vagaries of local loops, it's necessary for
modems to send somewhat more than 40 ms, to have some confidence that
at least 40 ms will actually arrive at the switch.

EIA/TIA-496-A ("Interface Between Data Circuit-terminating Equipment
(DCE) and the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)") includes the
following requirements in section 4.3.3.3 (DTMF Pulsing Rate for
Automatic Dialers):

    Minimum duration of a two-frequency signal: 50 ms
    Minimum interdigit interval: 45 ms
    Maximum interdigit interval: 3 seconds
    Minimum cycle time: 100 ms

Manufacturers who are aware of this standard generally want to be
compliant with it in order to meet various government, military, and
corporate purchasing specifications, and so these specifications are
enforced by the modem firmware.  The timing specified was contributed
to the TIA TR-30.3 committee by representatives of LECs and switch
manufacturers, and the committee took their word for it.

> [Moderator's Note: And while Toby is answering that, here is another
> question: how come US Robotics has a condition you can set which
> allows for 'quick dialing', or dialing without waiting the obligitory
> two seconds before starting?  Hayes used to claim (maybe still do)
> that telco tariffs require a two second pause before dialing. You
> could not set that particular S-register less than 2.  Telebit seems
> to feel the same way ... but USR lets you go off hook and bang those
> digits right out if you set the register for it.   PAT]

In Hayes modems, you can bypass the two seconds by taking the modem
off hook with the "H" command before issuing the "D" command (e.g.,
"ATH1D...".  The "D" command procedures check to see if you're already
off-hook, and don't enforce the blind-dialing delay if you are (in
case you're using multiple "D" commands to dial a long number, you
don't want two-second pauses on the "D" commands after the first).

Where did THIS requirement come from?  I really don't know.  Section
4.3.3.1.2 (Start Dial Delay) of EIA/TIA-496-A says "Some central
office equipment may not accept network signaling information earlier
than 70 milliseconds or later than five seconds from the time dial
tone is applied", and that's it.  There is no two-second minimum, so I
can simply surmise that it is "traditional" and has "always been done
that way".  Oh, well.  I DO know that have ZERO delay between going
off-hook and initiating dialing is unreliable, and fails frequently.
The switch needs SOME time to recognize that you want to dial and
present dial tone.  You can provide ONE second by setting S8 (pause
time for comma) to 1, and use "ATH1D,..." to get a fixed one-second
delay.

The default is to ignore the fixed blind dialing delay, anyway, and
actually detect the dial tone before starting dialing.  Many countries
REQUIRE this, and don't even permit blind dialing.


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: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Date: 05 Jun 91 16:18:04
Subject: USR's 'Fast Dial' Feature


The Moderator Notes:

> [H]ow come US Robotics has a condition you can set which
> allows for 'quick dialing', or dialing without waiting the obligitory
> two seconds before starting?  Hayes used to claim (maybe still do)
> that telco tariffs require a two second pause before dialing. You
> could not set that particular S-register less than 2.  Telebit seems
> to feel the same way ... but USR lets you go off hook and bang those
> digits right out if you set the register for it.

     According to the manual for my USR HST Dual Standard, using the
"Fast Dials" feature is not the same as setting S6 to zero.  Fast
Dials causes the modem to wait for a dial tone and then dial
immediately.  Although S6 *can* be set to zero, my local exchange will
not accept the whole number unless the modem waits at least one second
or uses Fast Dials.

     Fast Dials is part of the Adaptive Dialing feature, where the
modem monitors the response to its dial attempt.  In addition to Fast
Dials, the HST will first attempt to tone dial, and then revert to
pulse if dial tone is not broken.

     Pretty neat, eh?

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 9:46:09 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE Airphone


When I flew recently from Philadelphia to Los Angeles and back, I saw
GTE airphones in use on board.  It requires a credit card (which could
be AT&T) to release it for use, and charges $2 (U.S.)  for setup and
$2/minute of the call.  Aside from 0 operator help, calls are dialed
with area code + seven digits, no leading 0 or 1.

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

Date: Thu, 06 Jun 91 13:16:16 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian Regulations on Auto Dialing, etc.


> [Moderator's Note: And while Toby is answering that, here is another
> question: how come US Robotics has a condition you can set which
> allows for 'quick dialing', or dialing without waiting the obligitory
> two seconds before starting?

 From another writer:

>   Also, I have heard of, but never heard officially, of a telco
> tariff which requires that autodialers not retry the same number more
> than ten times in a row automatically.  This lead to: a) some
> crippled terminal programs which won't do more than ten retries before
> having to be restarted, and b) crippled hardware -- my DUoFone 195 (an
> old Radio Shack gadget) has an auto redialer which keeps trying till
> there's no more busy.  But it will only try a maximum of ten times.
> Of course, this is all obsolete now, in the days of Call Return, where
> the Network does it for you.

Well - referring to the bible (for Canada at least) I find:

(conveniently the same section covers both these matters)

Definitions:

AUTOMATIC DIALING

  The process of dialing the nth (n greater than 1) in a series of
calls which is not interrupted by human stimuli to initiate each call
attempt.  Calls must be to different numbers ("repertory", "random",
or "sequential").

AUTOMATIC REDIALING

  The process of repeatedly and automatically dialing the same number
(last number called).

  For the purpose of this document, Automatic Calling Units under
external computer control, and emergency alarm dialers are not
considered to automatically redial.


OK - now to the *real* bureaucratese:

3.18   Automatic Dialing and Automatic Redialing
3.18.1 Requirements

Terminal equipment shall comply with the following requirements:

1) Audible or visual indication shall be provided during automatic
   redialing.

2) a) Automatic redialing to any individual number shall be limited to
      10 successive call attempts.

   b) If a pause of at least 60 s is provided between the completion
      of one call attempt and the initiation of the next call attempt,
      then up to 15 call attempts may be made to any individual number.
      The dialer shall return to the on hook (idle) state after 15 call
      attempts to any individual number and remain on hook until manually
      reactivated.

3) If the called number does not answer, the dialer shall return to the
   on hook state within 120 s of the commencement of dialing.

4) Sequential dialers shall only dial once to any individual number
   before proceeding to dial another number.

5) Network addressing signals shall be transmitted no earlier than:

   a) 70 ms after receipt of dial tone at the network interface

OR

   b) 0.6 s after automatically going off hook (for single line
      equipment that does not use dial tone detectors)

OR

   c) 70 ms after receipt of central office ground start at the network
      interface.

 < section 6 dealing with the rules after you have applied simulated
   lightning strikes and so on to your dialer omitted :-) >

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

(The bible here is DOC document CS-03, available from the Department
of Communications in Ottawa (or your local regional office)).  I
posted the address a couple of weeks ago.  BTW, please don't order
this stuff just for fun - although it is "free", we hard working
taxpayers end up paying for it.  Order it if you have a genuine use
for it.)

So it looks as though there is no need for *any* delays if your modem
is under "external computer control".  Also, the required dialing
delay is much less than two seconds; even if you don't listen for dial
tone you can dial after 0.6 seconds.

Caveat: my copy of CS-03 is getting rather old (1988).  Things may
        have changed since then.


Tony H.

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

From: Richard Stanton <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to Connect (Cheaply) From Marin to Berkeley?
Organization: Stanford GSB
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 19:39:10 GMT


I've just moved to Larkspur in Marin, and will be spending a lot of
time connected to a computer in Berkeley. To do this directly costs
21c/10c per minute on Pacific Bell. I can cut this by about 60% using
one of their calling plans, but it will still be a lot of money if I
stay connected for a few hours every day.

Can anyone think of an alternative way of making this connection (the
machine at Berkeley has telnet / FTP access, so a local Internet site
would be perfect).

Thanks a lot.

Richard Stanton     [e-mail]

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

From: Bj|rn Remseth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel
Organization: Institute of Informatics, University of Oslo
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1991 01:40:30 GMT


Does anyone know about  existing hardware  that puts  a bitstream on a
video channel and let you extract the same  bitstream out of the video
video  signal,  after it  has  been   transmitted on   standard  video
transport media such as satellite links, video cassettes  and cable TV
networks.

This   kind   of equipment could  use  spare  capacity  on local cable
networks and satellite sattelite   links to spread e.g.   usenet  news
quite inexpensively.

But, the Big Question is:  Does this hardware exist?


Bj\o rn Remseth      Institutt for Informatikk     Net:      [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]   Universitetet i Oslo, Norway  Mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 20:02:34 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ease of Getting Info From Telco


There was a repeat of a program last night on the local PBS channel
about Bail Bondsmen.  If you have bail and don't show up at court,
these people come after you.  While I was not following the program in
detail, it quoted one them as saying ``I am not sure what we do is
legal ... I mean, we do misrepresent the truth, but ...''

The telecom aspect, which seems particularly relevant after the recent
leak of info, was that this guy calls up the telephone company and
gets all sorts of information about what calls are made.  Based on
that info, they decide to go out to a specific house in San
Bernardino.

It was truely amazing the info they got and how easily they got it.
The info that was released about the telemarketing company in Chicago
was nothing in comparison with the information this guy got from what
I presume was GTE or PacBell.


David

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

Date: Thu, 06 Jun 91 13:44:27 EDT
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clicks on Line After Hangup


I have a Watson voicemail board that answers my phone when I'm not at
home.  If someone leaves a message for me, the Watson system is
programmed to call out to my beeper number to let me know that I
should pick up a message.  If no message is left, the system is not
supposed to call the beeper.

I'm having a problem when someone hangs up without leaving a message.
When the caller hangs up, there is some sort of clicking on the line.
The Watson is listening for silence or a dial tone and thinks that the
clicking is an actual message.  When a dial tome finally comes on,
Watson disconnects and then calls my beeper.

I called New England Telephone and was told that the clicking is
normal and that there is nothing they can do about this.  Is this
true?  Should I give up and do my best to work around the problem, or
is there something I can do to get them to get rid of the clicking?


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: Rob Boudrie <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 12:13:12 EDT
Subject: Caller ID / Per Line Blocking


A recent posting mentins that Florida Caller ID will make per call
blocking (by dialing a prefix) available to anyone free of charge, but
that only privliged persons and agencies can get "per line" blocking.

So, I was wondering :

(a) Are there any phones available which may be programmed to automatically
    insert a user defined prefix befure the dialed number?

(b) What about an in line gadget that you put in the line to do this for
    all of your phones?


Rob Boudrie   [e-mail]


[Moderatpr's Note: I'd think any speed dial phone could be programmed
to include *67 (or whatever) in front of the phone number in that
position in the directory.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #439
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00561;
          10 Jun 91 1:30 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06217;
          9 Jun 91 23:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06710;
          9 Jun 91 22:27 CDT
Date:     Sun, 9 Jun 91 21:48:49 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #440
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 9 Jun 91 21:48:36 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 440

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Remote Call Forwarding [Business Week via Ken Jongsma]
    Local Calling Areas (was: Surprise!!) [Glenn R. Stone]
    Share FAX, Modem and Voice Line [Ken Jongsma]
    CT Sales Tax on International Calls [Fred E.J. Linton]
    PCs Through Airport Security [Jim Redelfs]
    A Historical Note - Ringdown Interoffice Signaling [[e-mail]]
    Phone Outages [Dave Niebuhr]
    RBOC's Can Now Manufacrture Equipment [Ken McVay & David Leibold]
    Do Passive Repeater Antennas Work For Handheld Phones? [Seng-Poh Lee]
    Pacific Bell Local Calling Area Expansion [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>
Subject: Remote Call Forwarding
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 91 20:55:19 EDT

 From the June 17th issue of {Business Week}:

Forwarding telephone calls is a great way to stay in touch when you
head out of town, but it has one big drawback: In most places, you
must enter the forwarding number from your own home or office phone.
That's a problem if you don't know that number until you arrive at
your new destination. Now, more phone companies are beginning to offer
"remote access to call forwarding," which lets you punch in a
forwarding number from any telephone.

Within the past few months, Southwestern Bell Corp. began offering the
service in Austin, Tex.; Bell Atlantic Corp. started it in the
Maryland suburbs of Washington; and BellSouth Corp. introduced it
throughout North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. It's not
exactly a technology breakthrough: Centel Corp. has offered it Las
Vegas since around 1985. But Centel charges $15 a month- far more than
the Bells.  Southwestern Bell, for instance, is charging residential
customers $1.50 a month for remote access, plus $2.10 a month for
basic call forwarding.


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


[Moderator's Note: But SW Bell had a *major* problem in St. Louis last
week affecting a few thousand data lines. A special mailing from the
Digest late Sunday night will go out with full details.    PAT]

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

From: "Glenn R. Stone" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Local Calling Areas (was Surprise!!)
Date: 7 Jun 91 18:36:31 GMT
Organization: Dead Poets Society


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Dennis Blyth) writes:

> In Cincinnati Bell territory, one can call from a residence phone in
> Hamilton, Ohio (about 30 miles north of the Ohio river) to the
> Cincinnati International airport ... about 15 miles south of the
> Ohio river...

The Metro Atlanta calling area extends for 80 some miles in a couple
directions ... it'll be in its own area code in March, 1992.

Whee, life in the big city.

Can anybody top that?  (Cobb, Fulton, Dekalb, and portions of
Cherokee, Henry, Paulding, Gwinnett, Clayton counties ...)


Glenn R. Stone    [e-mail]

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

From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>
Subject: Share FAX, Modem and Voice Line
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 8:46:51 EDT


There have been a number of people looking for devices to allow the
use of one phone line for several purposes. I received a catalog from
TigerSoftware (1-800-888-4437, FAX [phone]) that has a couple
of these devices:

Extraline (by Lynx Automation) - Listens for the sound of an automatic
FAX machine. If detected, or if a specific touchtone key is pressed,
routes call to FAX machine. If modem tones are detected, routes call
to modem line (Not sure this would work in usual modem config, since
receiving modem usually makes noise, not sending modem, until
connection is established.)  $199.00.

Ring Detector (also by Lynx) - Uses distinctive ring service offered
by most RBOCs to route calls. Two line version $89.00, Four line
version $149.00.

I have no experince with this company.


Ken

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

Date: 7-JUN-1991 23:16:47.15
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: CT Sales tax on International Calls


I live in New Haven, CT (area 203).

My most recent phone bill month with SNET had me placing lots of calls
to Poland, with whatever carrier could get me through: AT&T, ITT, MCI,
Sprint.

ITT's bill has not shown up yet, but:

MCI (who bill me directly) charged 3% FET but not the 8% CT tax.  AT&T
(for whom SNET does billing) likewise: 3% FET, but no 8% CT tax.
Sprint (for whom SNET also does billing) charged not only the 3% FET
but also the 8% CT tax.

A call to SNET Customer "Service" taught me that SNET only bills in
accordance with the LD carrier's instructions -- to find out why
they're billing this 8% for Sprint but not for AT&T, they offered to
contact AT&T to learn why AT&T was NOT charging 8% CT sales tax
(though based on MCI's not charging it either, I'd have thought they'd
want to contact Sprint to find out why they, alone, ARE).

So I call Sprint Customer Service for another perspective, reaching an
agent who immediately contacted Sprint's "Tax Liaison" office (I was
on hold a few minutes), reported back that there should NOT have been
any CT state sales tax imposed, and suggested I contact my SNET rep
and ask them to remove that charge.

Needless to say, I did; equally needless to say, they didn't.

Can any of the tariff experts out there help me sort this all out?

As another netter so neatly puts it:    aTdHvAaNnKcSe .


Fred       <[e-mail]>  or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail>

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

Date: Thu, 06 Jun 91 18:19:24 CST
From: Jim Redelfs <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: PCs Through Airport Security
Reply-To: ivgate!macnet![e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


Max Rochlin wrote:

> For fun, I changed my os-prompt to:

>      "Yes, this really is a computer and thanks for checking"
> Which amuses most airport security guards.

I've often wondered how amused they would be if I brought my trusty
Macintosh, fired it up only to have it crash which, for most Macs, is
indicated by a cute graphic of an old-style, ball and fuse BOMB!!
"Sorry, a system error occured!"


JR

  Tabby 2.2
  MacNet Omaha 402-289-2899 On loan from Mrs MacWidow (1:285/14)

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

From: 99700000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Historical Note - Ringdown Interoffice Signaling
Date: 8 Jun 91 06:54:35 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Open Access Computing


In days of yore toll calls often required operators to string together
circuits from one office to another until the two end offices were
connected.  In many cases the interoffice trunks were operated with
ringdown signaling.  That is, the operator trying to make a connection
would plug into a circuit leading to the next office in the chain and
ring, just as if she were ringing a subscriber, to get the attention
of the operator at the distant end of the circuit.

At least in my home town the incoming toll trunks appeared on the
switchboard with magneto drops, exactly the same as if they were
magneto subscriber lines.  Incidentally jacks on the toll testboard
were designated 'line' and 'drop' according to whether they connected
away from the switchboard or toward the switchboard, respectively; and
this terminology persisted for a long time - maybe it still does.

On some toll circuits the ringdown signaling was accomplished by
simply sending 20Hz ringing current down the line, just as if it were
a subscriber line.  On other circuits this was not possible.  One such
case is a circuit 'composited' for telegraphy.  A 'composite set' (CX)
is basically a pair of filters: telegraph signals get on and off the
line through a low-pass filter, and voice signals go through a
high-pass filter, at each end of the circuit.  So the telephone
company could use the circuit for toll voice, and also sell each wire
as a ground-return telegraph circuit to some customer wanting that
service.  In addition to the filters of the composite set, the
repeating coils (transformers) in the voice path were designed to have
poor low frequency transmission, as a further aid in keeping the
telegraph signals out of the voice path.  Now 20Hz ringing is in the
same frequency range as telegraph signals, so you can't use 20Hz
ringing on composited circuits.

The solution to this problem was to use a 'composite ringer' (CXX)
between the switchboard and the line.  At the originating end the CXX
responded to 20Hz ringing from the switchboard and transmitted 135Hz
in its place, which was a high enough frequency to go through the
repeat coils and composite sets at both end.  At the answering end a
resonant-reed relay responded to 135Hz and transmitted 20Hz toward the
switchboard.  The 135Hz ringing current was generated by an
interrupter, basically a buzzer with a tuned resonant reed for an
armature.  There were two of these for redundancy; I don't know how
switching between them was accomplished.  Nor do I know whether they
ran all the time or only when ringing current was needed, which wasn't
very often in a small office.  The receiving relay was rather like a
telegraph polar relay, except that the armature was resonant at 135Hz,
with an adjustable weight.  The CXX was entirely electro- mechanical.
There was a strong incentive to keep electronics out of an office as
long as possible.  Introducing vacuum tubes meant the need for a
130-volt plate supply, with battery backup, and that was something
else that had to be maintained.  Also the 24-volt talking battery
plant might have to be enlarged somewhat because the vacuum tubes
always draw filament current regardless of whether they are doing
anything interesting.

135Hz signaling wouldn't work over circuits containing vacuum tube
repeaters, being below the lower cutoff frequency of the amplifiers,
so yet another technique was used for these circuits.  The ringing
signal consisted of 1000Hz amplitude modulated by 20Hz.  I don't have
any first hand experience with this technology; presumably they used
vacuum tubes to generate 1000Hz and also to amplify the incoming
signal to the point where it could operate a relay.


[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1991 9:02:33 EDT
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Outages


"J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]> writes:

> "I had expected to see a posting from someone else here in St. Louis
> because it has been front page news for the last several days that a
> SWBT computer went out last friday with serious outages."

> several hundred ATM terminals were not functional.
> teller terminals within some branch banks were not functional.
> money transfers for the Federal Reserve bank were disrupted.
> off track betting at a local race track was not operational.

That's nothing.  Last winter, a computer malfunctioned in New Jersey
and proceeded to shut down a good portion of whatever uses data lines
for transaction processing: ATM's, stock exchanges, bank teller
machines, etc.  The geographical area was Northern New Jersey, New
York City, Long Island and, I believe parts of Westchester County
north of NYC.  The shutdown might have even spread into lower
Connecticut.

I forget the cause but I think the malfunction was caused by a fire
somewhere near the main switch.  What surprised me was the apparent
lack of a backup system and the following confusion along with the
inability to take simple precautions.


Dave Niebuhr      Brookhaven National Laboratory
BITnet and Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: A special mailing going out later tonight will
contain excerpts from the {St. Louis Post Dispatch} report. This
apparently was a major incident there last week.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 07 Jun 91 11:11:33 PST
From: Ken McVay <[e-mail]>
Subject: RBOC's Can Now Manufacture Equipment
Reply-to: [e-mail]


  From a story in the {Ft Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel}, based on wire
services, the U.S. Senate had approved a bill that gives the RBOCs the
right to manufacture telephone equipment in competition with AT&T.
This bill passed 71-24 although there was concern of a presidential
veto due to provisions preventing the RBOCs from running foreign
manufacturing operations. In other words, the bill has a "buy
American" slant to it, to maintain domestic manufacturing. All
products made by the RBOC's must contain at least 60% domestic parts,
and their equipment would have to be made available for purchase by
independent telcos.

Furthermore, a new bill could let the telcos compete directly with
cable companies, while setting forth a goal of a nationwide fibre
optic network by 2015 (presumably this means local fibre access; long
distance fibre should mostly be in place by the major carriers).

Sen. Albert Gore supported the cable bill, stating high rates and poor
service of cable companies while claiming that competition could
reduce cable TV rates by half. A separate bill sponsored by Gore would
bring back federal regulation of cable TV while preventing telcos from
buying existing cable systems within their territory.

To compare cable TV rates and illustrate the cost situation, Rogers
Cable in Toronto charged CAD$18.56 per month, including tax (or about
USD$16.90, depending on exchange rates). Com-Cast out of West Palm
Beach, FL charges well into the USD$20's/month and has plenty of local
advertising superimposed on its offerings (like CNN). Meanwhile, there
are tales of vastly reduced rates in those U.S. jurisdictions that
have allowed a competing cable company to start up business.


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

Ken McVay - via IMEx node 89:681/1      [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 14:54:30 -0400
From: "Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Do Passive Repeater Antennas Work For Handheld Phones?
Organization: FSF Guest Machines


I keep seeing adverts for these passive repeater antenna for hand
held/portable cellular phones. Has anyone tried one of these, and if
so do they have any effect, or are they just a gimmick?

I live in Central Connecticut and my handheld is with Linx (B
carrier).  I get pretty good coverage and can usually make a call from
inside the car without even extending the attenna. However, there are
a few areas where I am marginal. If those passive antennas result in a
measurable improvement, then I'd consider getting one.


Seng-Poh Lee   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 13:13:46 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pacific Bell Local Calling Area Expansion


I have an interesting report on how Pacific Bell implemented the
recent local calling area expansion on my exchange.  I just moved, and
am now on 916-983.  The expansion made a big difference for this area,
as a lot of businesses/friends that people around here have to call
were previously just outside the local calling area.

As of 4:30pm on Friday, May 31, I noticed that the change had already
taken effect.  Calls to numbers in the 9-12 mile range (previously
Zone 2, now Zone 1 "local") no longer required a preceeding "1", and
in fact went to an error message if you tried to use the 1.  I
wondered how much automated equipment would not work properly for
awhile because of this.  Just think how many monitored alarm dialers
would not work, among other things.  This is particularly important,
as even thought advance notice was given by Pacific Bell, there would
be no way for an alarm company to provide uninterrupted service unless
all customers' units were reprogrammed at precisely the moment that
Pacific Bell made the change, which wasn't even at the published time
of midnight on June 1.

The interesting part is that by the evening of Monday, June 3, the
(optional) 1 was again allowed.  Calls would complete with or without
the 1.  Further investgation revealed that ALL local calls would allow
the 1, even those that had never been toll.  So, I can now dial ANY
number in 916 by using a preceeding 1.  Toll calls still require it,
though.

Since this change was not made until a couple of days after the
official cutover, I wonder if Pacific Bell made the change as the
result of a storm of complaints from all sorts of people complaining
about things that dial not working right, and the time required to
make the change.  I assume that allowing 1 for local calls will not
last forever, and is being done as an interim solution only, but only
time will tell.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #440
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02840;
          10 Jun 91 2:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01436;
          10 Jun 91 0:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06217;
          9 Jun 91 23:33 CDT
Date:     Sun, 9 Jun 91 23:11:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  SPECIAL REPORT: St. Louis Phone Outage
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>



[Moderator's Note: Here is a special report sent to the Digest by Brad
Hicks which discusses the major service outage in St. Louis last week.
It was too large for a regular issue of the Digest. PAT]

  Date: 09 Jun 91 15:57:19 EDT
  From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
  Subject: SWBT Drops 2,800 Data Lines


{St. Louis Post-Dispatch} , 6/4/91, pp. 1A, 7A:

COMPUTER FAILURE SHUTS DOWN AUTOMATIC TELLERS ACROSS AREA

by Jim Gallagher Of the Post-Dispatch Staff

Scores of automatic teller machines across St. Louis have been shut
down for four days because of a computer failure at Southwestern Bell.
The glitch also slowed the transfer of billions of dollars on
Friday through the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and afected dozens
of other businesses that send information by computer.  A Southwestern
Bell spokesman said Monday that crews were working aroundthe clock to
put 2,800 data transmission lines back in service.

The failure hit Friday morning.  It immediately froze 55 automatic
teller machines belonging to 18 St. Louis credit unions with 135,000
customers.

An additional 26 automatic tellers owned by Mercantile Bank and
several owned by United Postal Savings Association also went blank.
Tellers in some branches lost their links to the main computers at the
credit unions, Mercantile and United Postal.  The branches remained
open using backup systems, although the glitch is slowing business,
officials say.  "It's been a major pain," said Bill Humpfer, president
of St. Louis Teachers Credit Union, where automatic tellers are used
50,000 times a month.

Southwestern Bell said the problem was in a "high capacity digital
cross-connection system" in the 2600 block of Olive Street.  The
machine shuttles computer calls between stations.  Phone company
officials don't know what caused the problem but sabotage is not
suspected, said Bell spokesman David Martin.  Engineers got the
computer working again on Saturday and began the slow process of
reprogramming it.  By Monday night, Bell had restored 1,500 lines --
mostly high-speed lines used by businesses -- but the automatic
tellers remained down.

The Federal Reserve Bank of St.  Louis -- which wires $15 billion a
day between banks around the country -- switched to a backup system
Friday to keep the money moving.  "We got all our work done, but it
delayed things," said a Fed spokesman. The Fed was still using the
backup system Monday afternoon.  Besides financial institutions, the
system serves scores of businesses that send information by computer.

AT&T leases about 280 of the Bell lines for its own long-distance
customers.  Most were back in service Monday, an AT&T spokesman said.

The problem hit on a very busy day for banks.  It was a "double
payday" -- a Friday on the last day of the month.  Many customers who
could not used automatic tellers lined up in front of human tellers
instead.  Lines were longer than normal, although officials said the
extra crowd caused few problems.  But credit union officials said the
breakdown was costing them money. Customers who can't use their own
credit union's automatic tellers may use acompetitor's instead.  When
that happens, the credit union pays a fee to the competitor.

 "We're starting to talk megabucks," Humpfer said.  Credit unions
affected are part of a single automatic teller machine processing
system.  The credit unions include Anheuser-Busch, Aerospace,
Educational Emerson, Gateway Telco, Telephone, First Community,
WestCommunity, RAC, First American, Sunset, St.  Louis Federal Center,
St. Andrew,Arsenal, Wetterau, Victory, South Community and Electro.

                         ----------

{St. Louis Post-Dispatch}, 6/5/91, pp. 1C, 3C:

CRASH! SW Bell Computer Expected Back on Line This Morning

by Jim Gallagher Of the Post-Dispatch Staff

The computer breakdown that paralyzed dozens of automatic teller
machines and apparently frustrated crowds of horse-racing fans should
be fixed by this morning, Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. says.  The
phone company was methodically reactivating 2,800 high-speed lines
that carry electronic data around St. Louis and beyond.  "We're
finishing it up," phone company spokesman David Martin said
Tuesday afternoon.

Crews hoped to have the work done by Tuesday evening, he said.  ATMs
were slowly coming back on line through the day.  Mercantile Bank said
nearly all its machines were working.  On Monday, 26 of the bank's
ATMs were down.  But 55 ATMs operated by 18 credit unions were still
down early Tuesday evening.

Relief couldn't come too soon for Brian Zander, general manager of
Fairmount Park.  The park lost $500,000 in weekend wagers when its
data phone lines went dead, stalling the computerized bet-taking
system.  "It is a major, major problem," Zander said.  About 1,000
would-be race goers were turned away at the track gates Saturday when
the glitch slowed betting to a crawl.  The track decided to send half
its customers home, rather than create huge lines at the betting
windows.  The turned-away patrons weren't in a kindly state of mind,
Zander said. "People don't understand it's the phone lines.  They
blame it on us."  Zander said AT&T officials had told him the problem
was at Southwestern Bell, which rents data phone lines to the
long-distance company.  AT&T and Southwestern Bell spokesman said the
couldn't immediately confirm that Fairmount's problem stemmed from the
computer crash.

 "It's entirely possible," the AT&T spokesman said.  The problem
struck Friday morning, when a Southwestern Bell computer in downtown
St. Louis suddenly broke down, cutting off 2,800 data lines.  Martin
said Southwestern Bell still doesn't know why the system failed.
Workers are trying so hard to fix it that they haven't had time to
look for the cause, he said.  Besides frustrating bettors and ATM
users, the failure also cut computer links between main computers and
some branches at Mercantile, many credit unions and United Postal
Savings Association.  The branches remained open, but business was
slowed.

At St. Louis Teacher's Credit Union, for instance, workers have to
bring records in from the branches each day and punch them into the
main computer by hand.  The lines are used by a variety of businesses
to link their computers to others around the nation.  Fairmount Park
wasn't using the computer betting system Tuesday, and Zander said he
didn't know if it was working yet.  The computer system requiring
phone lines is used only for bets on races run at other tracks.
 Fairmount has its own computer system for its races.  The computer
failure forced Fairmount to hook its computers to regular phone lines.
But data lines move information 20 times faster, he said.

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

{St. Louis Post-Dispatch}, 6/4/91, pp. 1C, 3C:

COMPUTER FAILURE SHUTS DOWN AUTOMATIC TELLERS ACROSS AREA

by Jim Gallagher Of the Post-Dispatch Staff

A king-sized computer snafu that silenced 2,800 data phonelines has
beenfixed "for the most part," a Southwestern Bell spokesman said
Wednesday.  All but eight of the 55 credit union automatic teller
machines were working Wednesday, after being shut down since Friday.
The computerized betting system at Fairmount Park race track is
working again.  But United Postal Savings Association says its data
lines are still down -- and its executives are getting angry.  "It's
been a nightmare," said Michael Gorman, executive vice president at
St.  Louis' second-largest savings and loan.  The high-speed lines
connect the S&L's main computer to terminals at half of United
Postal's branches.

Gorman said Southwestern Bell can't tell him when the problem will
befixed.  "They give us stories and every couple of hours it's
different. I can't believe them any more," he said.  Dave Martin,
spokesman for Southwestern Bell, said only a few lines were still out
Wednesday evening.  "When you do a major repair job like this, there
are going to be glitches,"he said.  "We are taxing the patience of the
few remaining customers with problems."

At its height, the five-day breakdown affected scores of businesses
andfroze more than 80 automatic tellers at 18 credit unions,
Mercantile Bank and United Postal.  A Fairmount Park spokeswoman said
the track lost "tens of thousands of dollars" in profit when betting
slowed to a crawl Friday and Saturday. About 1,000 race fans had to be
turned away at the gate.  Bankers complained of lost automatic teller
fees and large costs for worker overtime caused when people had to do
the work of computers.  But the companies stand little chance of
recovering their losses from Southwestern Bell.

Under the law, victims normally can't collect damages for a failure in
phone or electric services, said Rob Hack, assistant general counsel
for the Missouri Public Service Commission.  To collect, they would
have to prove that the utility deliberately cut service or was
willfully negligent.  The law was designed to protect utilities from
massive losses after breakdowns and power failures, Hack said.
Perhaps the most the victims can hope for is not to be charged for
phone services for the period the lines weredown.

The breakdown hit Friday morning in a computer switching machine in
downtown St. Louis, and Southwestern Bell engineers have been
struggling since to get it fixed.  They were joined by engineers from
American Telephone & Telegraph Corp.,which sold the equipment that
failed.  Officials at United Postal were struggling, too.  It took
them until Wednesday to switch their computers to normal phone lines.

Branches remained open and customers weren't affected, Gorman said.
But many employees were placed on overtime to work around the glitch.
United Postal hasn't yet counted the cost, he said.  At Fairmount Park,
officials said their losses go beyond lost betting profits.  Many of
their customers left the track angry, said spokeswoman Mary Ozanic.
"The hardest thing to measure is what the ill will will cost us," she
said.
                     --------------

Three-quarter page advertisement in the 6/9/91 {St. Louis Post-Dispatch},
p.  13D:

AN OPEN LETTER TO OUR BUSINESS CUSTOMERS:

At Southwestern Bell Telephone, we've built a high standard of
customer service and we take pride in that. Unfortunately, we recently
experienced a rare failure in a computer system that transmits data.

As a result, about 750 St. Louis-area business customers lost access
to important day-to-day services. For those of you whose service was
impaired, that failure translates to a disruption in your operations
and, at best, an inconvenience to your customers. We apologize for
letting you down in this instance. Though the problem lingered longer
than any of us would have liked, we made every effort to see that it
was fixed as quickly as possible.  Our technicians worked around the
clock, logging more than 2,500 hours, to correct the problem.  We
enlisted the help of experts from across the country.

Still, I know that even though we pulled out all stops to restore
service, you would rather it not have happened at all.  So would we.
Now that service has been restored, our focus has shifted to further
upgrading the system's reliability.  While some of the solutions may
take time to complete, we will persist until the service we provide
meets your high standards and ours. In the next few days, we will
individually contact customers whose service was interrupted.  We want
to share with you our plans for improving the system,and we want to
hear your comments on how we can continually improve our service to
you. We are committed to earning your confidence once again.

Sincerely,

(s) Randy Barroy President-Missouri
Division Southwestern Bell Telephone

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


{St. Louis Post-Dispatch}, 6/4/91, pp. 1E, 8E:

VITAL LINES Phone Net Vulnerable, Crash Shows

by Jim Gallagher Of the Post-Dispatch Staff

Brian Zander, manager of Fairmount Park, faced a lot of unhappy
customers in the past week.  But one fuming customer took the cake.
"He was pretty red-faced," Zander recalled.  The man said he had
waited a year for his favorite horse to race at Arlington Park
racetrack near Chicago.  But when he came to Fairmount to place an
intertrack bet, he was turned away at the gate.

The high-speed data phone lines linking Arlington to Fairmount had
gone down -- part of a Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. computer
failure that rattled companies around the region last week.  Fairmount
turned away 1,000 racing fans last weekend when phone problems slowed
its computerized betting operation to a crawl.  The man was livid
because his horse won, Zander said.  "He said he was going to bet
$500.  He was not a happy camper," Zander said.

The six-day failure, which ended Thursday, affected 2,800 data lines.
At its height, it shut down more than 80 automatic teller machines,
cut off bank branches from their main computers and slowed the
transfer of billions of dollars through the Federal Reserve System.
It also illustrated the region's growing reliance on phone lines to
keep business running.  The installation of high technology over the
past decade has left the nation's phone system with an odd
contradiction.  Experts say the new technology is making the system
more efficient andusually more reliable.  But by squeezing more phone
lines into fewer computers and cables, the system may have also become
more vulnerable.  A routine foul-up or accidents that would have
silenced a few thousand lines a decade ago now can affect millions.


Take these examples:

Jan. 4., 1991.  An AT&T construction crew in New Jersey mistakenly
cracks asingle fiber-optic cable.  The cable is the width of a
person's thumb.  The crack halts 60 percent of AT&T's long-distance
calls to New York City. Aviation control centers are paralyzed,
causing gridlock in the skies throughout the Northeast.

Jan. 23, 1990.  More than 42,000 people in north St. Louis county lose
some or all of their phone service when a fire under a bridge burns a
mainfiber-optic cable and other phone lines.  Hospitals, police and
fire departments can't get calls.  Some customers wait three days for
service to be restored.

Jan. 15, 1990.  AT&T's national switching system suffers a collapse,
and half of its long-distance calls go uncompleted.  The company takes
nine hours to restore full service.  AT&T blames a bug in its software.

May 8, 1988.  Mother's Day is soured for thousands as a fire breaks
out in an unmanned switching center in Hinsdale, Ill., near Chicago.
The blaze knocks out service for 35,000 customers for up to a month.

Communications experts say spectacular advances in computer systems
andfiber optics are improving service in general.  In Missouri, for
instance, telephone trouble reports fell 18 percent during the past
six years, according to Southwestern Bell.  But some wonder whether
technology has left the system too vulnerable toproblems at critical
choke points, where simple accidents can mushroom intocommunications
disasters.  In the 1970s, the biggest telephone cable could carry
50,000 calls.  Now fiber-optic cables carry 300,000 to 500,000.

That means that a backhoe operator these days can knock out 10 times
as many telephones in a flick of a lever.  "Technology has
concentrated things to the point where, when you do have a major
failure, you can have a much more widespread and devastating failure,"
said Don Mitchell, division manager of planning and engineering at
Southwestern Bell.  Phone calls are funnelled through computerized
switching centers.  The number of such centers has dropped by about
half since the mid-1980s, as technology allowed more phone connections
to be squeezed into fewer computer boxes.

This means a crash at a single switching center affects many more
people, experts say.  And with fewer centers, phone companies have a
harder time routing calls around a failed switch.  The Hinsdale
switching center wasn't even manned.  It was monitored by phone lines
from Springfield, Ill.  As a result, the fire burned for 90 minutes
before the Hinsdale Fire Department heard of it.  "It was designed
never to fail, and as a result, they couldn't put the fire out," said
David  Farrell, spokesman for the Illinois Commerce Commission.

The complexity of today's computers can compound the headaches.  Take
the most recent failure in St. Louis.  The problem centered on complex
software in a "digital access and cross-connect system" computer.

The $330,000 machine links thousands of customers' computers by
high-speed telephone lines.  When the software failed May 31, Bell
technicians replaced it with a standby copy on a floppy disk.  But the
spare software was "contaminated" with errors, Mitchell said.  It
destroyed the computer's main memory, forcing technicians to spend
five days painstakingly reprogramming the machine.

"It was just a freaky thing," Mitchell said.  Bell has two such
computers in St. Louis.  They are four years old and neither had
failed before, Mitchell said, although a similar machine in Kansas
City shut down in 1988.

The phone company plans to install a new computer with safety features
to prevent a repeat of the snafu.  "We don't anticipate this happening
again," he said.  Despite the spectacular collapses of recent years,
the American phone system remains remarkably reliable, experts say.
Modern telephone computers are designed to work with only two minutes
of downtime a year.  That compares with hours for other mainframe
computers.  "There is absolutely no comparison," said Jonathan Turner,
a computer science professor at Washington University.

Designers pile backup systems upon backup systems to keep the machines
clicking.  Telephone engineers compare the phone system to the highway
system.  In both, there are points of vulnerability where a lot of
routes intersect, Mitchell said.  "If the Poplar Street Bridge
collapsed, you'd have a real mess," he said.  To bypass the choke
points, Southwestern Bell is building interconnected loops of
fiber-optic cable, so that one cable break can't silence whole towns.

Last year's North County outage couldn't happen today, Mitchell said.
At the time, the area was served by a single line of main cables.  Now
it'spart of a broader loop.  If part of the loop breaks, calls simply
travel the other direction to reach their destination.  The loops are
steadily expanding, although some outlying areas -- Eureka, for
instance -- are still served by single cables.

AT&T, which carries nearly 70 percent of the nation's long distance
calls,has four cables linking St. Louis with the world.  If one
connection is cut,long-distance calls could be sent through the
others, AT&T says.

That's what was supposed to happen in New York this January, but
didn't.  Dale McHenry, AT&T divisional manager, said a system designed
to prevent such a spectacular failure wasn't fully operational in
January, although it will be by the end of the year.  "We will resond
better and better to this type of incident," he said.

AT&T, meanwhile, says it is busy adding to its own system of loops and
backup switches designed to head off major failures.  But efforts to
make the system less vulnerable run smack into twoobstacles -- price
and competition.  "We could design a fail-safe telephone system.  But
who could afford it?" said Sam Goldman, head of utility operations for
the Missouri Public Service Commission.  Many customers, meanwhile,
buy long-distance and computer-line servicethe same way they buy nuts
and bolts.  The company with the lowest price gets the business.

Washington University's Turner suspects that such price-consciousness
may put phone companies in a bind.  To make the system less vulnerable
means increasing the price -- and possibly losing the business.  "You
try to protect things.  You get backups to backups to backups.  But at
some point it's no longer cost-effective," Mitchell added.

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


[Moderator's Note: My sincere thanks to Brad Hicks for typing all this
in and submitting it o the Digest. Which direction would you go?
Backups at any cost ... or if not, up to what point?  Are occassional
outages like St. Louis this past week or Chicago in 1988 worth the
difference in cost?   PAT]











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05863;
          10 Jun 91 3:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09658;
          10 Jun 91 1:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01436;
          10 Jun 91 0:40 CDT
Date:     Sun, 9 Jun 91 23:51:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #441
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 9 Jun 91 23:51:25 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 441

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Product Announcement / Testing Request [Larry Krone]
    Help Us Select Our New Phone System Please! [Doug B. Erdely]
    AT&T 'The Right Choice' ?? [Gollapudi Pramod]
    SJ Merc Explains New Rates Badly [Michael Graff]
    COCOT on Sesame Street [Michael Kerwan]
    Reverse Directory Strikes Again [Steve Forrette]
    Cellular Phone Info Sought for Oki 710, et al [Jim Youll]
    Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell [Jim Redelfs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Larry Krone <[e-mail]>
Subject: Product Announcement / Testing Request
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 9:05:06 CDT


We have developed a product that utilizes centrex service provided by
the local BOC and provides integrated Voice Mail and Fax capabilies.

This product will do all the usual stuff for products in its class,
plus allow call screening and off premises call transfer (If that
feature is available in your local BOC centrex offering).  There is
also a facility for faxing product information to callers (the system
will prompt for a FAX #).  The fax information can be stored in either
TIFF,Text or Postscript format.

Since this package runs under Unix, it does not require a dedicated
machine.

We can currently run the product, our Public Access Unix system and
several DOS (VP/IX) Page Maker jobs concurrently on our system without
problems.

System requirements:

(1) An 80386 or 80486 based SCO Unix Machine with at least 10MB of
    free disk space and 5MB of memory.

(2) A third party voice board (Dialogic or Rhetoric).

(3) A compatible fax board, or a fax service such as AT&T mail.

What we are looking for:

We are a small company and this is our first 'product'.  Our in-house
testing has been as thorough as possible, but considering our low call
volume (Fort Smith, Arkansas is not exactly the world's crossroads),
we are still a little reticent to release it without some further
testing.

Therefore, we are looking for a few companies willing to supply the
necessary hardware (if desired we will sell the hardware to a beta
tester at our cost, we are dealers for various hardware lines) and
sign a beta test agreement.

Not being sure how this sort of thing is done in the industry, we
would probably want to charge a small amount for the software to cover
our costs (Telephone calls and the like) but no more than several
hundred dollars to our beta testers (This point is negotiable.)

We have considered the idea of turning our product into a PC Baseds
switchboard . (The additional hardware to build a 16X8 switchboard out
of it would not be that excessive (circa 2K)). If any one is interested
in such a product, we would like to know also.

We are also interested in interfacing our product to PBX systems, if
interested let us know what you have ....

How to reach us:

By email:  [e-mail]

By telephone:

[phone].  This line will be picked up by our product.  Since we
are still developing, the voices in the prompts change frequently and
may not always be 'elegant'.  Also, we occasionally bring the machine
down to single user mode for system changes (We are testing
performance on various disk drive and controller configurations) so
the system might not always be up.

[phone].  Our Answering Service.


Thank you,

Larry Krone

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Help Us Select Our New Phone System Please
Date: Fri,  7 Jun 91 17:20:45 PDT


Hello,

The company I work for is going to be moving into a new building, and
I was asked to check into a new phone system.

We would require say up to 10 phone lines, 25 phones ... intercom,
paging and voice mail would be nice. If someone can recommend a
system, and better yet a place I can contact to get a catalog ... this
would be great!

So if you know of a place that has info, and we can order from ... we
are also open to used equipment as well ... I would like to hear from
you.

Thanks!


[e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Gollapudi Pramod <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T 'The Right Choice' ??
Date: 9 Jun 91 15:57:30 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette


Since January of this year, AT&T has been billing me $0.00 for long
distance usage of their services.  I called in to report the error and
asked for verification as I share my apartment with three others and
there is no way of knowing how much I should bill each one for their
usage. (The billing name is mine).  The representatives always told me
'This is what our computers indicate'.  South central Bell, through
whom their billing is routed, said they only collect what AT&T charges
and so I should discuss with AT&T.

When I finally disconnected the services in May, I was sent a whopping
four figure bill which dated back to calls from previous months.
There are significant errors on the bill (will elaborate later) and
when asked for an explanation, AT&T could not provide satisfactory
answers.

Previously, (in September) when my charges exceeded $250, I was sent a
notice saying that I should pay up or my services would be
disconnected. So what were they doing now when my bills were running
so high ??!!  When asked why I was not contacted sooner and sent a
notice, they said they don't have to do so.  They insist that it is a
case of 'late billing'.  Why establish a credit limit or collect
deposits when you don't adhere to policies??

To quote a few discrepancies,

A New Orleans number begins with 04xxxxxxx when it should have been
504xxxxxxx.  When questioned, AT&T answered, the five could have
fallen off or there is a printing error.  If a '5' could have fallen
off in one place, isn't it possible that it could be added elsewhere?

Two calls have been registered to the same number, starting at the
same time, for different amounts of time.  They did give me credit for
the call, but isn't it an error?

Some international calls appear with a '0' appended at the end in some
places, with a '00' appended at the end in some other places and
appear with the right number in some places.  Please note that the
same number is being talked about.  When questioned, no convincing
answers!

If a portion of the billing is suspect, doesn't it make the whole
thing suspect ??

Although I am willing to pay up for calls that I have made, or for
that matter, any correctly billed calls originating from my number, I
need answers to these questions.

Any suggestions, comments welcome on how I should handle the situation.


Pramod.    [e-mail]    (INTERNET)

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 00:49 GMT
From: Michael Graff <[e-mail]>
Subject: SJ Merc Explains New Rates Badly


On Friday, May 31, {The San Jose Mercury News} (motto: "Not John
Higdon's Favorite Newspaper") printed an article describing the new
expanded local calling area in California.  I'm no telecom expert,
just a reader of this Digest, but I cringed at some of the
misstatements and confusion that permeated the article.  By comparison
the mailing sent by Pacific Bell explained the changes much better.
I'm not sure where to begin ... how about the headline:

"Calls up to 12 miles away to be free starting Saturday"

Well, 12 miles from your "rate center" anyhow, and free only if you
have unmeasured service.  The Pac Bell mailing said "Your local
calling area is expanding" which is a more accurate description.

"Those who do not make a minimum number of calls will find their bills
increasing slightly."

I'm not sure what this means at all, but perhaps it's a reference to a
reduction in the billing credit ("Rate Surcharge" on our bill).

Discussing measured rate service, they say it includes "$3 worth of
free local calls a month, about 50 calls."

If they're free, how can they be worth $3?  <smirk> Actually, you get
a $3 allowance toward your zone 1 (local, 0-12 miles) and zone 3
(13-16 miles) calls.  At the daytime rate, $3 is equivalent to 50
3-minute local calls.

"A customer who uses less than the $3 a month can apply the excess to
other calls."

The $3 applies only to zone 1 or zone 3 calls.  You can't apply it to
more distant calls.

There are probably a few other mangled details that I missed, but
that's the general idea.  Overall, the article was just plain sloppy
with details and seemed to be written by somebody who didn't have any
understanding of the subject.


Michael

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

From: Michael Kerwan <[e-mail]>
Subject: COCOT on Sesame Street
Date: 9 Jun 91 03:37:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino


I wonder how many caught the recent (6/8 in San Francisco) episode of
Sesame Street that had a telephony theme.

The show opened with Sesame Street resident Gordon finding a new COCOT
telephone booth blocking the view from his window.  After a little
investigation Gordon found that the owner of the booth was none other
than the resident of a nearby garbage can -- muppet Oscar the Grouch!

Gordon soon found that he could not complain directly to Oscar.
Instead, he had to call from the phone booth.

When Gordon called, he was answered by Lily Tomlin in her classic
Ernestine the Operator role.

When she answered "A gracious hello", Oscar complained that that was
no way for a grouch's phone to be answered, Ernestine defended herself
by saying that she was being insincere.

Maybe other viewers can recall other highlights?

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

Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 13:01:46 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reverse Directory Strikes Again


In watching the news the past week, I realized that two of my friends
lived in the same apartment building as Sacramento's recently-arrested
"Thrill Killer".  They moved a couple of months ago (the killings were
in February).  In speaking with them, it turns out that they got a
call from a reporter with the {San Francisco Chronicle}.  They had no
idea how they had been tracked down.  I asked them if they had had
their telephone service listed at their old address, and if there was
a referral from that number to their current number.  Yes on both
counts was the answer.  They were surprised when I told them that some
people had directories ordered by address.  They didn't have a phit
about their privacy, though.  :-)


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: Jim Youll <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Info Sought: Oki 710, et al
Date: 8 Jun 91 22:41:29 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


Assistance, please, for a neophyte about to buy his first cellular
phone. Forgive me, but your discussions convinced me to do this, so
y'all have only yourselves to blame ...

The local high-pressure low-price electronics store has an Oki 710
handheld and a "CelQuest" CS876Q bag phone. The price is right on both
(i.e. cheap)...

Would appreciate any comments on either phone, and if anyone has
programming info for either, or knows where to get it, PLEASE!!  let
me know. I don't have a compelling desire to hack the system, but when
I buy a car I get a service manual with it ... same here.  The sales
rep tried to say the programming "code" is secret and "against the
law" to give out.

I don't think I believe that, and I wonder what would happen and I
needed to set the phone for local service in a location where nobody
knows how to reprogram the phone I buy ... would cellular service
providers really turn me away if I called them myself to establish
service? What if I bought a phone used cross-country and wanted to do
the same thing? Again, the salesperson managed to answer none of my
questions, but I expected that much.

Thanks in advance.


[Moderator's Note: The only 'law' being broken by giving out the
programming data is the law of the jungle the cannibal dealers live
by! You programming your own phone is less profit for them!   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 09 Jun 91 10:02:55 CST
From: Jim Redelfs <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell
Reply-To: ivgate!macnet![e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


[Disclaimer:  I am an 18+ year employee of US WEST Communications - JR]

John Higdon wrote:

> Pac*Bell has given those of us who care to look a glimpse of the
> future under the Hollings bill that permits the RBOCs to enter the
> world of equipment manufacturing. It is call "The Message Center",
> and while it is not exactly "hardware", it is a good example of how
> Pac*Bell intends to compete in the marketplace. The "Message Center"
> is a voicemail service...

Sir, I believe I have seen enough advantages of the uniqueness of
TelCom within the state of Nebraska that I can conclude that (nearly)
complete DEregulation of the these companies are in the ratepayer's
best interest.

By some accounts, L.B.835, the landmark legislation that was passed
into law by Nebraska's Unicameral several years ago, was RAMMED down
the representative's throats. Be that as it may (but I disagree), the
horrible effects that were predicted by the opponents have not come to
past.

Our local rates have not risen disproportionately.  Competition has
not been swallowed up - indeed it has thrived.  Service is excellent
and the rates are "reasonable" (certainly among the average, if not
below).

US WEST Communications began offering "Business Voice Messaging" quite
a while ago, and it has been in the residential market for some
months.  All is going well, it is being well accepted and subscribed
to.

> [This service] ...will answer your phone after a preset number of rings,
> allow you to retrieve your messages from anywhere, and will put "stutter"
> dial tone on your phone if there are messages waiting.

It is an excellent service.  (I do not subscribe to it.)

> [This service] ...directly competes with voicemail service bureaus.

Horrors!

> What is wrong with this?  First, it is priced well below most
> service bureaus.

I have not checked, so I cannot dispute your claim, but what's wrong
with charging less than your competition - even in this case?  Do you
suppose the regulatory agency would approve of the TelCo charging
substantially MORE that it costs to PROVIDE the service?  No way.

> Using the vast capital resources available courtesy of its
> ratepayers, Pac*Bell can offer this service at a preditory price that
> is designed to murder the competition. When the field has been
> thinned out sufficiently, then the price can be whatever it wants.

Given that exagerated scenerio, you should be the first on your block,
possibly state, to appear during their rate hearings and request that
Pac*Bell charge MORE for their service!

[Re: House Resolution that would relax some of the constraints that
were placed on the Bell Operating Companies as a result of the
Modified Final Judgement in 1984] ...

> Let us hope the Hollings bill dies a well-deserved death in the House.

I hope not.  In fact, this concern may cause me to write my FIRST
letter to my elected representatives - in SUPPORT of the bill.

I think it is time for a little SUBSIDY of my local service!  And if
the little guy can't hack the competition (REAL competition) that is
SLOWLY entering his domain after an absence of almost EIGHT years, so
be it.

The Bell Operating Companies have a great potential - a LOT of which
was hogtied by Judge Harold Greene.  I think the time is LONG OVERDUE
that they be allowed to ENDOW us lowly ratepayers with some of this
FABULOUS technology that, until now, had been either in development,
legally KEPT from us, or available or AFFORDABLE only to business
customers!

I am not advocating, and would certainly resist, a return to the good,
old days when the phone company was the only show in town.  (Remember
when they OWNED the wire and jacks in your home, as well as everything
that was plugged into the system?)

But, I think a little relaxation of the MFJ would be a good thing.
The BOCs have concentrated their efforts since deregulation on those
areas where they were legally allowed (with the odd exception
[blush]), and the time has come to see what they can do in their other
areas of expertise.


JR

[Dislclaimer: The above does not necessarily reflect the opinions of
my employer - JR]

 --- Tabby 2.2
 MacNet Omaha 402-289-2899 On loan from Mrs MacWidow (1:285/14)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #441
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05972;
          10 Jun 91 3:24 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09658;
          10 Jun 91 1:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01436;
          10 Jun 91 0:40 CDT
Date:     Mon, 10 Jun 91 0:24:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #442
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 10 Jun 91 00:23:43 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 442

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell [Joe Talbot]
    Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell [John Higdon]
    Re: How do You Deal With Central Office Problems? [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads) [Brent Chapman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 91 14:06:14 EDT
Subject: Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill


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

> In a recent posting, John Higdon attacks Pac*Bell's new voicemail
> service, because it is priced "well below" that of Pac*Bell's
> competitors, and because it offers features which the local telephone
> company is uniquely capable of providing. He claims that this is part
> of a strategy of "predatory pric[ing] designed to murder the
> competition," and argues that Pac*Bell's voicemail service offers "a
> glimpse of the future under the Hollings bill" (which would permit
> RBOC's to manufacture telephone equipment) and goes on to call for the
> bill to be defeated in the House.  Although I take no position on the
> Hollings bill itself, it sounds perverse to me to attack a company for
> offering quality service at a low price.

That isn't what he attacked them for.  He attacked them for a) using
their regulated business to subsidize unregulated business b) using
their position as a regulated monopoly to provide unregulated services
that were unavailable to their competitors.

>    It must be remembered that antitrust law generally (and the Bell
> divestiture in particular) was designed to benefit *consumers* not
> competitors.

Interesting mythology.  Where did you find it?  I've seen no evidence
that government intentions regards antitrust law in general or in US
vs AT&T in particular have anything whatsoever to do with consumers.
The Sherman antitrust act was enacted to prevent anticompetitive
behavior by large monopolies for the express purpose of keeping
smaller less efficient competitors from being driven out of business.

I've not seen anybody claim that US vs. AT&T was undertaken to protect
consumers.  The question was whether AT&Ts monopoly position in
providing local phone service made it an unfair competitor in the long
distance, manufacturing, and enhanced service businesses.  Consumers
were at best a tertiary concern in that courtroom.  From what John
describes, if the government's concerns were valid in 1984 then they
are valid now.  We have seen ample evidence that the RBOCs are capable
of abusing a captive relationship between supplier and customer to
either undercut competition or drive up the price to consumers of
monopoly services.  (The NYNEX case comes to mind, among others).

> "Predatory pricing," for example, is defined as selling
> a product *below the cost of production* for the purpose of eventually
> monopolizing a market. Mr. Higdon provides no evidence that Pac*Bell
> has priced its voicemail service below the cost of providing it; on
> the contrary, he himself shows that Pac*Bell's size and credit rating
> give it easier access to capital, which lowers its cost of providing
> the service. This is a natural advantage which large, established
> companies have over smaller ones; pricing one's goods to reflect one's
> lower cost structure is neither anticompetative nor "unfair."

It is not Pac*Bel's size and credit rating that gives it an advantage.
It is its unique position as the owner of the network that enables the
service.  Nobody else can forward your calls for free, because nobody
else is the phone company.  Nobody else can make your dial tone
stutter because nobody else owns the switch.

>    Mr. Higdon also writes that "[w]hen the field has been thinned out
> sufficiently, then the price can be whatever [Pac*Bell] wants." It
> should be clear that Pac*Bell cannot raise the price of voicemail in
> the future above what independent providers currently charge, without
> allowing the competition to reestablish itself.  Given this
> limitation, any such "predatory pricing" strategy would be decidedly
> unprofitable.

This is precisely the type of abuse that the antitrust laws were
written to deal with.  In real practice, rather than in Capitalist
Theory 101, once competition has been driven out through artificially
low prices, that the marketplace is much slower to respond to price
increases from the predator.  People can't jump back in the business
 -- they've gone bankrupt.

>    Likewise, his argument that Pac*Bell should be prevented from
> offering voicemail, because it alone is in a technical position to
> provide special services (such as "stutter" dialtone and free call
> forwarding), is similarly flawed. Consumers would not be better off by
> making these desirable features unavailable merely to protect
> inefficient competition.

*INEFFICIENT* competition?  It is not the fault of other providers
that they are not the local phone company.  That franchise was awarded
to Pac*Bel's predecessors long before there was voice mail.  This is a
classic case of what the antitrust lawyers and the FCC have called
cross-subsidy.  Pac*Bel's position as the provider of local phone
services, *AS A MONOPOLY PROVIDER UNDER GOVERNMENT REGULATION*, is
being abused to subsidize non-regulated business.  The governement has
handed Pac*Bel a juicy 12% guaranteed rate of return on service for
which it has no competition.  Let is go compete fairly in other
arenas.

> (Of course, if it is possible to extend these
> feature to competitors' services, Pac*Bell should be required to.)
> The key concept here should be service to consumers, and not
> "fairness" to competitors.

I see.  People get financing, take jobs, quit jobs, start businesses,
extend credit, use credit, all on the assumption that they are
entering a level market place.  The marketplace is not level when one
competitor can muscle in on the strength of a government sanctioned
monopoly.  Is that fair to the creditors, investors, and employees?
Are they not worthy of the same consideration as "consumers"?

Pac*Bel *could* find a way to tariff services in such a way as to make
for fair competition.  A) It *MUST* offer the same arrangements for
local forwarding and dial tone modification to all comers who are
willing to use appropriate voice mail technology B) Its voicemail
subsidiary *MUST* properly pay its phone company subsidiary a fair and
reasonable market rate for network based services that a competitor
would have to pay for.  Ultimately, nothing else would be fair to
either competitors or consumers.

I agree with John Higdon.  This is an ominous precursor of what we can
expect from the post-Hollings RBOCs.


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: Joe Talbot <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell
Date: 9 Jun 91 20:15:55 GMT
Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca


I think that RBOCs shouldn't be able to engage in ANY business other
than providing local telephone service. Despite what many "I didn't
have to understand it then, and I shouldn't have to now" people say,
things are much better since divestiture. There are services available
that the Bell System NEVER would have thought worth offering. They
were not a great deal when they came out, but the fact that they were
available may have caused more desirable services to appear.

If Pac*Bell's voicemail service puts all the other providers out of
business because it is selling the service below what non-telcos can
provide it for, there is somebody paying the difference, or Pac*Bell's
rates to the private voicemail providers are unjust.

If Pac*Bell's service is the only one around (for any reason) then the
only service improvements that will appear are the ones Pac*Bell feels
will make it more money in a large marketplace (mass appeal).

In article <[e-mail]>, Bob_Frankston%Slate_
[e-mail] (Bob Frankston) writes:

> In the spirit of naive optimism I'd like to see a law that allows
> telcos to offer these services but with the condition that the
> services be done with an arms length subsidiary and that any protocols
> used would be made generally available to third parties.

A good idea, but why should they be able to have an advantage at all?
Laws don't seem to work with technical issues and we've seen some
pretty creative examples of "creative accounting" for these subsidiary
companies (ask your friends in New York about Materiel enterprises).
Besides, these protocalls/services are supposed to be available to
service providers NOW!

This Hollings bill is very dangerous! We're headed for the Bell System
all over again. I don't want to go back to that again because a few
dummies don't want to make choices, but just "let the phone company do
it."

If Pac*Bell isn't satisfied with having the local service monopoly,
guaranteed to make a profit, then I suspect there might be a few who'd
take this thankless job off their hands so that they could make it big
in all the other businesses they wish to pursue.


[e-mail]
Slow mail: P.O. box 1750, Helendale California 92342
Phone: [phone]     Fax [phone]

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

From: John Higdon <zygot![e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 1991 23:29:53 PDT
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell


On Jun 9 at  1:28, Bob Frankston writes:

> Pac*Bell is able to provide some compelling features because it owns
> the network.  The issue is not simply one of pricing but rather the
> fact that it can create the protocols it needs to provide the
> services.  In fact, many of the protocols are intranetwork protocols
> that are generally available to telcos.

Information and service bureau providers will tell you that they can
beg, plead, demand, suggest, and cajole until they are blue in the
corporate face, but Pac*Bell could not care less about a given
protocol or service enhancement until IT needs it. Then it will
sluggishly make it available to outside parties at a cost that usually
seems out of line. For example, service bureaus can offer stutter dial
tone just like The Message Center -- IF they are willing to install and
pay for a dedicated data line TO EACH SWITCH in which they wish to
provide the feature.

>  A common theme of my messages is that these protocols must be exportable.
>  Unfortunately, protocols generally means CCITT and a design cycle the
>  guarantees irrelevance.

But when they are exportable, they are almost always skewed to the
regulated telco's advantage.

> In the spirit of naive optimism I'd like to see a law that allows
> telcos to offer these services but with the condition that they
> services be done with an arms length sub and that any protocols used
> would be made generally available to third parties.

Given that the resources for completely auditing an RBOC do not exist,
I would submit that there is no such thing as "arms' length". "No
connection", "not affiliated with", "no common ownership", now THAT is
arms' length.

> Making these protocols available external raises many network
> integrity and  performance issues, but these issues must be faced
> otherwise the Judge Greene error is for naught.

It is the cornerstone of the whole divestiture exercise. If there is
to be an expectation of fair competition, everything must ultimately
become available externally.

I thought I would share with all of you a little analogy.

Let's say I owned a bus company (that competed with other bus
companies) and I also owned a bridge that carried a major highway. I
have decided that my bus company is going to "win". To do that, I put
luxurious busses on my routes, increase my runs per hour (to make it
convenient to riders), and lower my rates to the point that anyone
would be stupid to ride the competition. What a boon to consumers.
Excellent bus service at cheap rates. Only an ogre could attack that,
right?

But these things cost money. My busses don't pay their way as it is
and now with my increased service the cash flow is really lacking.
What do I do? I increase the tolls on my bridge to an astronomical
figure. The people who cross the bridge have no choice; they must
cross my bridge to get to where they are going. They must pay my toll.
Now I have the money to run my superior bus company. I put the
competition out of business. Now, not only must people cross my bridge
(and pay anything I demand), but they must ride ONLY my busses and pay
whatever I now decide to charge. The competition? They sold their
busses to me (at distressed prices) before they went bankrupt. We
won't be hearing from them any time soon.

Far fetched? Have you ever heard of the Golden Gate Transit Authority?


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

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How do You Deal With Central Office Problems?
Date: 9 Jun 91 06:15:19 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Terry
Kennedy, Operations Mgr) writes:

> For over a year (from the day the exchange was activated), the
> 201-915 1A ESS had garbled messages. For example, dialing an invalid
> number would give a very noisy recording:

>  "Your call cannot be com<splssstttthhh>as in the system."

>  I suppose they are reluctant to fix it because there's no revenue
> loss in a bad recording. Still, you'd think they'd pay some attention
> to it.

One thing I have always admired about the Japanese is their attention
to detail.  And I think of this every time I hear some garbled telco
recording here in the U.S.  Because never once have I heard one in
Japan.

In fact, some of their telco recordings sound absolutely wonderful.
Give a call to [phone].  Every time I hear this recording, I'm
just blown away.  Compare it to _our_ typical disconnect recording.

This recording, by the way, comes from KDD, the international carrier,
after doing an SS7 lookup to the telco (NTT) and discovering the
number is not in service.  It is in English and Japanese.  I'd be
curious to know if it is given in different languages depending on
what country it is being dialed from (maybe in German and Japanese
when dialed from Germany?).

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

From: Brent Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads)
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1991 04:19:57 GMT


[e-mail] (Peter Creath) writes:

> Telco's desire for a two-second delay is to give their equipment time
> to register your line and give you a dial tone.  You forgot to mention
> that the only way a USR (at least that's what it says in MY manual)
> can skip the delay is to listen for the dial tone and begin dialing as
> soon (read about 1 or 2 ms) as it hears the dial tone.  The difference
> between ATX5 and ATX6 is that X6 listens for dial tone and gives you
> the ability to speed dial.

I used to have one of these modems (a USR 2400e).  The problem I had
was, in the exchange I was in (415-655; Oakland, CA), the switch
apparently was NOT actually ready to accept digits as soon as it
started generating dialtone.  The modem would usually fail to complete
calls when in the "dial as soon as you hear dialtone" mode; I'd hear
the first burp of dialtone, then the modem tones, then nothing ... my
assumption was that the switch was missing the first digit or two.



Brent Chapman               Telebit Corporation
Sun Network Specialist      1315 Chesapeake Terrace
[e-mail]           Sunnyvale, CA  94089
                            Phone:  [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #442
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18315;
          10 Jun 91 20:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17786;
          10 Jun 91 19:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31936;
          10 Jun 91 18:08 CDT
Date:     Mon, 10 Jun 91 17:32:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #443
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 10 Jun 91 17:32:22 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 443

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell [John Higdon]
    Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell [Al L Varney]
    Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell [Jon Sreekanth]
    Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell [Jerry M. Carlin]
    Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor? [Brian Kantor]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Jun 91 02:34 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell


Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]> writes:

[The usual uninformed, simplistic response citing the short term
effects of monopolistic behavior.]

Since my points, which I thought to be more than clear, were not
understood by all, I will support them one by one.

> Although I take no position on the
> Hollings bill itself, it sounds perverse to me to attack a company for
> offering quality service at a low price.

Regardless of how it manages to do that? If it does so by taking from
regulated ratepayers and then undercutting legitimate competition
through its control of the network AND subsidization from capital
derived from other captive customers, you do not feel that worthy of
attack? Especially when those regulated ratepayers are taking it in
the shorts with rate hikes and rapidly deteriorating service. Too bad
those "inefficient" competitors do not have a nice regulated ratebase
cash cow that they can squeeze more capital from when desired.

> "Predatory pricing," for example, is defined as selling
> a product *below the cost of production* for the purpose of eventually
> monopolizing a market. Mr. Higdon provides no evidence...

Sorry. Here is the evidence. For $4.50, Pac*Bell provides The Message
Center. Nothing else is necessary. CF/No Answer, CF/Busy, and standard
CF are included for voicemail purposes. Last time I checked, the going
rate for the forwarding services alone exceeded $4.50. Either Pac*Bell
is overcharging its forwarding customers, or it is giving away the
store to its VM customers. Which is it?

> This is a natural advantage which large, established
> companies have over smaller ones; pricing one's goods to reflect one's
> lower cost structure is neither anticompetative nor "unfair."

It is also an advantage enjoyed by companies that control the MEANS of
service delivery, have sources of income that are decreed in statute
(FCC and PUC R&R), and have colusion with other entities. And I
disagree: this is BOTH anticompetitive AND unfair.

>     Mr. Higdon also writes that "[w]hen the field has been thinned out
> sufficiently, then the price can be whatever [Pac*Bell] wants." It
> should be clear that Pac*Bell cannot raise the price of voicemail in
> the future above what independent providers currently charge, without
> allowing the competition to reestablish itself.

I do not understand this at all. Why not? What magic force will
prevent Pac*Bell from marching right up to the PUC to claim that it
must charge more for the service? It will not be hard to make a
convincing case, since it probably should have been charging more all
along. Only at this point it can have ALL the business.

>     Likewise, his argument that Pac*Bell should be prevented from
> offering voicemail, because it alone is in a technical position to
> provide special services (such as "stutter" dialtone and free call
> forwarding), is similarly flawed. Consumers would not be better off by
> making these desirable features unavailable merely to protect
> inefficient competition. (Of course, if it is possible to extend these
> feature to competitors' services, Pac*Bell should be required to.)
> The key concept here should be service to consumers, and not
> "fairness" to competitors.

In your imaginary, fairytale world, maybe. I am sorry to be so harsh,
but you are obviously light years away from the day to day grunge of
this business. Other VM companies can, indeed, offer any techincal
service Pac*Bell provides IF they are willing to, themselves, buy the
means from (guess who) Pac*Bell. This is the multi-layered whammy.
Pac*Bell offers stutter dial tone. That is easy; the system lives in
the CO anyhow. Mr. Service Bureau can do it by paying Pac*Bell for a
dedicated data circuit to each and every switch that Mr. B wishes to
serve. So now Pac*Bell has a bigger piece of Mr. B's income, it
enriches itself, keeps Mr. B's prices higher, etc., etc. For Pac*Bell,
it is a win/win/win situation.

Pac*Bell only provides things like stutter dial tone activation when
it deems such a feature useful for its own marketing purposes. VM
bureaus have been requesting it for years. Now it is available because
Pac*Bell, itself, wants it. But Pac*Bell gets it free (or rather
buried under unauditable paperwork), while it SELLS it to others.

Another example: From Pac*Bell payphones a call to any Bay Area
Cellular One (owned by McCaw and PacTel) number cost twenty cents,
untimed regardless of distance from the phone to where the number is
based.  Calls to GTE Mobilnet numbers from those same payphones go
full toll. Why? The cellular companies buy a connection package to
link to the landline carrier (Pac*Bell). The "no toll" payphone
package costs MUCH more than the standard one. But since there is
common ownership between the cellular company and the landline
carrier, it makes no difference what the higher charge is; it all
circulates in the same pocket anyhow.

But cross subsidy is not permitted, you say. Maybe not, but until
someone produces a full, verified audit of Pacific Telesis and its
subsidiaries then I am going to assume that which appears to be
self-evident.

If you want to fall for the Pac*Bell line of "we can do it better and
we can do it cheaper", then go for it. But please do not expect all of
us to bury our heads in the sand with you.


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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 03:59:15 CDT
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> Bob_Frankston%Slate_
[e-mail] (Bob Frankston) writes:

> The issue of protocols raises its ugly head.

An evil I'd love to stamp out, but I haven't thought of a better way.
An the most evil part is the letter "s" at the end of "protocols".

> Pac*Bell ... can create the protocols it needs to provide the services.
> ....  Unfortunately, protocols generally means CCITT and a
> design cycle that guarantees irrelevance.

It would be interesting to compare the US staff-years spent on CCITT
and ANSI protocols in 1990 vs. 1980 (pre-divestiture).  And the cycle
is soooo slooooow.  Even Bellcore's drags on.

> In the spirit of naive optimism I'd like to see a law that allows
> telcos to offer these services but with the condition that the
> services be done with an arms length subsidiary and that any protocols
> used would be made generally available to third parties.

Most services are tested during the protocol discussion stage.  I'm
not aware of any TELCo yet stating they would NOT make protocols
available to the public (but not free), and ONA probably forces this
to occur.  This does not mean a private vendor can't develop something
without public input and offer it to one or more Telcos as a product.
The standardization lag would give the original vendor a large market
window, however.  This doesn't happen often because TELCos don't like
to be stuck with a hot-shot product with only a single source (unless
they start manufacturing themselves, of course).  There is always the
threat that the Standard will be deliberately different from the
original product ...

> Understanding the difficulty of designing good protocols, there would
> be a grace period in which they can experiment with protocols without
> invoking the full standards wrath but that they would have to have a
> process for advancing the protocols beyond their initial design.
> Perhaps they would also be allowed a not-for-profit grace period in
> which they can experimentally try out the services.

Happens all the time today.  I am not aware of any law/rule that
prevents the TELCo from having "market trials", "technical trials",
etc.  Many RBOCs also have "test labs" for trialing new technologies
in a "non-penalty" environment.  The "Intelligent Network" view, where
TELCos do their own feature programming would allow them some lead
time over other vendors and/or RBOCs.

> I do appreciate the difficulty of creating good protocols and I don't
> want to inhibit the process but with transition from POTS to ISDN and
> other digital interfaces, we need to realize that the ability to offer
> these services, even in arms-length subsidiaries with no revenue
> sharing, is based on a policy of proprietary protocols.

> Making these protocols available external raises many network
> integrity and performance issues, but these issues must be faced

What protocols are not external, if you have the cash for the CCITT,
ANSI T1 and Bellcore requirements?  I know there is some black holes
around Autovon, 911 and Call Trace mechanisms, but ISDN is well
documented.  Of course, you have to decide which version(s) to
support ....

The "stutter dial tone" issue, even in its old form, is simply one of
providing access lines from the Message Center to the switch(s) of
it's subscriber(s).  If PacBell is using a different implementation,
the only one that's available on AT&T switches is also Publicly
documented.  Again, there are 3 versions, but its standard :-) (See
below).

> [Moderator's Note: One of the nicest features of telco-operated voice
> mail is the stutter dialtone which advises the subscriber of new
> messages waiting. It should not be that hard for telco to provide this
> to the competitors: A third-party voice mail system would send
> messages to the serving CO (of the subscriber) saying 'turn on
> stutter' or 'turn off stutter'. They'd send this message on a special
> data circuit, and your CO would toggle it on or off, just as it does
> now for telco's own voicemail service.

Patrick, You ain't gonna believe your suggestion has been turned into
code already!!  Bellcore's TR-866 provides the interface spec. for
ISDN-connected Voice Messaging Services, allowing them to turn stutter
tone on or off, or light a lamp/indicator on your ISDN terminal.  ANSI
T1S1 has requirements mostly ready for approval that provide the
National specs. for both the ISDN- and non-ISDN- Voice Messaging
Services.  This includes the method for switches to notify other
switches (via SS7) to activate/deactivate the appropriate indicator.
With ISDN, you can actually have multiple indicators, one per Message
System.  So in theory, the protocol IS available to the public (and
the switch vendors).  In SS7 areas, the Voice Messaging provider will
only need connectivity to one switch (unless you want backup lines).

The real problem here is the usual one with protocols.  No, not the
snails pace of design or the lack of detail.  It's too many cooks.
TR-866 specifies an inter-switch protocol that will not work with ANSI
(even though Bellcore wrote the ANSI version??), and the two ANSI
specs disagree on whether or not one parameter is required.

> Also, telco *could* now
> provide 'programmable forward on busy / no answer' if they wanted to.

This isn't available on all Ameritech switches (especially those nice
1A ESS(tm) switches).  Ameritech Mobile's oldest switch is probably
two years old; they ditched all the original switches.

Try to talk the regulators into allowing the wholesale replacement of
all those old(er) switches!!!

> Ameritech Mobile presently allows me to toggle 'forward on busy / no
> answer' as I wish; AND program it to any number, anywhere, but
> Illinois Bell (my hardwired service) insists that this feature can
> only be programmed in the CO on a work order (that of course means a
> fee), and that it cannot be turned off or on (except by CO action),
> and that forwarding MUST be to another number in the same exchange!

Actually, intra-office is no longer a restriction, if IBT wants to buy
the feature ... But the Busy/DA forwarding is CO only unless you want
to pay for a "Centrex Station Rearrangement" capability; your own
Recent Change terminal (but only for lines in YOUR Centrex).

So PAT, how about helping me out with something?  I need the exact
quote and author for something like:

   "That's the wonderful thing about Standards; there're so many
    to choose from!"

Thanks,


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems
Disclaimer: These are my opinions, and hardly proprietary.


[Moderator's Note: I've heard this quotation before, but don't know
who authored it. Maybe other readers can tell us.   PAT]

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell
Organization: The World
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1991 14:17:52 GMT


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

> The "Message Center" is a voicemail service that directly competes
> with voicemail service bureaus. It will answer your phone after a
> preset number of rings, allow you to retrieve your messages from
> anywhere, and will put "stutter" dial tone on your phone if there are
> messages waiting.

> What is wrong with this? First, it is priced well below most service
> bureaus. Using the vast capital resources available courtesy of its
 ..

There's already competition from other telecom giants: the LD
companies. AT&T and probably the others are selling voice mail
services. So the monopoly scenario above might not happen.

It might require the resources of a large company to sell the idea.
New England Telephone is still taking out expensive TV and radio ads
for call waiting, some 4 - 5 years after introducing the service,
meaning there's still a large inertia to using special phone services.
About a year ago, I saw an ad in a small Boston area newspaper for a
voicemail service targeted to students and mobile young professionals.
They sank without a trace.

IMHO, the voicemail services are really competing with answering
machines, not small service bureaus. The latter have the option of
sticking to the traditional answering service, using human operators,
hence distinguishing themselves from voice mail.


Jon Sreekanth

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

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

From: "Jerry M. Carlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell
Organization: Pacific * Bell
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1991 19:06:02 GMT


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

> If Pac*Bell isn't satisfied with having the local service monopoly,
> guaranteed to make a profit, then I suspect there might be a few who'd
> take this thankless job off their hands so that they could make it big
> in all the other businesses they wish to pursue.

What local service monopoly? We're already seeing large companies
working with fiber companies to bypass the local loop and go directly
to the long-distance carriers and to their other offices. The cable
companies would like to do the same for residence customers. In a few
years, we'll see competition in all areas of the business with the
RBOC's forced to keep prices higher than the rest until the share of
their business is down quite a bit judging by the precident of AT&T.


Jerry M. Carlin    [phone] [e-mail]

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor?
Date: 9 Jun 91 20:16:24 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


I use a 270 ohm 1/2w resistor in series with a red LED, and either
crimp it into a modular plug, or solder it to one of those nifty AM-P
widgets that can be stuffed over the pins on the 66 blocks.  That way,
I've got a red light glowing to remind me I've busied out the line.

About a year ago, someone asked this same question and prompted a
bunch of replies here on the net.  Problem is, the archives are far to
large to rummage through looking for an answer to a specific question.
Ah well, maybe someday we'll have a really nice automated indexing
scheme that can be queried by mail.


Brian

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #443
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21673;
          10 Jun 91 21:55 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24285;
          10 Jun 91 20:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17786;
          10 Jun 91 19:15 CDT
Date:     Mon, 10 Jun 91 18:14:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #444
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 10 Jun 91 18:14:24 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 444

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Emergency Highway Phones [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Emergency Highway Phones [Tim Irvin]
    Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Surprise!! [John Higdon]
    Re: Surprise!! [Carl Moore]
    Re: Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act [Dan Jacobson]
    Re: Fax/Phone Switch Information Wanted [Howard Siegel]
    Re: Questions on LAPD [portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]]
    Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone [Julian Macassey]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Emergency Highway Phones
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 04:18:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well!
[e-mail] (Darren Alex Griffiths) writes:

> It seems that CalTrans is installing phones throughout
> the San Francisco bay area on major highways.  The phones connect you
> directly to to highway patrol and in will be spaced as close as a
> half-mile apart.  The phones will be installed in pairs, on each side
> of the highway ... the phones are all cellular and run on solar power.

> They are all being paid for by a one dollar surcharge on vehicle
> registration.

The same type has recently sprouted along US 101 throughout Santa
Barbara County. I *think* the Maricopa Highway (Santa Maria to
Bakersfield) is getting them too. I seem to recall that GTE Mobilnet
was mentioned when the paper wrote about them three months ago.

> ... I would be interested in whether or not someone could steal the
> serial number to one of the phones and reprogram their own phone in
> order to make calls at someone else's expense.  It would also be
> interesting to see if most of the phones have the same serial number
> or if they are all different, and whether or not the phones are smart
> enough to send their location to the dispatcher when a call is placed.

I would expect that the ESN is programmed to connect DIRECTLY to CHP;
i.e. if you steal the ESN, you can make free calls but only to the
police. If the calls are routed through the E911 system, it would make
sense to supply location info, but I did not see any mention of this
in the article.

On a separate note, GTE has just this week-end converted my exchange
from a 2EAX (?) to a new shiny 5ESS. I tried to ask if they will be
offering ISDN soon, but could not find anyone who knew.


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

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Emergency Highway Phones
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 12:18:54 -0400
From: [e-mail]


In TELECOM Digest V11 #429, Darren Alex Griffiths writes:

> The idea is pretty neat, but it does raise a few interesting
> questions. I wonder what kind of security measures are taken. I'm not
> to worried about some bad guy over hearing a distress call from an
> helpless motorist at four in the morning and getting there before the
> cops.

Actually, this could be QUITE dangereous.  The motorists could be in
danger of having a rapist, mugger, etc. over hear the conversation and
dash to the site ahead of the cops (I doubt it would much of a feat to
beat the cops to the scene).  With the number of murders, robberies,
etc. that happen to stranded moterists on Interstates, I think this is
a serious concern.


Tim Irvin

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

Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 21:24 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


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

>>> Were you calling a commercial establishment?  A college dorm or
>>> campus?  Some other place where you were dialing directly to an
>>> extension of a large private network?

>> To answer your question: I heard the double-ring when calling the
>> "Management Services" department at Toronto City Hall.

> The double ring will indicate that the destination has answered your
> call on its own equipment. The real implication of this is that you
> are now being billed for the time that you are listening to ringing.

What?  This sounds incorrect to me.  My 20+ years (am I _that_ old?)
tells me that:

DID trunks provide answer supervision to the telco office.  That means
billing does not occur until answer supervision is provided to the
telco by the PBX.  All PBX software I have seen for DID trunks works
just this way: no supervision until a call is terminated/answered at a
station.  Rings and busies (and usually recorded intercepts) do not
give answer supervision.  Just like The Phone Company (tm) ... and this
is done to their specification, too.  And the FCC and CRTC agree, too.

Perhaps you are thinking of some pager terminals or old style IMTS/MTS
equipment that used DID trunks in a different way.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr. N8OBG  216-725-4764 Home
[e-mail] [e-mail]
Note: [e-mail] is best reply path to me.   uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you]

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

Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 21:16 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


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

> Patton M. Turner wrote:

>> C-wire (drop wire) is hard to beat if you are going to use unshelded
>> cable. It can be run overhead or plowed in the ground.

> C Rural Wire is TOUGH stuff, but buried?  I've never seen it buried in
> my experience or heard of doing so before.

Listen, I've seen C-wire aerial, buried, submerged, strung on
fenceposts and hung to trees and it always worked.  Even used it (well
a couple of strands of it) to pull a tractor out of the mud once.

At one point, a large part of most distant rural cable plant of a
certain telephone company I worked for was made of the stuff.  (Hint:
one of John Higdon's favorite phone companies, and it ain't PB) In
fact, much of the stuff was ten + years old.  Saw some of it taken down
off poles and buried.  Worked for a couple more years, too.

> I recommend against direct burial of C Rural Wire.  It is designed as
> an AERIAL wire (1-pr/1-line wire) and not really even as a "drop"
> wire.  C Rural Wire is used for exceptionally LONG aerial spans whose
> length would cause ordinary F Service Wire (aerial drop wire) to fail
> at the P-clamps or break in the span.

Quite true, but its very well made stuff, or at least it was back in
1970.

> A typical C Rural Wire installation includes terminating the C Rural
> Wire at the pole closest to the station where it is connected with a
> 105 block to conventional F Service Wire for the final span to the
> station.

Also correct.  Except for the stuff we lay across the fields and
construction areas.  Do you have any idea what C-wire can do to a
tractor running a brush hog?  Hint: the tractor loses...

> If the service MUST be hung, I would probably forgo the luxury and
> expense of poles and simply hang the spans, with PLENTY of slack, from
> the existing trees.

Now, that what C-wire's for!  It also held the Chatham Farmer's Mutual
Telephone Company together for many, many years, just this way...

Most of the stuff I used and saw way back then was General Cable or
Brand-Rex.

> AT&T's Phoenix Works manufactures an EXCELLENT, 5-pair, jelly-filled
> buried service "wire".

This is true, but I like Brand-Rex's six pair or two pair buried drop,
too.

Of course, you could just get your ham ticket and a couple of two
meter handie-talkie's (Shameless plug: the technician ticket is now
available in a no-morse-code version ... and while I'm on that subject:
what's your excuse for no ticket, Patrick? [grin] We need all the
decent hams we can get.)


Macy M. Hallock, Jr. N8OBG  216-725-4764 Home
[e-mail] [e-mail]
Note: [e-mail] is best reply path to me.   uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you]


[Moderator's Note: The technician's ticket now available *without* the
Morse Code test??  Shame ... shame on all!  Anyway, some people say I
am already a ham ... PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jun 91 14:06 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Surprise!!


On Jun 6 at  1:59, I wrote:

> Given that we are just about out of area codes, this would be a very
> bad idea (tm). In California alone no less than five new area codes
> would be required to fulfill your reform proposal.

And then I gave a list of LATAs that shared area codes. Sufficient
mail has come my way to indicate that I was not clear enough that I
was naming LATAs, not cities. (Yes, I know that San Francisco, the
city, does not share 408 with Monterey. But the San Francisco LATA
shares 408 with the Monterey LATA.)

Once again, I assumed too much.


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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 16:22:07 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Surprise!!


The Newark (Delaware) exchange's calling area did NOT grow when
Delaware went to county-wide calling recently (no comment intended on
the southern fringe of New Castle County being in the Smyrna exchange
and thus getting the Kent County calling area).  The Newark exchange
borders on both Pa. and Md., and has a lopsided local calling area;
you are local to Claymont way up in the northeast and Middletown way
down in the south, plus two exchanges in southern Chester County, Pa.,
but not to neighboring Elkton exchange in Maryland.

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

From: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA
Subject: Re: Telephone Advertising Consumer Rights Act
Date: Sat,  8 Jun 91 18:17:37 GMT


"Linc" == Linc Madison <[e-mail]> writes:

> It turns out that if you have a "NO SOLICITING" sign on the
> front of your house, it is entirely legal for someone to come to
> your door anyway and solicit you for POLITICAL purposes, because
> the First Amendment right of the solicitor [...]

Same apparently applies to [major brand name religious group] as they
left me at a loss for words when they countered my routine of pointing
at my official City of Naperville, IL "No Solicitors Invited" sticker
with "We're not soliciting anything".  Seems like I need some kind of
super sticker.


[Moderator's Note: In a couple cases where there have been challenges
to the 'no solicitors' sign by religious or political groups the
courts have held the sign referred to *commercial* solicitation and
*commercial* speech ... not political or religious speech.  However, a
'no trespassing' or 'do not disturb' sign was held to mean exactly
what it said even where politics and religion was conerned.   PAT]

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

From: Howard Siegel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fax/Phone Switch Information Wanted
Date: 9 Jun 91 23:07:33 GMT
Reply-To: Howard Siegel <[e-mail]>
Organization: TRW, c/o Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore Md.


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

> 1) Hello-Direct sells two of these devices: the Crosspoint
> Autoswitcher I and the Crosspoint Autoswitcher II...

>   Crosspoint Autoswitcher I $229

> COMMENTS: I have the impression that Hello-Direct's C.A._I is actually
> the same as the ASAP TF 555 made by Command Communications and sold
> for much less (~$170) by Lechmere.

In the most recent Hello Direct catalog, the Autoswitcher I was listed
at $199.  I have not verified that the price has come down or this is
a misprint.

The Autoswitcher's do look just like the ASAP models.  I just saw them
on display at my local Staples office supply wharehouse.  There are
two ASAP models with the same specs as those from Hello Direct.  I
didn't notice the prices though.

Also, Black Box Corp has the ASD-4 Automatic Sharing Device for four
devices listed at $199.

All of these devices must be made by the same company and OEM'ed to
these companies since all of them look identical, except for the
colors; the Hello Direct and ASAP models are white (or off white) and
the Black Box model is of course black.

I have been thinking of picking one of these up too, but for my office
where I only have one phone line and just put up my own Telebit T1600
modem (finally 9600 baud!).  How well to these devices work with a
campus voice mail system on the telephone instead of an answering
machine?


     Howard Siegel             [e-mail]             301-338-5415
     TRW     c/o Space Telescope Science Institute    Baltimore MD 21218

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Questions on LAPD
Date: Sun,  9 Jun 91 14:06:40 PDT


I've been working on an ISDN interface and I have also had questions
about Layer 3 services (call control). I have a copy of the CCITT
Q.931 specs, but I also have a copy of Bellcore Technical Reference
TR-TSY-000776, "Network Interface Description for ISDN Customer
Access" (You can get this from the CIC). The manual states that the
call control protocol is a subset of Q.931, sort of a generic ISDN
call control protocol.

What's the status on this? From what I can see, the generic call
control stuff looks like it would work with AT&T 5ESS switches and
probably others, although there aren't many features that are used. If
I wrote code for this kind of generic switch, would that be enough for
simple call setup??


Paul McGinnis / [e-mail]

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone
Date: 9 Jun 91 18:17:23 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> nstar!bluemoon!sbrack@
iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Steven S. Brack) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 433, Message 8 of 13

> On our NT SL100 PBX, the individual 2500 sets have a "tap" button,
> which, pressed once, sends a flash of the correct length.  It seems to
> be some sort of capacitor arrangement, but since OSU is more paranoid
> than ATT about people opening up their phones, I haven't investigated.

    It is actually a Motorola IC. I have the schematic for these
Comdial phones somewhere, buried with schematics for Yugoslavian
phones etc. I can't find it now, but I did discover lots of neat stuff
I haven't seen for a while.

    This circuit the "TAP telephone" was as I recall designed by
Joe Flamini, a real telecom character. He is an MIT Phd, ex cop, bon
vivant and comedian. Anyhow, the IC is a Dual Timer. One half sets up
the flash button for a 600Ms break and the other half, which is across
the hookswitch is set up for 1500 Ms. This is why when you try to
flash the hookswitch on the TAP phone you hang the phone up.

    Comdial sold a ton of these things to ROLM who installed them
as "ROLM Phones". They are still available as Comdial TAP phones from
your local telco distributor. They come with or without the message
waiting light.

> The tap button also houses the voicemail waiting lamp.  This lamp also
> lights when ring current is applied to the instrument.  What is the
> relation between the light and the ringer?

    The "voicemail waiting lamp" is called the message waiting
light. It is most often seen in hotel rooms. In hotels when they have
a message for you, they turn on the light. This is done automatically
with voicemail. The light is a neon with a 100K resistor in series.
The voltage applied to the Tip and Ring to activate the light is
usually 90V at 100Hz. This frequency is ignored by the frequency
sensitive ringer that responds to 40 - 150V at 20 Hz. The neon is not
frequency sensitive, so it flashes for message waiting or ring
current.


Julian Macassey, [e-mail]  N6ARE@K6VE.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA
742 1/2 North Hayworth Avenue Hollywood CA 90046-7142 voice [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #444
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29765;
          11 Jun 91 1:02 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27341;
          10 Jun 91 23:26 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20703;
          10 Jun 91 22:21 CDT
Date:     Mon, 10 Jun 91 21:50:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #445
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 10 Jun 91 22:50:23 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 445

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [Kath Mullholand]
    Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [John Higdon]
    Re: Clicks on Line After Hangup [John Higdon]
    Re: SJ Merc Explains New Rates Badly [John Higdon]
    Re: Address of MaxTrek, Inc. [Jon Sreekanth]
    Re: Pacific Bell Local Calling Area Expansion [Nick Sayer]
    Re: St. Louis Phone Outage, Redundancy, and Backups [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: Fax/Phone Switch Information Wanted [David Newman]
    Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? [Rich Szabo]
    Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? [William Vajk]
    Re: The President's Analyst :-) [Marty Brenneis]
    Information on v.22 biz Protocol Wanted [Richard Jules]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 10 Jun 1991 13:10:13 EDT
From:  KATH MULLHOLAND <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus


I think Tom Gray was right when he said if a PBX gives you a double
ring you're paying for the call.

I've asked three telecom CO people this question and all agreed -- the
last CO through which the call passed passes the ringing tone.  That
is true even on DID connections.  If you get a double ring from a PBX
it is because the PBX returned answer supervision and is supplying its
own ring.  Yes, when you hear the phone ring, it rings twice, but we
all know the ringing the caller hears is unrelated to the ringing the
phone creates, don't we? :-}

As I understand it, there are a few reasons you can get double ring
from a phone company CO.  1) a party line of more than two parties.
2) a step office will supply a variety of wierd ringing and other
tones.

There may be others, as well.  This is all second-hand, but what was
coming in these messages didn't agree with my understanding of how our
PBX related to TPC, so I started asking questions.


Kath Mullholand      UNH, Durham NH

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

Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 22:32 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus


Tom Ace <crux![e-mail]> writes:

> It seems there's a potential for fraud here.  I assume there are rules
> for what may be sent out as a local intercept without returning answer
> supervision.  I assume that a call answered by a "we're closed now,
> call back in the morning" recording ought to be paid for.  Are
> businesses with DID on an honor system in this regard?

Yes and no. There is a potential for fraud, but businesses that have
DID circuits maintain a fairly high visibility with the serving
telcos.  I have known some people who have done some pretty rude
things with DID, but eventually someone from telco (or in one case
AT&T) discovered what was going on and "suggested some changes" in the
way supervision was returned.

For example, 800 EAT SH*T used to terminate on a DID that had a barker
for a 900 service where you could gripe about bad drivers. The clever
person delivered the barker message without benefit of supervision so
HE was not charged for the 800 call.

When AT&T finally got wind of this, they threated and huffed and
puffed, but the person explained that the recording on the 800 number
was simply a "referral" to the 900 number. AT&T was not amused, but in
lieu of other action disconnected the 800 number and gave it an
unembellished referral to the 900 number. Interesting while it lasted.

As far as "we're closed now, call back in the morning" is concerned,
many businesses do this and get away with it. By the way, do not
bother to write me for a list; I still have to live here :-)


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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jun 91 23:23 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Clicks on Line After Hangup


Ken Levitt <[e-mail]> writes:

> I called New England Telephone and was told that the clicking is
> normal and that there is nothing they can do about this.  Is this
> true?  Should I give up and do my best to work around the problem, or
> is there something I can do to get them to get rid of the clicking?

If this is a 1/1AESS you are stuck with the clicking. However, I use a
technique with my Watson that eliminates this. My script requires a
person to enter a DTMF digit to leave a message. This means that when
a person hangs up after realizing he has reached a wrong number, etc.,
the Watson is not left in a recording mode.

Also, for those callers who actually intend to leave a message, I ask
them to "press any key" when they are through. This terminates the
recording and causes the script to move on. In my case, this is not a
real problem. The moment a caller hangs up, the KX-T1232 sees the CPC
and immediately sends reorder to the Watson. Within about two or three
cycles of reorder, the Watson hangs up.


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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 03:07 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: SJ Merc Explains New Rates Badly


Michael Graff <[e-mail]> writes:

> "Calls up to 12 miles away to be free starting Saturday"

What the Merc failed to mention -- a considerable oversight for a San
Jose paper -- was that the largest San Jose rate center, San Jose 2,
had no change whatsoever. It has never had a "Zone 2" to become a
"Zone 1".  When ZUM (Zone Usage Measurement, pronounced "zoom", as in
"zoom your bill up") was first set up, Los Gatos was to have been a
Zone 2 call from San Jose 2. There was an outcry, and a little
gerrymandering later it magically became a Zone 1 call before the plan
was even implemented.

I have an area phone book printed right at the transition that shows
LG to be Zone 2 to downtown San Jose.


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

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Address of MaxTrek, Inc.
Organization: The World
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1991 13:35:37 GMT


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

> Could somebody please provide me with the address of MaxTrek, Inc. One
> of their products I'm interested in is a modem/fax/phone switch called
> SmartMax II which seems pretty nice.

{PC Magazine}, Dec 11, 1990 did a survey of about 16 fax switches:

     MaxTrek Inc, 23210 Bernhardt St, Hayward, CA 94545, 800-445-4451

(If anyone knows of a more recent survey article on fax switches, I'd
appreciate hearing about it.)


Regards,

Jon Sreekanth

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

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

From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Local Calling Area Expansion
Date: 10 Jun 91 13:46:19 GMT
Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> The interesting part is that by the evening of Monday, June 3, the
> (optional) 1 was again allowed.  Calls would complete with or without
> the 1.  Further investgation revealed that ALL local calls would allow
> the 1, even those that had never been toll.  So, I can now dial ANY
> number in 916 by using a preceeding 1.  Toll calls still require it,
> though.

I just checked, and the same is now the case here in Stockton as well.
I was under the impression that the BOCs operations in one LATA were
supposed to be independant from the operations in other LATAs. If this
is the case, why did the BOC here in Stockton suddenly get the same
neat idea? If this is not the case, then Pac*Bell is a more evil
threat to modern society than even I had imagined.

I myself go a bit farther than Mr. Higdon. Why must Pac*Hell be the
only phone company allowed to bring me dial tone? Granted, it would be
expensive for a new phone company to come in and start from scratch,
but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth doing for them. Either
there should be competing phone companies vying for my telecommunications
dollar, or one BOC in each LATA whose job is to do nothing apart from
providing local loops and dialtone for the least amount of money
possible without drawing blood -- red ink. No Centrex, no Message Center,
No 976, nothing.

Perhaps even better would be a BOC whose job was ONLY the local loop
(read: wire) management. Perhaps the dialtone and/or local calling
could be broken open for competition too. Then each CO perhaps could
be its own BOC.  "Company Office" suddenly has new meaning. The CO
could charge subscribers a nominal fee for each loop, and charge
anyone who wanted to tie in a nominal fee for that. They would get
from that enough money to maintain the wire plant and a small profit.


Nick Sayer      [e-mail]
N6QQQ           209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: St. Louis Phone Outage, Redundancy, and Backups
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 11:10:56 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


A lot of people depend upon the phone system for various reasons.  For
many, access to the phone networks have become a veritable necessity.
But then again, if someone (anyone) depends upon one lone source for a
service (any service) and then expects that that source will never
ever fail or become backlogged, then the consumer of that service is
very trusting and naive indeed.

This brings to mind a theorem of some sort that I remember from some
an engineering class that I had in the past (anyone know the name for
this little nugget?); the more reliable and fail-safe a system is
believed to have become, the more devastating will be its failure.  I
took this to mean that the more dependable something becomes, the more
people there will also be who believe that the 'thing' will NEVER fail
and those same people will trust 'it' implicitly and not arrange for
an alternate source; therefore, when the reliable system fails, it
will be quite devastating to many.  I believe that this holds
especially true for the nation's and world's voice / data networks.

I believe that since they are inevitable, occasional telephone network
failures are not only unacceptable but also unavoidable.  Any entity
or person who depends upon that network to supply uninterrupted, 24-
hour, year round service with no degradation or failure is surely
acting in a naive and irresponsible way.  At least the St. Louis Fed
had the foresight to plan a contingency method of transacting their
usual affairs.  Let's hope that our local emergency agencies such as
police, ambulance, and fire have the foresight to plan for the
inevitable failure of the usual means of communication.  A failure not
necessarily based upon a natural disaster and for which there may be
no prior warning.


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

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

From: David Newman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fax/Phone Switch Information Wanted
Date: 10 Jun 91 18:17:02 GMT
Reply-To: David Vincent Newman <cantor![e-mail]>
Organization: MCC  Austin, Texas


Ranier Technologies TB-150 Voice-Data Switch:

17950 NE 65th St.
Redmond, WA., 98052
[phone]

It ran about $100 as I recall, and it seems to work pretty well.  I've
had it about a year.

I'm just a satisfied customer, nothing more.

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 00:55:23 -0400
From: Rich Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Easy Fax to ASCII?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] writes:

> we're looking at replacing the [fax] machine with a computer and fax
> board.  Our computer gurus have found some software that will turn a
> fax message into a PCX or TIFF file and another program that will
> convert THAT into ASCII, and want to write a batch file to transmit
> that into our main system.  The problem is this has to be done for
> each individual fax, because the software they want to use (ReadRight
> is one of the programs) apparently can't be automated.

I've used Desqview from Quarterdeck to automate a stubborn program.
DV runs your program(s) as a shell and will feed it any keystrokes you
wish.  I believe it has a complete macro language.  It can multitask
the programs.

As an aside, I bet a lot of the faxes we all send could be just as
well done thru E-Mail.  Your problem would then already be solved.


Rich Szabo  Cleveland, Ohio USA  [phone]
internet:[e-mail] and presenting!: [e-mail]

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

From: William  Vajk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Easy Fax to ASCII?
Reply-To: William  Vajk <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1991 01:29:37 GMT


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

> We are looking for a solution which can be implemented without any
> costly program development etc. The best solution would be if there
> already exists some product which would make the fax machine appear
> to the program like a local printer, so that no change to the existing
> software is necessary.

Fax utilizes a specific bit mapped format, each line of dots encoded
with padding "0's" as necessary. Fax also talks in several parallel
2400 baud modulated signals to achieve the 9600 throughput.

As if that weren't enough, several messages are exchanged first in a
Bell 103 mode (like at 300 baud, man) to establish the protocols which
will be used. The new machines are backwards compatable with the old
fashioned optically scanned rotary drum, seven minutes per page
machines from the 1960's. And in the Bell 103 mode they also exchange
names and addresses before they shift into the mode which transmits
the data you really want.

There was another fax related message here the other day, and I was in
process of responding when the computer went bye-bye. It was a request
for an easy conversion to ascii from fax. Because of the graphic
nature of fax, and the fact that there is no assurance of the style
and pitch of type received, one would actually have to be at the edge
of some serious AI to achieve the goal requested. Anyone who has used
an optical scanner and worked to convert a long document to ascii from
typed sheets can attest to the difficulties of accurate conversion
given only one character set to decipher.

On the other hand, to convert from ascii to fax is relatively easy,
but certainly not easy enough to make a fax machine into a computer
peripheral.


Bill Vajk

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 06:37:21 PDT
From: Marty the Droid <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The President's Analyst


For those who have seen the film "The President's Analyst", did anyone
notice Cliff Robertson playing the part of the 'droid at TPC? I almost
bust a gut the first time I saw him enter in that grey suit in an AT&T
commercial. It was nice to know that "TCP" still had the same
leadership. :-)

(I wondered if the folks at the ad agency or AT&T ever saw the movie.)


Marty 'The Droid' Brenneis     ...!uupsi!kerner!droid
Industrial Magician            [e-mail]
[phone]

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

Organization: Ryerson - Academic Computing Services
Date: Monday, 10 Jun 1991 10:19:20 EST
From: Richard Jules <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information on v.22 biz Protocol Wanted


Hi,

I am attempting to implement a modem in software using a DSP board
(motorolla 56001 with (A/D/A) facilities). I am looking for
documentation on the v.22 bis standard. - 1200 and 2400 BPS - Does
anyone have *ANY* information on this subject which they could pass
on?  Thanks.


Roger Smith

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #445
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02902;
          11 Jun 91 2:09 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19911;
          11 Jun 91 0:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27341;
          10 Jun 91 23:27 CDT
Date:     Mon, 10 Jun 91 22:51:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #446
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 10 Jun 91 22:51:06 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 446

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why Are *Telephone Keypads* Built Upside Down [William Vajk]
    Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell [Robert Jacobson]
    Re: How do You Deal With Central Office Problems? [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads) [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Service Overlap [Kevin Brown]
    Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor [Bud Couch]
    Concerning Phone Company Overcharges [Dr. Tanner Andrews]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: William Vajk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Are *Telephone Keypads* Built Upside Down
Reply-To: William Vajk <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1991 05:30:41 GMT


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

> The real question is why are *Adding Machine* keypads built upside
> down?  Since we read left-to-right and top-to-bottom, and count
> low-to-high, the telephone keypad would be the obvious choice for
> layout.

Blaise Pascal built his wheeled adding machine in 1642. Perhaps an
early model for the rotary dial :-)

It is my understanding that the earliest push button adding machines
were created circa 1850. In the case of the adding machine, 0 really
is a placeholder at the beginning of the decade and is next to the
number 1 for any given decade. The direction taken by the layout,
bottom 0 to top 9 d oubtless had to do simplification of the
mechanical design. Of course there might be some holdover from the
abacus in the design, as beads are moved up to change state, eg to
add. Bottom up calculation was in. And even now, standard office
practice is to work the pile of paper from the bottom (the oldest)
upwards. We read, in the west, top to bottom, left to right. But we
don't do everything that way, and we don't always think or plan in
that direction either.

In the phone system as we know it today, the 0 is really a 10. In
terms of rotary (pulse) dialing, ten interruptions to the circuit are
sent for the digit 0. And of course we have 11 and 12 with touchtone
phones as well, though they're disguised as * and #. Note the
disabling of call waiting is *70 on touch tone, or 1170 on rotary
dialers.

Given the transition from pulse to tone dialing, it wasn't really
necessary to retain the concept that 0 is 10. In fact, numerical
correlations to make connections are now unnecessary. We have a
computer select the lines to connect. We no longer have a series of
mechanical steppers physically moving things about, which land at
particular grid locations, and there make the desired connection.

I see more and more sources for programmable autodialers. Many of us
tend to call mostly some finite list of people. We're creatures of
habit. We don't usually number these people, although with the
rapid-dial services offered by some telecos it does happen that way
too. But when we buy an autodialer, each colleague, associate, or
friend ends up owning one of the buttons on the autodialer. In a the
sea of numbers we call civilization, we can get rid of another d*mn
(long live Bill Blue) number and get back to dealing with people
without being required to use a number to get to them.

I really like having to deal with only a single hieroglyph in order to
etablish contact, instead of all those numbers. Now that we don't have
to learn and remember all those numbers, I wonder what folks are going
to be doing with all that freed up brain space.


Bill Vajk

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hollings and Pac*Bell
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1991 02:01:17 GMT


I'm not a guy who naturally sides with the RBOCs, having dueled with
Pac*Bell for years on the issue of introducing new services in a fair
way.  But also having experienced the reluctance of the competitive
market to develop and introduce new telecommunications services that
make a difference to most of us, I'm inclined to say, give 'em a
chance.  Reinstating the antitrust provisions, if the RBOCs abuse
their position, is a lot less difficult than prevailing on the
competitors to produce services with value for the little guy.

This is NOT an argument for deregulation of the RBOCs.  It is merely a
call for the RBOCs to be able to put their considerable resources at
the disposal of the market and possibly add to the limited supply of
technology now available to us "little guys."


Bob Jacobson

(These opinions are mine alone and not necessariy those of my employer
or colleagues.)

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp!trebor>
Subject: Re: How do You Deal With Central Office Problems?
Date: 11 Jun 91 02:03:45 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb) writes:

> This recording, by the way, comes from KDD, the international carrier,
> after doing an SS7 lookup to the telco (NTT) and discovering the
> number is not in service.  It is in English and Japanese.

IDC, one of the other international carriers, has many nice little
features too.  Usually you dial 0061 to access IDC.  But you can also
dial 0062, make your call, and after it is over the IDC billing
computer will call you back and tell you the length and cost of your
call -- free!  There are other 006X prefixes that do things like third
party billing.

IDC also sends you monthly itemized bills if you want them, and they
are bilingual.

I've never been disappointed with their service, and, unlike KDD, they
seem to be using all digital cables (including the new pacific fiber
cables) with no satellite links at all.  The connections are totally
crystal clear.  I call my mom in North Carolina from Tokyo and she
thinks I'm at the gas station around the corner.


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

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jun 91 02:50:22 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pet Peeve About Newer Modems (was Telephone Keypads)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

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

>> This reminds me of a "pet peeve" (sic?) that I have with the newer
>> modems.  Both the Hayes 9600 V-series and the $74 2400 card-modem I
>> have won't accept an ATS11 value (DTMF duration) of less than 50ms.

> Hmmm.  You want your modem to use 36 ms instead of 50?

[stuff deleted]

> How many switches in this country (and the world) can reliably handle
> DTMF tones faster than 50 ms?  How many can handle them even that
> fast?

The point is not how many switches can handle what, but what MY switch
can handle.  I believe that the telco published minimum (i.e. what
they guarantee) is 50ms, so the 100ms default of the modem is plenty
to allow for customers to not have problems.  By changing the default,
I am telling the modem that I don't want the default used, but want my
own value used instead.

> In my humble opinion, it's a little silly to get upset over such a
> small amount of time.  Of course, I happen to work for Telebit
> technical support, so that may explain my viewpoint a little bit...

Greg, I think that I can live with the .2 seconds extra.  The point is
that this attitude on the part of the manufacturer is all too common
in the telecom industry today.  It's this attitude that causes the Bay
Area cellular carriers to require a "1" before dialing a long distance
number, and not allowing the area code for local numbers.  Just like
the 36ms dialing, both of these once worked just fine, but now have
been changed.

Since all of these worked just fine at one time, there's no technical
reason not to allow them.  The attitude of "Sir, why do you need
this?" gets really old after awhile.  What good reason can you give
for making these changes?  It doesn't improve the service for those
that follow the instructions and use the defaults, but makes things
more difficult and annoying for those that know a little more and like
to use the more obscure features.

Here's another example: I recently ordered new phone service from
Pacific Bell because of a move.  I wanted a line with regular call
waiting and busy transfer to my other number.  I was told by the
Business Office that this combination was not tariffed, and was even
read a quote from the Handbook stating that call waiting cannot be on
a line with either busy or no-answer transfer.

I had exactly that setup a couple of years ago from US West in
Seattle.  Call waiting kicked in first, then a third call would busy
transfer to the other number.  And if I was dialing out on the modem
and invoked cancel call waiting, the first incoming call would busy
transfer.  Is someone going to tell me that US West's 1AESS's and
DMS-100's can to this, but Pacific Bell's cannot?  Of course they can.

But somebody decided "Nobody will need this, and it may be confusing
anyway."  So, I could not purchase this no matter how well I
understood it.  I was willing to pay for all these features, but they
wouldn't take my money because somebody decided that this isn't what I
really needed, and/or that I wouldn't understand it.

I complained, and tracked somebody down in the department that makes the
marketing decisions for Custom Calling features.  First they tried to give
me the line that it was not technically possible.  Once that was dismissed,
the complication and lack of need was brought up.  Do you see the danger of
this attitude?

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

> Call*Return does not do its work by continually redialing, but by
> queueing a request in a database common to your switch and the called
> switch.  This does not result in network blockage from busy attempts,
> as CPE rapid-dialing does.

Oh, but it does!  When queueing a call, the calling switch sends a
request every so often (around 30 to 45 seconds) over the SS7 network
to the destination switch, asking it if the destination line is idle.
If it is, then the caller is rung, and upon answer, a "fresh" call
attempt is made (which could reach busy if the destination started
another call in the meantime).  It does NOT work by queueing a request
at the destination switch.  Why this is, I don't know.  I've read
several journal articles about SS7 and the implementation of the CLASS
features, and they never mentioned the rationale behind this, but did
clearly explain that this is the way it works.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: A funny story about automatic redial here in
Chicago: I used my phone to dial my own number, and of course I got a
busy signal, not a call-waiting tone.  I disconnected and dialed *66.
The recording told me the number I had dialed was busy, but that it if
became free in the next thirty minutes, I would be called back 'with a
special ring'. Well of course a few seconds after disconnecting a
second time, my line was observed to be 'free', so I got the special
ring (two short and one long). When I answered, after a couple seconds
of silence the recording advised me 'the number you are calling was
free, but it has become busy again ... we will continue trying.'  I
hang up, a few seconds later I get the special ring, and the same
routine.  Apparently this would have gone on for some time -- 30
minutes probably, since that is the time limit it originally said it
would use to try and get through -- but I dialed *86 and 'cancelled my
repeat dialing and automatic callback requests.'  :)  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Service Overlap
Date: 9 Jun 91 13:25:56 GMT
Organization: Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA


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

> I have recently moved from an apartment to a house half a block away,
> on the same (aerial) cable.  When I called TPC to get my phone
> changed, they offered to provide service at both locations for a
> while.

> They had this all set up within two hours of my call to them.  I was

> How is this physically done in the CO?  Is it just software in the
> switch (mine is a 1AESS)?  What would happen if I picked up phones in
> both houses at the same time?  I may try this just to see.

    If they did this within two hours, most likely it was done via
a half tap in the CO.  They took your office equipment (oe) and
connected two cable pairs two it.  One was dedicated to your old
location and the other was dedicated to your new location.  This will
work just like having an extension in your home.  If you pick up a
phone at one house, the other house will have no dial tone.


Kevin Brown  Box 72    Moravian College,  Bethlehem PA 18018
CSNET/INTERNET: [e-mail]   UUCP: rutgers!liberty!batman!brownK

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1991 20:54:30 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Marc Unangst <mju@mudos.
ann-arbor.mi.us> writes:

> I recently had one modem in the middle of a 15-line hunt group go out.
> Not wanting to move the rest of the modems up a line each, I did some
> investigation with a VOM and a telephone, and discovered that plugging
> a 270 ohm resistor into the phone line (across tip and ring) should
> have almost the exact same effect as an off-hook telephone does --
> thus busying out the line.  Now, my question is, is there anything
> wrong with doing something like this?  Will a 1/2W resistor be enough?
> Is this an "accepted" way of busying out a phone line?

The "accepted" way of busying out a line is to call your LEC and ask
them to disconnect the service; they'll even stop charging you for it!

Seriously, unless you have access to the CO switch internals, there is
no clean way of busying a two-way loop-start subscriber line.  _IF_
you have an incoming only line, what you have done should be kosher.

With a two-way line, however, what you have done is to go off-hook,
which the switch interprets as a request for service. When you do not
provide any outgoing signaling, it will time out, and pull the cut-off
relay, or the maintenence relay, or (in the case of old SXS) do
nothing.  Then the line just sits there, dissipating heat - in your
resistor, the wires to you, and whatever relay or sensor is used in
your serving CO.  For a temporary thing this is not too bad, but it
may also generated maintenence requests, etc, if left on for an
extended period.

If this line is a measured service line, you will be charged for all
the time that you leave this on -- see my first paragraph.

For what I perceive as a request for techno-weenie assistance: use
your VOM as a milliammeter, and adjust the size of your resistor to
pull 20 mA from the line. The rating (in watts) required will then be
0.0004 times the value of the resistor (in ohms).

This is enough current to keep the line marked as off-hook, but
minimizes the power wasted. Some of the newer CO's will show a pretty
constant 30 mA for lower values of resistance. Keep raising the value
until it goes down to 20 mA. Current lower than 20 mA may not work, so
don't go lower.


Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox   If my employer only knew...  standard BS applies

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

Subject: Concerning Phone Company Overcharges
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 91 9:16:26 EDT
From: "Dr. Tanner Andrews" <[e-mail]>
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand


The recent articles about phone companies charging more than is
allowed by tariff, or operating beyond what is permitted, are
interesting.  They advise caution and watchfulness to those of us
where the phone company isn't yet trying the particular stunts.

However, in order to achieve maximum good, I urge people to write a
short letter to the editor of the local paper.  Even the very liberal
_Snooze-Urinal_ occasionally carries letters about such things.  A
letter, moderate in tone, alerting people to such excessive charges or
out-of-bounds operations is not unlikely to be published.


{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #446
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09969;
          12 Jun 91 1:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22365;
          12 Jun 91 0:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19012;
          11 Jun 91 22:56 CDT
Date:     Tue, 11 Jun 91 22:50:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #447
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 11 Jun 91 22:50:12 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 447

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: The Usual Overflow [TELECOM Moderator]
    'Sick' Omaha Information Center [Jack Winslade]
    Knock, Knock! [San Jose Mercury-News via Ed Greenberg]
    Pay Phone Mayhem [Newsday via Dave Niebuhr]
    United Telephone of Pannsylvania [Steve Gaarder]
    Competition From Regulated Monopolies (was Hollings / Pac*Bell) [J. Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 22:07:27 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: The Usual Overflow


Today I had to toss out about two hundred messages in the queue which:

   1) Had been around several days still unused.
   2) Were 're' messages on topics more than a week old.
   3) Were so long they would require a complete issue for themselves.
   4) Contained huge amounts of quoted text versus little new text.

I had to dump most of the remaining 'hollings /pac*bell' replies. They
were extremely long and generally redundant, and there were two dozen
of them.

The queue is cleaned out as of tonight. If you have not seen your
message here by Wednesday morning, it had to be sacrified in the
interest of getting up to date.  *Please do not re-subnit it*.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 20:50:57 CST
From: Jack Winslade <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: 'Sick' Omaha Information Center
Reply-to: ivgate!drbbs![e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


(From various sources, including {Omaha World-Herald}, WOWT TV, and a
 personal conversation.}

Since last weekend, directory assistance operators in Omaha have been
stricken with headaches, sneezing attacks, nausea, vomiting, etc.
while working at the information center at 78th and Girard Streets in
Omaha.  On Friday, fire units from Omaha and Irvington were dispatched,
as a natural gas leak was suspected.  Utility crews found no leak.  On
Saturday, their union (CWA) instructed their members to stay off work
until the situation was stabilized.  Management workers reported
similar symptoms on Saturday.

According to the {World-Herald}, 'Officials from the US Occupational
Safety and Health Administration and the Douglas County Health
Department were investigating ... and an environmental testing firm
from Minneapolis.'

WOWT TV showed a picture of a trailer being installed outside the
facility to provide a temporary safe environment.  As of Monday
morning, all tests were inconclusive.

I spoke to an employee of a firm which did some tests on the building
over the weekend.  He stated that '... everyone is totally stumped.'

Tests for chlorine, natural gas, monoxide, and biological agents were
performed.  As of this minute, a followup is on the 10:00pm news on
WOWT at this time.  They show temporary ducts that were rigged to
increase the air flow.  They reported that some symptoms still persist
for those working in the building.

US West announced that moderate delays with DA calls could be
expected.


Good Day!         JSW

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

From: Ed Greenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Knock, Knock!
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 14:58:15 PDT


This is quoted from Action Line, a write-in column of the {San Jose
Mercury News}. The paper was dated 8-Jun-1991.

"Q: The other day, I was visited by a representative of Heritage
Cable, stating he was here to investigate the purchase of an illegal
de-scrambler that he said I bought in 1987.  He also stated that he
had every right to inspect the line that went into our household.  I
felt outraged to be woken up -- I work nights -- for such a rediculous
and demeaning experience.  I've had cable at this address since 1986.
Does the Heritage Cable representative have the right to inspect
inside our house?

"A: They do, says Mark Solins, Heritage's director of field service.
Solin says the cable company receives lists from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation every so often with names of people who bought
de-scramblers for the purpose of obtaining a cable station without
paying the cable company for the right to the air waves.  The FBI
doesn't monitor all de-scrambler sales, but does get involved if it
learns of illegal activity.  Solins says the contract you signed when
you signed up for cable allows a company rep the right to inspect the
cable service and line.  Solins says your name popped up on a recent
list the FBI sent to Heritage.  Solins says no illegal de-scrambler
was found in your home.  Evidently, someone who used to live in the
rear of your property ordered the de-scrambler, under your name and
address and used it to pick up cable waves without subscribing to the
service."


Ed Greenberg         | Home: [phone] | [e-mail]
P. O. Box 28618        | Work: [phone] | CIS: 76703,1070
San Jose, CA  95159    | Fax:  [phone] | WB2GOH @ N6LDL.CA.USA


[Moderator's Note: While it is true that their contract, like the
telco, allows them access to inspect their wires and instruments, they
have to be reasonable in the time they show up. Since the writer works
nights, he had every right to tell them to come back later by
appointment. The local cable guys came to my door about a year ago
wanting to inspect their wires ... but I don't subscribe to any cable
at all!  After all, with twelve over-the-air channels here filled with
trash 24 hours per day, why should I pay for cable channels?  They said
the wires on the outside of the building 'appeared to enter the
building via the wall to my apartment'. I told them that may be the
case, but not being a subscriber, they had no contract with me so why
not be nice guys and get lost? They made their usual threats but I
heard no more from them. I guess they cut the wire at the pole if in
fact it was live ... I don't really know.    PAT]

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

Date:  Sun, 9 Jun 1991 11:23:01 EDT
From:  "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Pay Phone Mayhem


In the business section of today's {Newsday} there is an article about
"Pay Phone Mayhem" with the subhead of "Private owners give public
service, but high prices and baffling rules stir anger among some
users".

It starts out by telling of a Brooklyn Law School student who ran up
bills for over $30 for three calls lasting four minutes total while
using pay phones and having the charges put onto his telephone bill.
It further stated that if NY Tel handled the calls the charge would
have been $1.65.

The body of the article goes on to relate how the AOS' are trying to
defend their high charges by claiming everything under the sun.

Some of the rules in effect as of now are:

   "Local calls paid with coins cannot cost more than the $.25 that NY Tel
    charges for the first three minutes;

    No charge can be made for directory assistance unless a directory is
    available.  As of July 3, 1991, no charge under any circumstance for
    directory assistance;

    All 911 emergency calls mustr be handled without charge;

    The pay phone must post certain information:

     1) The identity of the person or company that provides the phone;
     2) Toll free number to obtain rate information;
     3) Toll free number for billing or service disputes;
     4) Toll free number for the PSC for complaints;
     5) Identity of the AOS and instructions for obtaining others;
     6) Amount of surcharges that the owner of the premises places on
        calls from his/her premises.

 (Note: This is one of the few times that the PSC has backed the consumer;
 usually it's the utility.)

The article concludes by telling about a Long Island resident who used
a pay phone owned by an AOS.  It seems that when he dialed 0+, there
was no bong so he tried 1-0-ATT-0 and got a recording that didn't
help.  Finally, he went back to 0+ and DEMANDED (emphasis mine) that
he be connected with an ATT operator and was put through.


Dave Niebuhr      Brookhaven National Laboratory
BITnet: [e-mail]; Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 02:16:15 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: United Telephone of Pannsylvania


While I was in college in Carlisle, Pa., United Telephone replaced
their Kellogg K-60 switch with a North (not Northern) Electric NX-1E
mega-whizz-bang.  A recent posting mentioned that North has cut its
business back to just power systems.  The NX-1E may be part of the
reason why.  This was -- brace yourself -- a computer-controlled
crossbar switch.  That's right, one foot in the future and one in the
past.  I wouldn't be surprised to find out that North took an existing
crossbar design and glommed on computers so they could have a
computerized switch quick.

This beast had four computers, two to run the switch, and two for
backup.  It brought with it touch-tone service, call forwarding, et.
al., (no call waiting, though) and some quirks of its own.  It was
clear that the software had gone through far less testing than that
of, say, a 1AESS.  If you were making a call, it would occasionally
drop you into the middle of someone else's conversation.  It also had
a distressing tendency to go down.  When they gave a public tour of
the new facility, I asked one of their craftsmen how long it would
take to reboot in the event of a crash, and he replied "20 minutes."
There were several occasions when all phone service in the entire town
was out for 20 minutes.

Even weirder was the following: if you dialed any Canadian area code
(without the leading "1"), the switch would take the next four digits
and send them out a long-distance trunk.  This didn't accomplish
anything interesting, EXCEPT if you dialed the first four digits of a
number served by a step-by-step switch (within the area code).  Then,
the distant switch would accept the digits and politely wait for more.
All you had to do was dial them using a rotary dial.

The reason this worked ties in with the recent thread on single-
frequency (2600 Hz) signaling.  Basically, when a long-distance trunk
was idle, it had a steady 2600 Hz tone on it.  To seize the trunk, the
originating end would remove the tone; to end the call, it would
restore it.  Thus the tone is analogous to opening the DC path on a
standard POTS line.  To complete the analogy, pulse dialing was done
by sending pulses of 2600.  This is a woefully slow method of
interexchange signaling, but it was (is?) widely used with stepper
equipment.  So the Carlisle switch translated the dial pulses to 2600
pulses, which operated the distant step switch just fine.

I note from one of Sean Williams' articles that Carlisle is now
equipped with a DMS-100.  When did that go into service?  The NX-1E
was put in in 1974.  It seems that the US telephone system (except for
GTE fiefdoms) is going to be totally 5ESS and DMS-100.  Good switches
by all accounts, but I'll miss the fun of quirk-hunting.


Steve Gaarder
[e-mail]        [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 02:49 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Competition from Regulated Monopolies (was Hollings and Pac*Bell)


Jim Redelfs <ivgate![e-mail]> writes:

> [Disclaimer:  I am an 18+ year employee of US WEST Communications - JR]

On my first reading of your article, I missed the disclaimer. But
going through my mind was "this guy must work for some LEC".

> US WEST Communications began offering "Business Voice Messaging" quite
> a while ago, and it has been in the residential market for some
> months.  All is going well, it is being well accepted and subscribed
> to.

No doubt. Do you think that a few months is enough time for all of the
independents to go away? It will be even more accepted and subscribed
to when it is all there is.

> I have not checked, so I cannot dispute your claim, but what's wrong
> with charging less than your competition - even in this case?

Because someone somewhere is making up the difference. You do not get
something for nothing. If the telco charges the independent more to
connect his system to the network than the telco charges to provide
the complete service to an end user, who is subsidizing what? Hint:
telco's funds come from its captive ratepayers.

> Given that exagerated scenerio, you should be the first on your block,
> possibly state, to appear during their rate hearings and request that
> Pac*Bell charge MORE for their service!

No, I will be the first on my block to ask that it be prevented from
offering service on equipment that was capitalized on the backs of its
regulated ratepayers--service that is unregulated and designed to
compete in a supposedly level marketplace. Who capitalizes the
equipment of an independent provider?

> I hope not.  In fact, this concern may cause me to write my FIRST
> letter to my elected representatives - in SUPPORT of the bill.

Be sure to mention that you work for a telco and have a vested
interest in the matter. I am just a lowly ratepayer who must shell out
each month for my telephone. Somehow it galls me to realize that I am
paying for equipment that Pac*Bell can use to make money in a totally
separate arena.

> I think it is time for a little SUBSIDY of my local service!

And how do you propose that? Especially in light of the fact that the
money you pay for local service actually subsidizes that wonderful
voicemail and other things like Centrex.

> And if
> the little guy can't hack the competition (REAL competition) that is
> SLOWLY entering his domain after an absence of almost EIGHT years, so
> be it.

So your definition of REAL competition is that which comes from a
company that has its up-front expenses paid for by a captive ratebase
and doesn't have to answer to investors or stockholders (because the
capital did not come from them in the first place)?

> The Bell Operating Companies have a great potential - a LOT of which
> was hogtied by Judge Harold Greene.

This is right out of the promotional handbook and is complete and
utter rot. Name one (just one) technical innovation that has come to
us from an operating company. The Bell Operating Companies have had to
get off their collectively stogy butts due to competition (the genuine
kind, financed by pioneers and forward-thinking investors). This
"great potential" is a myth that was spawned in the PR think-tanks of
the RBOC holding companies.

> I think the time is LONG OVERDUE
> that they be allowed to ENDOW us lowly ratepayers with some of this
> FABULOUS technology that, until now, had been either in development,
> legally KEPT from us, or available or AFFORDABLE only to business
> customers!

Like what? All the fabulous technology that I am aware of has come
about from outside vendors. There is nothing magic about a telephone
company. It is a business. It is a utility. It is a monopoly. It has
people doing their jobs. It is not magic. There is no reason that an
RBOC holding company manufacturing equipment would be more likely to
endow the lowly ratepayer with technology than any other manufacturer.
But there sure is a greater chance (and probability) of questionable
dealings.

> I am not advocating, and would certainly resist, a return to the good,
> old days when the phone company was the only show in town.  (Remember
> when they OWNED the wire and jacks in your home, as well as everything
> that was plugged into the system?)

Well, if they start making those jacks again (as you advocate), then
at the least we will get some kind of line about how the phone service
in your home cannot be guaranteed if you use Brand X jacks. Be sure to
buy genuine Pac*Bell jacks. Problem with your phone? No wonder; it
isn't Genuine Pac*Bell.

> The BOCs have concentrated their efforts since deregulation on those
> areas where they were legally allowed (with the odd exception
> [blush]), and the time has come to see what they can do in their other
> areas of expertise.

Balderdash! They have been actively fighting for a return to those
thrilling days of yesteryear. Much of YOUR money has been spent
lobbying and promoting to get into equipment, information providing,
voicemail, teleconferencing, video production, cable TV, cellular, and
just about every other lucrative communications-related enterprize. I
realize you work for a telco, but please do not check your brain at
the door when you go to work.


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


[Moderator's Note: There are many, many replies on this topic waiting
in the queue, but regretfully most of them say nothing new, and with
space at a premium, I have to pass on using them.  Thanks to all who
responded.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #447
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12892;
          12 Jun 91 2:41 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30078;
          12 Jun 91 1:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22365;
          12 Jun 91 0:04 CDT
Date:     Tue, 11 Jun 91 23:34:48 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #448
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 11 Jun 91 23:34:38 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 448

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Len Rose Sent to Prison [Bill Berbenich]
    Legalities of European Phone Interfacing [Dave Mc Mahan]
    Change in Dialing in NPA 206 [David Barts]
    Question About Crackling on Phone Circuits [Jeff Millar]
    German Telephone Unification [Linc Madison]
    213 / 310 Split [David Gast]
    ISDN Forum Announcement: You Are Invited! [Tom Kutz]
    One-Stop Bell Shop [Jim Gottlieb]
    Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO [Rick Farris]
    SaudiNet Update: Mail to the Gulf *Still* Wanted [Ken McVay]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Len Rose Sent To Prison
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 19:35:39 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I found the following on the Associated Press financial wire.  ALL
INACCURACIES ARE AP's.
                        --------

APf  06/11 1536  Hacker Sentenced

   BALTIMORE (AP) -- A computer hacker has been sentenced to a year
and a day in prison for stealing information from American Telephone &
Telegraph and its subsidiary Bell Laboratories.

   Leonard Rose Jr., 32, an unemployed computer consultant, pleaded
guilty in March to one count of sending AT&T source codes via computer
to a hacker in Illinois, and a similar wire fraud charge involving a
Chicago hacker.

   Rose was once a member of a nationwide hackers' group called the
Legion of Doom.

   He originally was indicted on charges of computer fraud and
interstate transportation of stolen property, but those charges were
dropped under a plea agreement.

   U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz on Monday ordered Rose to
sell his computer equipment, which was seized last year in a raid on
his home in Middletown, and to tell potential employers of his
conviction. He is to begin serving his sentence July 10.

   The judge did not order restitution to AT&T because Rose has what
one of his attornies called "a negative net worth."


Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab   |  Telephone:   [phone]
Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332    |
uucp: ...!{backbones}!gatech!eedsp!bill |  Group 3 fax: [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]         |           or: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Len Rose's involvement in activities which brought
him to the attention of federal authorities was first reported on
Usenet here in TELECOM Digest over a year ago. Mr. Rose was active for
several years in Usenet and the internet. His site, 'netsys' was known
to many users.  PAT]

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

From: Dave Mc Mahan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Legalities of European Phone Interfacing
Organization:  Dave McMahan @ NetCom Services
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1991 06:31:15 GMT


I have been given the task of figuring out how to connect our latest
product to the European phone system.  The device I'd like to connect
is the receiver end of a simple 10 Baud modem.  The other end is a
transmit-only box that sends 64 bits of data.  The tone protocol is
meant to be quick and dirty, as it needs to be decoded via software
control.  It doesn't have to be fast, just reliable.

I am in the process of getting our European representative to send me
a phone to modify.  My approach is to disconnect the handset, place my
receiving device in parallel electrically with the earphone, and use
it.  Is this legal?  The transmitters can be located at any point in
Europe, but are most likely to be located in England and Germany.
These are the acoustically coupled units and I see no problems with
the local phone police about connection to their networks.  The
receiving end will be in Brussels, Belgium.  I have been told by our
rep that as long as we don't actually connect to the wall directly,
but instead make the connection after the isolation provided by the
base unit of the phone, we will be ok.

What I need to find out is:

1.  What are the legalities of connecting my receive-only unit in
parallel with the earphone?  Is this acceptable as long as I do it
AFTER the base unit isolates me and provides protection?  Are there
other legalities I need to worry about?  If so, who are the governing
bodies that may cause me problems and what countries are they located
in?

2.  I want to make the connection using an isolation transformer to
protect me from any wierd ground loops between the computer doing the
receiving and the telephone system.  What impedance is the earphone
most commonly used in Europe?

3.  When I get the phone sent to me, I need to hook it up and play
with it to make sure it will work.  What kind of DC current does such
a phone need to operate?  Is it similar to a US phone?  I plan to get
a power supply and set up my own little test network external to any
phone company, but would really like to interface the phone to a real
phone system (hiding behind the shield of our local company PBX to
protect myself, of course).  Does this sound feasible?

4.   Any other helpful info you can tell me or point me toward.

I have completed the US version of the receiver.  We got a tape
recorder interface down at Radio Shack that allows us to tap into the
phone line and still be isolated.  It's even FCC certified, which I
thought wasn't possible for something that provides direct electrical
access to the signal (after the isolation transformer) for
who-knows-what kind of application.  It's a great little gizmo, and
well worth the $25.  I wanted to get the equivilent thing for our
European version, but was told that this is not possible.  I can make
an acoustic connection with the receiver, but would like to avoid this
approach if I can help it.  Direct electrical connection is MUCH less
noisy and doesn't provide the distortion introduced by having to go
thru the headphone/microphone of the local end.

Thanks for your help.  Please e-mail me directly by sending stuff to:

[e-mail]


Dave McMahan    [e-mail]  {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!mcmahan

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jun 91 22:53:25 pdt
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Change in Dialing in NPA 206


I just noticed the following on page A21 of the Seattle White Pages,
and thought I'd pass it on to the Digest.  My apologies if this has
been posted already (our mail feed has been spotty recently).

    [begin quote]

    DIALING CHANGES BEGIN JANUARY 12, 1992.

Washington's traditional 1 + seven digit dialing within the 206 area
code will be phased out beginning in late 1991.

Between October 6, 1991, and January 12, 1992, customers will need to
begin dialing 1 + 206 + seven digits for all long distance calls
within the 206 area code.

This change is necessary because of telephone growth in Washington.
The new dialing pattern will allow these [sic] numbers currently
reserved for area codes to be used for local prefixes, thus making
available more combinations for use when assigning telephone numbers.
It will also allow customers to continue to know on which calls a
charge applies.  [Unmeasured service is the norm here - DWB.]

After January 12, 1992, you will get a recording telling you how to
dial if you have not dialed 1 + 206 + seven digits on long distance
calls within the 206 area code.  Simply follow the instructions in
order to get your call connected.  Local calls are not affected by
this change.

    [end quote]

I find it interesting that the feature of allowing customers to know
if a call is long-distance was one of the reasons for going to 1+206
dialing.

I am going to mark these dates down on my calendar and try to be awake
the evenings when this takes place (I want to be the last person in
NPA 206 to make a 1+7D call and the first to make a 1+206+7D call).
Naturally, I'll report the results to the Digest.


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

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

From: Jeff Millar <rocket![e-mail]>
Subject: Question About Crackling on Phone Circuits
Date: 10 Jun 91 17:59:40 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Sanders Inc.


Some of my phones are starting to crackle ... which causes data
connections to generate more and more frequent errors.  First, it was
only one branch within the house ... any phone connected to that one
outlet would crackle, hiss and generally not work acceptably.  Then I
had to check the line coming into the house (by disconnecting the
modular jack in the external telco box) and now all the phones in the
house have the crackle.

I'm an Elec Eng and should know this stuff ... but all my checks of
connections, wiring, show no visible problems.  Hopefully someone with
experience will know what to do.

Thanks in advance.


Jeff Millar    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 02:56:27 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: German Telephone Unification


Well, the June, 1991 Oakland phone book has hit the streets, with a
few notable things in it.  First off, the expanded local calling area
is covered, although they still distinguish between Zone 1 and Zone 2,
even though the rates are identical.  Second, the surcharge on calling
card calls from payphones, which went into effect well before the
April 1 cutoff date on the directory, is not mentioned in any way in
the section about prices for calling card calls.  In fact, in two
different places, there are two different figures given for the
surcharge; both are wrong if you're at a payphone.

But anyhoo, the other thing I noticed is that in the International
calling section, they still list "German Democratic Republic" and
"Germany, Federal Republic of" as separate countries.  (I forgot to
check to see if "Wales" and "Tasmania" are still independent nations.)
First of all, I think that Pacific Bell has had more than enough
notice of the reunification of Germany that they could have made some
mention of Germany and then listed "the area formerly the G.D.R." or
something like that.

Beyond that, though, what are the plans for bringing Germany under a
single country code?  Have the plans been finalized and a date set, or
is it all still up in the air?  It seems clearly unacceptable to have
Berlin a united city in a unified German nation, but with two country
codes.  [apologies if this has been covered recently]


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]  =  ucbvax!tongue1!linc

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 03:28:42 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: 213 / 310 Split


Carl Moore writes that:

> I should also mention there is a West Los Angeles exchange which is
> not to be confused with Los Angeles, as West Los Angeles is being put
> in 310.

West LA is just a GTE invention.  GTE thinks that I live in West Los
Angeles, but I live in LA.  I pay LA taxes on my phone bill.  10%, in
fact, on the entire bill including out of state calls.  (The neighborhood
is called West Los Angeles, but it is as much a part of LA as midtown
is a part of Manhattan.  There must be hundreds of the these areas in
LA).

The dividing line between 213 and 310 on the West side was supposed to
La Cienega Blvd.  If you lived on the East Side of LCB, you would stay
in 213; if you lived on the West Side of LCB, you would switch to 310.
Perhaps they have changed their minds.


David

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

From: Tom Kutz <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Forum Announcement: You Are Invited!
Date: 11 Jun 91 11:41:11 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Comcorps


                           National ISDN  Is Here!

For Info call 1-800-992-ISDN
ISDN FORUM:  (first of its type)
End-User Equipment and Applications
July 9 & 10 Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington D.C.

          ----------

Organized by the Regional Bell Operating Companies:
Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, BellSouth, NYNEX, Pacific Bell,
Southwestern Bell, and US WEST; and Bellcore.

          ----------

Covers :   ISDN deployment plans
           Tariffs
           Definition of "National ISDN-1"
           Description of Network Interface and Terminal Guidelines
           ISDN Applications Programming Interfaces (APIs)
           Powering, wiring, and extensions
           Testing and certification
           Transition issues

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: One-Stop Bell Shop
Date: 11 Jun 91 21:11:59 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In the latest issue of Bell of Pennsylvania's {Centrex Update}, I read:

  "On January 1, 1991, Bell Atlantic announced the integration of
  the sales forces of the Bell Atlantic Telephone Company and
  Bell Atlanticom Systems, Inc., our Customer Premises Equipment
  Company.  By combining these sales forces, business customers
  now have a single source for network services and equipment
  needs..."

And sure enough, this newsletter is hawking the sales of a certain key
telephone system marketed as "a power packed Centrex enhancement."

Umm, can they do this?  Wasn't the MFJ executed to prevent this sort
of thing?  Now maybe I could understand it if this newsletter came
from some unregulated side of Bell Atlantic.  But it doesn't.  This is
direct from Bell of Pennsylvania.

This sure doesn't seem fair.

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

From: Rick Farris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Street Address Wanted For 619/259 CO
Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 91 08:59:24 GMT


I may be moving my office soon, and because I entertain fantasies of
my own leased line connection to the Internet, I'd like to move right
next door to my CO.

Easier said than done.

I live in a small (5k) suburb of San Diego, and I *know* that I have a
CO inside the town limits.  I even know it's a 1AESS. (619/259) For
some reason or other, TPC considers the physical location of its
plants to be some kind of top secret information -- probably so that
saboteurs won't come ashore and blow them up.

I used to think I knew approximately where the CO was, but there's
been a fair amount of building in the last five years, and the other
day when I went to hunt it down (after the business office wouldn't
tell me where it is) I couldn't find it.

I tried following lines, but Del Mar is about half underground and
half above ground, so everytime I thought the wires looked like they
were getting fat, they would dive underground.  Not only that, people
were looking at me funny as I drove my motorcycle down the street
gazing into the sky.  After the third near miss I decided to call it a
day.

So, is there some physical clue (besides fat wires) that I could look
for?  I know to look for short fat brick buildings.  Anything else?
Does someone archive addresses of CO's?


Rick Farris  RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014  voice [phone]
[e-mail]     ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris      serenity bbs 259-7757


[Moderator's Note: And wouldn't it be a pity if after all the time you
spent looking you found there was no space available for rent anywhere
within a close distance, or the rent was too high, etc.  :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken McVay)
Subject: SaudiNet Update: Mail to the Gulf *Still* Wanted!
Organization: 1B Systems Management Limited
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 91 06:02:21 GMT


SaudiNet is alive and well, and soliciting mail to servicemen and
women in the Persian Gulf theatre ...

The following addresses are valid for reaching service members in the
Gulf theatre:

For Army and Air Force people:

Any Service Member
Operation Desert Storm
APO New York 09848-0006

For Marines and Navy people:

Any Service Member
Operation Desert Storm
APO New York 09866-0006

My son, who just returned from the Gulf, where he served with the
Marine 2nd. LAI Btn., told me that mail addressed to "Any Marine" was
avidly devoured, and passed from hand to hand ... it REALLY made a
difference in morale then, and it really makes a difference NOW.

PLEASE take a few moments out of your busy day and send a note to a
serviceman or woman in the Gulf - the war's over, but our sons and
daughters are still there, still lonely, and still delighted to hear
from folks back home....

To send mail to the above addresses, address your UUCP mail to:

[e-mail]

(Do NOT use the address on the header of this message - it will delay
delivery.)

Then, at the top left corner of the message TEXT, insert the address
in the format shown above.

"Any Soldier", "Any Marine," etc. will also work....

I'd love to see a few hundred messages a day passing through our Saudi
gateway -- help us make it happen!


         1B Systems Management Limited - FrontDoor/TosScan VAR
          [phone] | Nanaimo, British Columbia, CANADA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #448
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16567;
          12 Jun 91 3:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24146;
          12 Jun 91 2:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30078;
          12 Jun 91 1:09 CDT
Date:     Wed, 12 Jun 91 0:37:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #449
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 12 Jun 91 00:37:32 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 449

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Can You Identify These Mystery Boxes? [Jason Galanter]
    What Was the Real Reason for Change in AT&T Cards? [Ken Abrams]
    Useless Phone Books [Jim Rees]
    Military Telecom Museum Well Worth a Visit [Nigel Allen]
    NPA 201 Turned Off For 908 [Carl Moore]
    Help!!  E1 Test Equipment Needed! [Tim Monk]
    More Information on Dialing Changes in 206 [David Barts]
    Email FTP Access to Archives [Scott Barman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jason Galanter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can You Identify These Mystery Boxes?
Date: 11 Jun 91 03:30:42 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh -- Panther Amateur Radio Club


I have a couple of boxes that I have absolutely no clue on their use.
I am sure someone out there knows what they do and I would appreciate
any help that might be availiable, I assume they are long distance
carrier access boxes pre-dial-1 service.

They are TELTRONICS (division of brand-rex) AD350-DW issue 5 boxes and
that is all the info I have ... anyone have any clues?

Second, is there a good place to get second hand Merlin equipment?

Thanks in advance!


Jason Galanter / N3HNR      | [e-mail]
157 Oakview Ave.            | [e-mail]
Edgewood, PA 15218-1507     | [e-mail]
[phone]               | * How's that for an information-only .sig?


[Moderator's Note: Just fine, thank you. I wish all .signatures
appended to articles here were as nicely done as yours.   PAT]

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

Subject: What Was the Real Reason For Change in AT&T Cards?
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 13:44:32 CDT
From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>


I think that this latest move on the part of AT&T will lose them an
important competetive advangage, that is having the same card number
for both local and LD use.  In my case, it is certainly making me think
long and hard about contacting one of the other companies, not only for
credit card service but for 1+ service at home too.  Another marketing
coup in the mill.  Wonder if some other carrier is paying AT&T employees
to do these dumb things ... nah, probably would be a waste of money.

Additionally I am upset by the misrepresentation of the reason for the
changes in the AT&T card numbers.  I am no lawyer and I may not know
the whole story but I think that the statement something to the affect
that the change is being made because of "government rules" is so
misleading that it borders on an outright lie.  I think the "government
rule" that they are referring to is one that simply states "the RBOC
must make available to the OCCs the database used for credit card
verification and (here comes the important part) the OCC must ***PAY***
the RBOC for using that database."

I believe that the main reason for the change is a cost cutting move
on the part of AT&T.  Simple as that; they don't want to pay the RBOC
to share numbers anymore.  Anybody at AT&T care to refute or clarify
this "government rule" for me.  I hope they save big bucks because
they will probably lose me as a customer.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Useless Phone Books
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 20:14:20 GMT


Around here, everyone gets two phone books, one from the phone company
and one from some sleazy fly-by-night outfit.  Everyone I know
immediately burns the sleazy book.

But the regular book isn't that great either.  It seems to have three
different sections, each one with pages sequentially numbered from
one.  This makes it pretty hard to find anything.  Let's see, is that
page 14 in the Info Pages or page 14 in the Customer Guide Pages?

In addition, at one time the book told you when was the cheap time to
make a long distance call, and how to make an international call.  It
doesn't any more.  Yes, I know why it doesn't, but it's still
annoying.  Is it 011 or 01 for operator assisted?  I can't ever
remember and the book is no help.  Are there actually any long-distance
carriers that don't use the same access codes as AT&T?  If so, why?

Well, that's my petty complaining for today.

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Military Telecom Museum Well Worth a Visit
Date: 10 Jun 91  19:27:38


If you have an interest in the history of military telecommunications,
you qmay want to visit the Canadian Forces Communications and
Electronics Museum (formerly the Royal Canadian Signals Museum) at the
Vimy Barracks in Kingston, Ontario.

Summer hours are 10 am - 4 pm daily; during the rest of the year the
hours are 8 am to 4 pm Monday to Friday.  The phone number is
613-541-5395, and the mailing address is:

  Canadian Forces Communicatons and Electronics Museum
  Vimy Barracks
  CFB Kingston
  Kingston, Ontario
  Canada  K7K 5L0

The following information is taken from a museum brochure. I haven't
visited the museum yet, and I have no affiliation with the Canadian
military.

The Royal Canadian Signals Museum was founded in December, 1961 as an
archive for history of signalling. In November, 1976 the name was
changed to The Canadian Forces Communications and Electronics Museum.
Today the Museum has a mandate to display the history of the Canadian
Forces Communications and Electronics Branch and all aspects of military
communications.

Displays range from satellites and modern technology to primitive
early radios and momentos recording the many trials and accomplishments
of those who wear the "Jimmy" (the Corps of Signals badge, which
depicts the Greek god Mercury).

This museum is maintained by military personnel of the Canadian Forces
School of Communications and Electronics and by many friends of the
Museum, both civilian and miliary. The displays will be of interest to
all who visit Kingston and would like to take a pleasant strol through
history. Perchance a photo will show the face of a friend or relative.

While in Kingston be sure to visit the Museum and any of the fifteen
museums and galleries open to the public.  Brochures and additional
information are available on request.

(description of rooms within the museum)

Air Force Room. Records the contribution of the Royal Canadian Air
Force.  Items from Clinton, radar statons and airfields.

Burtt Room. Line displays in Line Training Building B-15.

World War I Room.  Items depicting the efforts of the Signalmen of
1914-18.  Items include a switchboard dugout and the original model
for the Vimy Ridge Memorial.

The Corps Room. Momentos of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals,
including Ermintrude, the Corps' Mascot of the 19330's.

Early Classroom.  Visit an early classroom which depicts lige in
1920's Camp Borden, the original home of the Signal Corps.

Between the Wars.  See the early efforts in mobile radio detachments
and the "Alberta" radio station.

World War II Room.  Pictures and items tell the story of the war.  See
the suitcase radio and intercept equipment used by the "Intrepid" men,
1945 German surrender documents and equipment used right up to 1970.

Museum Kit Shop.  Also the Curator's office. Many Branch and gift
items available.

Telecommunications.  Items range from one of the best telephone
colections in the world to cable layers and radioteletype.

Main Entrance.  Display cases show equipment used and special items of
Major Bruce Carruthers, a founder of the Canadian Signal Corps.

Uniform Room.  Many orders of dress. Pictures of early Signal Corps
basic training troops and Apprentice soldiers.

Satellites.  The Canadian involvement.

Northwest Territories and Yukon Room.  Canada's original communications
in the north provided by the military. An account of the "Mad Trapper
of Rat River" by one who was present and many station logs.

Supplementary Radio System. The military communications research
effort since the 1930's.

German Room. Items captured in two wars. See the flags that flew on
England's doorstep for four years.

UN and NATO. Canada's efforts to promote world peace and to fight
aggression.  Items from the Congo, Egypt, Korea, Cyprus, Vietnam and
Iran.

US Signal Corps.  Items that were presented by our colleagues to the
south.

Technology Hall.  Demonstrating milestones in military communication
this display area is always in a state of change.

The Book of Remembrance. Located at the Main Entrance to the Building.

Also radar antennas, in McNaughton Barracks these Pinetree - Cadin
Line items are adjacent to the proposed new site for the Museum.

Directions: Follow Highway 2 east for one mile from Kingston to the
Vimy Gate.  Turn right at the gate and follow the signs to the rear of
the Forde Building.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 14:13:46 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: NPA 201 Turned Off For 908


Times are Eastern Daylight:

I was able to test the full cutover of 908 by calling the Great
Adventure recording at 928-1821.  It still worked with area code 201
at around 4 AM last Saturday.  But 201 had been turned off when I
tried it again at around midnight between Monday and Tuesday.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 14:47:46 CDT
From: Tim Monk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help!!  E1 Test Equipment Needed!


I am in desperate need of a CEPT (E1) 'drop and insert pod'.  This
'pod' would allow me to drop an E1 channel to a serial and insert
serial data into an E1 channel.  I've been told by several people that
such a device exists but nobody has been able to direct me to the
company that makes them.  If you have any information, please e-mail
me ASAP!!!

Thanks!


Tim Monk   INTERACTIVE Systems Corporation   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 9 Jun 91 23:13:40 pdt
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: More Information on Dialing Changes in 206


Just after I submitted my excerpt from the White Pages, I decided to
try placing a 1+206 LD call to the recording at the Kent Cinemas:
859-0000 (note the last four digits -- I wonder how much arguing the
theatre had to do to get *that* number).  It worked!

The last time I tried placing an LD call this way (several months ago;
I don't exactly remember when), I got a recording saying I had
misdialed.  Both calls were placed from my home phone (in NE Seattle
and served by the EMerson CO).


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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 12:35:19 EDT
From: Scott Barman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Email FTP Access to Archives


Patrick,

We discussed once before trying to get those of us with uucp-only
access to be able to get to the Telecom Archives.  Well, if someone
hasn't informed you yet, I found something in one of the comp.unix.*
newsgroups.

I got the following by sending a message with only "help" in the body
to [e-mail]:

 >Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 14:36:54 -0700
 >From: crdgw1!Decwrl.dec.com!nobody (ftpmail daemon on uucp-gw-1.pa.dec.com)
 >To: [e-mail]
 >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.
 >
 >  -- Ftpmail Submission Transcript --
 ><<< help
 >>>> Help is on the way.
 >  -- End Of Ftpmail Transcript --

I have not tried it yet (other than to get this help listing), but it
looks promising!  I hope this helps the telecom readers ... I'm looking
forward to trying it myself.


scott barman      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: And the other method available, recently started
just for telecom readers is discussed in this earlier message:


 Subject: New Telecom Archives Server on Line; Current Index of Files
 Date: Wed, 29 May 1991 00:00:00 GMT

I am pleased to announce a new mail service is available for use with
the Telecom Archives. It is just in the beginning stages, and will
have more and more of our files on line as time goes on. My
understanding is this service is *only* for the Telecom Archives at
this time.

Furthermore, this service is intended for NON-INTERNET sites who would
otherwise not have access via ftp. If you can use ftp lcs.mit.edu,
then you are strongly encouraged to continue doing so. The program
described below was written by Doug Davis so that our many readers on
the commercial mail services, Fido, and similar sites (Portal and
Chinet for example) can also participate.

FIRST, here is a help file, prepared by Doug Davis:

   From: "Doug Davis at letni.lonestar.org" <[e-mail]>
   Subject: Help File
   Date: 27-May-91 23:14:40 CST (Mon)


This mail server is pretty simple minded, commands are sent as a
single line in the body of the message.  The ``Subject:'' (if any)
will be returned as the subject line from the mail off of this site.
This way you can keep track of your own requests.

The following commands are available. Pretend the parser is stupid and
spell and space them exactly as they are listed here.  Anything else
in in the body of the message will be quietly ignored.

Path:<space>{rfc-976/internet/@) return address for yourself}

   The parameter of this command should be internet style
   notation for your username.  If your machine is not locateable
   on the internet via an MX record or gethostbyname() don't bother
   trying this, since the returning mail will undoubtably be lost.

Command:<space>[sub-command]<space>{parameters/filenames}

   Currently the only supported subcommand right now is "send" with the
   parameters being the filenames separated via spaces to be sent via
   return mail to you.

For example, to get the index file, send the server a message with the
line below in the body of the message.

Command: send index

This will cause the index of available files to be sent back to you.
Also, this is a system V site (hey it was cheap) so you will have to
request the file via it's short time.  Some later version of the
server software will work with the longer names. Oh, yeah, in the
above, <space> means the space-bar, i.e. a character with the value of
0x20 hex. Not the word <space> itself.

Mailing addresses:

  [e-mail]:      The mail server itself

  [e-mail]:       Returning mail to
                                                   you will come from this
                                                   address.  Mail sent
                                                   TO this address will be
                                                   silently ignored.

  [e-mail]:                         My address.


Other notes, There is a 500k (per-day) limit on messages leaving the
server. If the backlog has exceeded this you will be sent a short note
saying your request is acknowledged and how many requests are in the
queue before yours.

Also presently the back issues of the Digest are being reformatted and
are not presently available, my hope is to finish them by the first
part of June.


doug
(Mon May 27 1991)

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

I assume by now (6-12-91) Doug has the index a little more complete in
case you have not checked it out recently.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #449
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19822;
          12 Jun 91 5:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07078;
          12 Jun 91 3:24 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24146;
          12 Jun 91 2:16 CDT
Date:     Wed, 12 Jun 91 1:16:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #450
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 12 Jun 91 01:16:03 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 450

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: St. Louis Phone Outage, Redundancy, and Backups [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: St. Louis Phone Outage [Kirk Moir]
    Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone [John Higdon]
    Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor [John Higdon]
    Re: RBOC's Can Now Manufacture Equipment [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: Emergency Highway Phones [Kenton A. Hoover]
    Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire [Paul Wexelblat]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Raymond C. Jender]
    Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? [Ralf Bayer]
    Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus [John R. Covert]
    Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel [Bob Clements]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: St. Louis Phone Outage, Redundancy, and Backups
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 11:13:12 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I just reread my recent posting to TELECOM Digest and realized that I
had misstated my thoughts by 180 degrees.

The first sentence in the third paragraph should read: "I believe that
since they are inevitable, occasional telephone network failures are
not only ACCEPTABLE [was unacceptable :-)] but unavoidable [over a
period of time]."

Sorry for the error.  I'd guess many of you realized something was
wrong.  It was just tough to figure just what in the world it was that
I was trying to say.  It was tough for me!


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

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

From: Kirk Moir <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: St. Louis Phone Outage
Reply-To: Kirk Moir <[e-mail]>
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd.
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 21:52:08 GMT


My complements to Brad on his efforts.  This is an excellent account.
Is it possible to supply information re the following questions:

a) Who manufactured the "high capacity digital cross-connection
system"?  I am under the assumption that some kind of DCC switch died.
Please correct me if required.

b) What were the data rates of the affected 2800 services?  2.4Kbps,
DS3, etc.?

c) What kind of network management was in place to deal with this kind
of outage?

d) Did spare capacity exist?  Could the trouble theoretically have
been routed around or were most problems associated with non-redundant
subcriber lines?

Thanks in advance.


Kirk Moir                      Voice:    [phone]
MPR Teltech Ltd.               FAX:      [phone]
8999 Nelson Way                Internet: [e-mail]
Burnaby, B.C. CANADA  V5A 4B5            (134.87.131.13)

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

Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 20:53 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Rotary Dial Phones Forgotten But Not Gone


Julian Macassey <[e-mail]> writes:

> The voltage applied to the Tip and Ring to activate the light is
> usually 90V at 100Hz. This frequency is ignored by the frequency
> sensitive ringer that responds to 40 - 150V at 20 Hz. The neon is not
> frequency sensitive, so it flashes for message waiting or ring
> current.

ITT uses a similar, but much simpler method of lighting the message
waiting lamp. The System 3100 just sends 60 ipm pulses of 100VDC over
the line. The direct current is completely ignored by the ringer, but
lights the neon lamp. Unlike the 100Hz, there is no flow through any
circuitry except for the neon lamp. In addition to being much more
difficult to generate (than DC), some of the 100Hz will inevitably
leak through the L/C bell network creating a bit of inefficiency. The
DC supply is very simple and cheap.


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

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 00:21 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Busying Out a Phone With a Resistor


I could not RESIST adding my two cents -- plain to all of this
extensive discussion about what value resistor to busy out a phone
line with.  For a quarter century, when it has been necessary to busy
out a phone line I have simply shorted it. In the case of ground
start, I have shorted it and grounded it as well. I had one trunk left
this way for about a year. Came back, pulled the short and the line
came right back to life.  No CO switch, modern or ancient, gives a
hoot or a holler about what kind of load is on a line. It is all
current limited in the subscriber line equipment.

The only complaint you will ever get from telco is from the act itself
of busying out the line. This bugs some telcos more than others.

But from all this discussion, a new product idea is emerging. How
about "The Busystat". It could have an RJ11C plug on it. And it would
be guaranteed to avoid drawing excessive current on the line, avoiding
those expensive service calls.

Phooey!


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

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

From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RBOC's Can Now Manufacture Equipment
Date: 11 Jun 91 13:56:35 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

> To compare cable TV rates and illustrate the cost situation, Rogers
> Cable in Toronto charged CAD$18.56 per month, including tax (or about
> USD$16.90, depending on exchange rates). Com-Cast out of West Palm
> Beach, FL charges well into the USD$20's/month and has plenty of local
> advertising superimposed on its offerings (like CNN). Meanwhile, there
> are tales of vastly reduced rates in those U.S. jurisdictions that
> have allowed a competing cable company to start up business.

We have competing cable companies here (Comcast and Cable Alabama). I
am on Comcast (descision of the apt complex, not me) which runs
$11.50/month for 34 channels including; MTV, VH-1, CNN, Headline News,
TNN, TNT, and many others. HBO, Cinemax, Showtime and Disney are each
$7/month.  A converter (required for HBO, Cinemax, or Disney) runs
$1.00/month.

Cable Alabama runs $12.95/mont for 53 channels. HBO, Shotime, Cinemax,
TMC, and Disney are $7.68/month each. A converter box (required for
pay channels) is $4.00/month.

Both companies are reported to be running at a large deficit, and have
been requesting permission to merge for several years. (Brendon?)
Cable has offered to buy them several times. The city council refuses
to let either event happen.


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

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

From: "Kenton A. Hoover" <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Emergency Highway Phones
Date: 11 Jun 91 13:06:17 GMT


In Northern California, some of the new phones are outside the main
cell areas.  Specifically, there are some on Highway One north of
Santa Cruz and some on I-580 in the hills between Oakland and
Pleasanton.  On those phones, they change the usual cell phone
antennas for yagis.  Most of the yagis on the Santa Cruz units point
dead south towards Monterey.

As to security, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  The usual
roadside robbery scam is to put a woman in apparent distress on a
deserted road, to encourage concerned motorists to stop.  When someone
stops and approachs the car, the woman's compatriots appear and
relieve the good samaritian of his or her valuables.  This scam
doesn't appear too often, since one report is usually enough to get
the local highway patrol or state police to pay more attention.


Kenton A. Hoover             Chief Engineer |         [e-mail]
Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link [phone] | [e-mail]

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

From: Paul Wexelblat <mailrus!ulowell![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking for Inexpensive Outside Wire
Reply-To: mailrus!ulowell![e-mail]
Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1991 18:01:48 GMT


Additional comment about burying wire (any kind):

Go to your local dump (landfill), if you have one, and collect all the
old discarded garden hose (leaky is ok), and run any underground
wiring through that.

[national electrical code insists on physical protection near ground
level, but allows direct burial... (I know you were talking about
Phone, but the garden hose idea applies to any...]

Anyhow, the hose provides very good protection from shovels provides a
conduit for pulling/replacing wire ( if you put in an extra pull wire,
you can later pull something else through. (use separate hoses for AC)
Hose is easier to pull up later if necessary.  It is cheap, and gets
some real use out of trash!!


Wex

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 13:54:24 EDT
From: Raymond C Jender <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gordon D
Woods) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Bill
> Huttig) writes:

>> I was surprised that the number 253 was used as Carrier ID and not 288
>> like the PIC. It would have made more sense to use the PIC's.

> What is a PIC? I've seen it several times and no one has defined it.

> [Moderator's Note: His reference was to the five-digit carrier codes
> which can be used at the start of a long distance dialing sequence
> to  route the call via a particular carrier; i.e. 10222 = MCI; 10777
> = Sprint;  10288 = AT&T. These are a few, there are many more.  PAT]

Pat,

Just to clarify, the PIC is the Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier.
It is the carrier of choice that is assigned to a subscribers line for
all non-10XXX dialed interlata calls. It is the XXX portion of 10XXX.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 10:29:16 BST
From: Ralf Bayer <motcid!glas![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Easy Fax to ASCII?


In telecom 11/445 William Vajk writes:

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

>> We are looking for a solution which can be implemented without any
>> costly program development etc. The best solution would be if there
>> already exists some product which would make the fax machine appear
>> to the program like a local printer, so that no change to the existing
>> software is necessary.

> [stuff about the complicated fax protocol deleted]

> There was another fax related message here the other day, and I was in
> process of responding when the computer went bye-bye. It was a request
> for an easy conversion to ascii from fax. Because of the graphic
> nature of fax, and the fact that there is no assurance of the style
> and pitch of type received, one would actually have to be at the edge
> of some serious AI to achieve the goal requested. Anyone who has used
> an optical scanner and worked to convert a long document to ascii from
> typed sheets can attest to the difficulties of accurate conversion
> given only one character set to decipher.

Couldn't agree more. Given the looks of many faxes, humans have
sometimes a hard time to figure it out, let alone computers.

> On the other hand, to convert from ascii to fax is relatively easy,
> but certainly not easy enough to make a fax machine into a computer
> peripheral.

Well, that's not quite true. There are several vendors of fax cards
with associated software. These things transfer ASCII directly into
fax format, and the quality of the resulting fax is much better than
one printed out and scanned in. These fax cards plug into a standard
PC. They are also able to receive faxes, but they only store the
FAX/TIFF/whatever graphics format on disk, no conversion to ASCII
provided.

Setting the thing up to accept input from a serial or parallel PC port
and sending it out over the fax line shouldn't be that difficult. It
might be necessary to dedicate the PC to the job, though (but then
again, clones are dirt cheap today, aren't they?).


Ralf Bayer    Motorola European Cellular  Infrastructure Division
 .uunet!motcid!glas!bayerr      Standard Disclaimers Apply.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 14:21:50 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  11-Jun-1991 1710" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modification of Ringback Tone by Subscriber Apparatus


> I think Tom Gray was right when he said if a PBX gives you a double
> ring you're paying for the call.

He's wrong, at least in the case of 416 392-7715 and most other cases.

> I've asked three telecom CO people this question and all agreed -- the
> last CO through which the call passed passes the ringing tone.  That
> is true even on DID connections.  If you get a double ring from a PBX
> it is because the PBX returned answer supervision and is supplying its
> own ring.

Kath, you're simply wrong.  I happen to be an expert on DID trunks and
PBXs.  I either know more than the CO people you talked to, or you did
not ask the right questions or understand their answers.

DID trunks work as follows:

CO seizes the trunk and sends digits to PBX.

CO cuts voice path through to PBX.

What the caller hears from now on, ring, busy, or recording, comes
directly from the PBX.

At some point, the PBX may or may not return answer supervision.
Until the PBX does so, the call is free, regardless of what sounds
come out of the PBX.  For this reason, AT&T, on long distance
circuits, does not cut a FORWARD voice path through until answer
supervision is returned.

It's pretty simple.  If the CO were providing ring, busy, recordings,
etc., you would have to have a protocol from the PBX to the C.O. that
told the C.O. whether to send a ring or a busy signal.  And there
would be no way that you could get no charge recordings provided by
the PBX that tell you that an extension isn't valid and give you the
main number.

There is no such protocol in use on DID trunks.  The ONLY information
a DID trunk can send to the C.O. is answer supervision.  There is no
way for a DID trunk to tell the C.O. to provide ringing tone or busy
or other responses once the digits have been sent to the PBX.

As I said in an earlier reply, I called 416 392-7715 and received a
double ring.  I did this from a line which provides a positive
indication of answer supervision.  There was a double ring, and there
was no answer supervision.  If you choose not to believe the experts,
there's not much more I can say.


john

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

Subject: Re: Transporting a Bitstream on a Video Channel
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 09:11:01 -0400
From: [e-mail]


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

> Does anyone know about  existing hardware  that puts  a bitstream on a
> video channel and let you extract the same  bitstream out of the video
> video  signal,  after it  has  been   transmitted on   standard  video
> transport media such as satellite links, video cassettes  and cable TV
> networks.

> But, the Big Question is:  Does this hardware exist?

Devices exist to put compact-disc audio bit streams on videotape as
"PCM" signals in NTSC format.  Examples are the Sony PCM-501 and
PCM-601.  I have used them to record CD audio for storage and also to
distribute it around the house on coax as a channel 3 video RF signal.
This format has been used on the air in Boston to transmit audio from
WGBH radio over WGBX TV (channel 44).  How you get your data into the
format of a CD player's digital output is a good question, though.

Also, there are devices for recording on a VCR from a PC for backup.
I assume (but haven't tried it) that the video signal that goes to the
VCR could be shipped around by the video transport media you mention.
I haven't actually used one of these things so I can't give you any
better specifics.

Check rec.audio for the former and the ibm-pc hardware group for the
latter.


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: As mentioned a couple issues ago, a large number of
REply messages on Hollings and other worn-out threads had to be dumped
out unused in order to stay current with new items. If your REply
message on an existing topic did not appear in this issue, you can
pretty well assume it won't appear. This would apply to ACKS sent from
here  prior to 1 AM, 6-12-91.  Thanks.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #450
******************************