Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss501-550

Text File | 1991-07-19 | 872KB | 21,135 lines

Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10615;
          30 Jun 91 15:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30236;
          30 Jun 91 13:56 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13363;
          30 Jun 91 12:49 CDT
Date:     Sun, 30 Jun 91 11:53:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #501
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 30 Jun 91 11:53:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 501

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Poor Abused Hackers [[e-mail]]
    Looking up an 800 Prefix [Carl Moore]
    Which Caller-ID Box Should I Buy? [Bill Huttig]
    California Videotex [Communications Week via Ken Jongsma]
    Bell Labs: Shakeout Follows Breakup [[e-mail]]
    Exchange Upgrades in Australia [David E. A. Wilson]
    CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [Bob Izenberg]
    WAN Simulation Tools [David E. Martin]
    US Sprint's Old 950-1033 Number [Bill Huttig]
    Recommendations Wanted For Small Voicemail System (6 Users) [Brent Chapman]
    Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? [Eric G. Elvira]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 22:12:20 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Poor Abused Phreakers


I see that you get really pissed off about phreaks poking around where
they shouldn't, but what about coorporations poking around where they
shouldn't, in your presonal finances? They SELL the information they
have about you to others without their consent. Hell, they even try to
sell your own information to you! Is this wrong? If you think it is
you had better get a new social security number, pal. Maybe they could
set an example by asking our permition to disclose credit information
to others. When they do that, I'll ask them if they mind if I
write/distribute a file about how their ATM machines work.

As a member of the scientific community I feel that the lunatic fringe
is where the revolutionary new discoveries/inventions/ inovations are
created, NOT in the main stream university setting.  Main stream
science is great for backing up current knowledge and finding details
of current theories. Unless someone has called you a fool or a
criminal when you propose a new idea, you have not contributed
anything to the direction of science.


[Moderator's Note: While it is true that science is best served by
people who are not all bound up in the frequently constricting
environment of a bureaucracy -- thus the 'outsiders' who refuse to
conform to the rules often times are the real heros -- I would not
agree with you that there is no need for Harvard, the University of
Chicago, and countless other institutions of that sort since the
'lunatics' can discover/facilitate whatever needs to be done.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 9:38:34 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking up an 800 Prefix


In Digest 485 there was an inquiry about the 800-698 prefix.  I see two
files in the telecom archives referring to NPA 800:

npa.800-carriers.assigned
npa.800.revised

And the only other available comment at this time is that NPA 800's
prefixes USED to indicate what area code they were in and where they
were being called from (from within the state or from outside the
state), but that is now only partially true if at all.  It used to be
that prefixes of form NN2 were used to indicate in-state 800.


[Moderator's Note: The Telecom-Archives can be accessed by anonymous
ftp at lcs.mit.edu  (when on line, cd telecom-archives).    PAT]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Which Caller-ID Box Should I Buy?
Date: 27 Jun 91 22:02:48 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I am looking to purchase a Caller ID box and was wondering if anyone
has had experience with the following boxes:

1) BellSouth 30 or 70 number units (63.45, 68.45 includes shipping).

2) MHE ClassMate $49.95  + SHIP .
   This one connects to a computer for display. Does it remember numbers
   when the computer is off?

3) SLIMELINE/SLIMLIGHT 10/40/64 - 59.95, 69.95, 89.95 made by CIDCO; the
   same folks who make AT&T's.

4) AT&T 14 or 70 number memory.. 54.95 and 74.95

The Bell Atlantic rep said the SLIMELINE/SLIMELIGHT models where the
best from their catalog ... he has tested them all. I am leaning
toward the SLIMELIGHT 64 at 89.95 + shipping .. has anyone seen a
better price?


Bill

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

From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>
Subject: California Videotex
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 19:27:01 EDT


 From the June 24th issue of {Communications Week}:

Pacific Bell and 101 OnLine, a new videotex provider, said last week
that they will work together to bring videotex services to California.
PacBell, San Francisco, will provide third-party billing so that 101
OnLine charges appear on monthly PacBell bills. 101 OnLine offers
videotex services similar to those of France Telecom's Minitel system.
101 OnLine will charge users $9.95 a month for unlimited use of the
graphics and text services. The 101 OnLine system uses the same
terminals used for Minitel. Pac Bell customers using the service will
find a separate page in their monthly bills with the 101 OnLine
charges.

                          ------

My first reaction to this was, "Oh no, another Knight-Ridder debacle."
On one hand, I'd like to encourage this kind of thing. Let the RBOCs
provide billing, but stay out of content. For some reason though, the
people that keep trying these things come up with the most unlikely
concepts. Making people by a totally incompatable Minitel terminal and
then expecting them to pay $9.95 a month for Prodidy style graphics
doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Most likely scenario: 101 OnLine
lasts 12 months, and Pac Bell gets another example to show why it
should be given content privileges. Sigh.


Ken Jongsma                            [e-mail]
Smiths Industries                 [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan        [e-mail]

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

From: 99700000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Labs: Shakeout Follows Breakup
Date: 27 Jun 91 00:36:23 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Open Access Computing


The 14 June 1991 issue of {Science Magazine} has an article under the
above title that will be of interest to some readers.  Quick synopsys:
prior to divestiture Bell Labs was really a national resource, paid
for by a "tax" on all telephone users.  After divestiture AT&T was a
much smaller company, operating in a highly competitive business
environment, so it's no surprise that Bell Labs could not be supported
in the style to which it had been accustomed.  Now there has been a
reorganization to align the Labs more closely with the business needs
of the company.  One of the researchers (who has left) argues that
what has been lost will not be replaced by innovations from startup
companies, because basic research requires a scientific culture and
long-term funding stability.  "...the tragedy of this whole story is
that American society hasn't realized what it's lost."


[e-mail]     [e-mail]

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Exchange Upgrades in Australia
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 04:26:48 GMT


This is how Telecom Australia announces exchange upgrades - no extra
charges for having tone dialling (unlike the USA):

Customer Information Service

    TELEPHONE SERVICES COMMENCING WITH 83 OR 84

    All telphone services at Corrimal exchange starting with 83 or
84 are now receiving a different dial tone. The exchange has been
modernised to provide tone dialling. There will be no changes to
telephone numbers.

    If you have a push-button phone with a switch marked Tone/Dec.
on the bottom, move the switch to the Tone position to take advantage
of the speed and convenience of tone dialling.

    A push-button phone using the new tone dialling will also
enable you to access services such as home banking, voicemail and
pagers.


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

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

Subject: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions
From: Bob Izenberg <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 02:29:09 CDT


    On June 19th, I mailed a FEEDBACK message to CompuServe's
customer service account.  I had some questions suggested by a FidoNet
sysop's concern over a message in German that passed through his
system.  He couldn't translate it, and so wondered about his
responsibility (liability might be a better word) in having it on his
computer and in passing it on to others.  It was suggested that he
post the German text to a CompuServe message and someone would then
translate it for him.  This led me to ask CompuServe for an official
statement about some of their policies, and their views on the legal
status of a public distributed network.  I informed them that I would
post their reply to Usenet.  Rather than mix my questions and their
answers (and risk losing the flow of their reply,) I'll put the
questions first and the reply after.

    (1) If a CompuServe customer dials their local access number,
and transmits a message or file, did they send it across state lines?
They dialed a local node, which then packeted up the message and sent
it to CompuServe in Ohio.  So who sent it across the country, the
customer or CompuServe itself?

    (2) Publishers of allegedly abscene materials have been tried,
not in the state in which they publish, but in states where the
publications have caused complaints to be filed.  If CompuServe
displayed, with the proper permissions, a controversial photo exhibit
(Robert Mapplethorpe was the example that I used) and complaints were
filed, could every city where CompuServe has a local node be the site
of a complaint, or would they all have to be filed in Ohio?

    (3) CompuServe isn't a common carrier.  The information sent
from the local nodes are probably sent, unmonitored and regardless of
content, to Ohio.  Is the CIS node analagous to a radio repeater,
whose owner (under FCC regs) is held accountable for all message
traffic, regardless of where and with whom it originated?  Or are the
local nodes legally irrelevant, as the customer intends for the
message to be transmitted to CompuServe's Ohio facilities?

    Here is the message that CompuServe sent back.

  To: Bob E Izenberg
  Fr: Karl Turzi
      Customer Service Representative

Dear Mr. Izenberg:

I will address a few of your specific questions first, which may help
clarify what you're asking.

First, as far as our own "awareness" of what is sent thru Mail for
example, our Mail system is "secure" in the sense that items sent via
Mail are not examined by CompuServe.  They, therefore, are not subject
to our examination, and therefore not subject to scrutiny as to
whether or not we or any one else finds their content obscene.

Forum messages, however, are indeed public.  If a message is posted
that "may be interpreted as obscene", which in itself is a vague area
(you used the Mapplethorpe exhibit as an example of said ambiguity),
the first thing we will do is contact the person who posted it to
determine their intentions.  The person who posted it would then share
in the decision to remove it.  We would not remove it as a matter of
procedure or policy.

To answer your next specific question, when you connect with us via
modem, thru one of our local nodes, you are connecting with our
computers in Columbus, regardless of your calling location.  As for
whether a data network is considered to be only the mainframes or both
the mainframes and the phone network that inter-connects them, you
would need to consult an attorney who specializes in such things to
learn the ramifications of interstate/international data communication.

The questions that you pose regarding responsibility of the data that
is transferred on said networks are all very hypothetical and without
precedent, They, therefore, are subject to the discretion of an
attorney or court in each specific instance.

I thank you for considering CompuServe to be a reliable source for
information on this topic, yet due to the speculative nature of your
questions it would be best if you actually consult an attorney who can
help you explore the complexities of the regulations concerning data
communications.

Most sincerely,

Karl Turzi
[ end of CompuServe's reply ]

    Since I'm not a lawyer of any kind, I can't say whether it's
the law or my questions that were vague.  In the case of the German
message mentioned earlier, if it was indeed something nasty and
transmission to a local access number does constitute transportation
across state lines (as a phone call to Ohio would,) then a "higher"
level of law enforcement might be called upon.

    I know that I've picked a pretty negative example to ask the
question "Where, geographically, is the network?"  It does seem that
an issue of only academic interest generates more discussion if the
enforcement and policy arms of government become involved.

    Thanks to the CompuServe rep for providing their official
stance on what may be an area of law for the future to further define.


Opinions expressed in this message are those of its author, except where
         messages by others are included with attribution.

Bob Izenberg [ ] [e-mail]
home: 512 346 7019 [ ] CIS: [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 12:10:50 -0500
From: "David E. Martin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: WAN Simulation Tools
Organization: Fermi National Acceleratory Laboratory; Batavia, IL


I have been given the task of simulating and making traffic
predictions for a wide-area network consisting of T1's, 56K, and 64K
links using cisco routers.  The only good simulation tool I have found
is CACI's Networks II.5.  Are there any competitors I should look at?
It makes me queasy buying a package without evaluating any others.


David  E. Martin
National HEPnet Management                      ||    phone: [phone]
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory           ||    fax: [phone]
P.O. Box 500; MS 234; Batavia, IL 60510  USA   /  \   e-mail: [e-mail]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Sprint's Old 950-1033 Number
Date: 28 Jun 91 17:56:00 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I was going through some old phone stuff and decided to test the old
US Sprint (US Telcom) access number. It still is there but the FON
card number doesn't work with it and the old cards I have don't either.
Could US Sprint be using it for access for private net customers?


Bill

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

From: Brent Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Recommendations Wanted For Small Voicemail System (six users)
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1991 18:06:58 GMT


I'm looking for a small voicemail system, for six users initially.  It
would be nice to find something I could expand later, to 12 or more
users, but that's not an absolute requirement.  The system can be
either standalone, or something that works on a Mac IIcx.  Any
recommendations?

In particular, I've seen ads for a combination FAXmodem/voicemail
product for the Mac.  Does anyone know anything more about it, and is
anyone here using it?


Thanks!

Brent Chapman                 Telebit Corporation
Sun Network Specialist        1315 Chesapeake Terrace
[e-mail]             Sunnyvale, CA  94089
                              Phone:  [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 28 Jun 91 16:26:04 PDT
Subject: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper?
Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM![e-mail]
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
From: "Eric G. Elvira" <mtxinu!ingres.com![e-mail]>


We are looking of a way in which a program, probably on a Sun
Sparcstation, will call a phone number and after a few seconds dial
another number.

Essentially have it call and maybe cat a file that has already the
touch tones stored on it or something similar. The problem is that
using a modem it will wait for a handshake in the other side and a
beeper is definitely not going to give a handshake back.

Our specific use is that when something goes wrong in the middle of
the night with a batch program, we want the program to call a beeper
and display on the beeper the number that one should call back. It
doesn't sound too difficult, but ....

So. If you know of any company that sells stuff like this, or where to
look, or ANY ideas, please let me know.


Thanks,

Eric G. Elvira
Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division
UUCP: {sun,mtxinu,pyramid,pacbell,hoptoad,amdahl,cpsc6a}!ingres!elvira
Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #501
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13381;
          30 Jun 91 16:54 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19028;
          30 Jun 91 15:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30236;
          30 Jun 91 13:56 CDT
Date:     Sun, 30 Jun 91 13:29:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #502
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 30 Jun 91 13:29:35 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 502

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Phone Service After an Earthquake [Steve L. Rhoades]
    Now It Can Be Told - Part 29 [TE&M Magazine via Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Country Direct Numbers [Bill Huttig]
    Reading Back Your ESN on Cellular Systems [Bruce Perens]
    Sprint Commercials with Candice Bergen [Dave Leibold]
    Measured Service [Steven M. Palm]
    Telecommunications Takes the Holy Orders [Char. Observer via D. Kimberlin]
    Maryland N0X Prefix Local to PA and WV [Carl Moore]
    Stupid Centrex Question [Paul Cook]
    Answer Supervision on DID Trunks [Larry Lippman]
    Answer Supervision (was: Modification of Ringback Tone) [Vance Shipley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Steve L. Rhoades" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Service After an Earthquake
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 02:49:19 GMT


As many of you know, we experienced a M6.0 earthquake centered near
Pasadena this morning.  Naturally, the phone lines were jammed.

I stayed off the phone for about an hour after the main quake, then I
tried making a call.  Out of four lines, I could only get dial tone on
one.  All of these lines are served by the same 1A ESS switch.

Three of them have Comm*Star associated with them. (Comm*Star is
what Pac*Bell calls their "at home" Centrex service).

The fourth line is "plain vanilla".  ie. No custom calling or special
features.

Guess which line worked?  Yup, my line four worked fine.  It didn't
seem to be just a coincidence.  For about a half-hour, only my line
four worked.  I realize my CO probably went into "choke" mode but why
would line four continue to work?

When all four lines started working again, I noticed I was having
trouble breaking dial tone.  The DTMF receiver seemed a little deaf.

On a side note, as in previous quakes, cellular phone service seemed
to go on uninterrupted.


Internet: [e-mail]           | Voice-mail: [phone]
UUCP: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!tybalt!slr | USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca.  91023

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

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 23:44 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Now It Can Be Told - Part 29


        Doing a bit of housecleaning here, I came across the following
bit of Olde Tyme payphone fraud, here excerpted from a Letter to the
Editor in <TE&M Magazine> for 1 Jan 89:

                             "A Nickel Here..."

        "In 1962, when I was a wee lad of 11, someone told me that if
one took a piece of metal, i.e., a booby pin or paper clip, placed one
end of the item through a hole in the mouthpiece and touched the other
end to the rim of the coin return slot (which at the time was open),
one could get dial tone.

        "It did indeed work, and I used it on several occasions, once
to call Walt Disney.  Since I did not know the telephone number, it
was an operator-assisted call. When she asked me to insert more moeny,
I was momentarily stunned.  Not knowing what to do, I repeated the
grounding procedure numerous times, until she said, `Stop.  That's
enough.'  The call went through, but Walt was not in.

        "When I was 16, in 1967, I worked for a time in a gas station.
It had a pay phone that someone found accepted pennies through the
quarter slot and returned dial tone.  This only occurred if the penny
had been dipped in automatic transmission fluid.  Needless to say, the
local teclo and my boss were not pleased the next time the coin
collector came.

        "While I was in the Air Force, in `71 or `72, one of the guys
in the barracks found that one co}ld use a nickel in the quarterPslot
to get dial tone.  The procedure was to hold the nickel in the slot
with your thumb.  Then you removed your thumb, allowing the nickel to
fall.  As soonc as it fell, you hit the coin return button with your
thumb.  It was a timing thing, but the method was soon mastered by
many (myself included).

        "My vocation is technical sales support.  My employer is, as you
can tell, Wisconsin Bell.  The irony occurs to me at times......

                        Michael P. Nolan
                        Manager-Network Design
                        Wisconsin Bell"

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

        ...It's likely this story is a fairly common one.  But it
makes one ponder how many telephone careers such "phreaking" caused,
at the sum of a nickel at a time.

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Country Direct Numbers
Date: 28 Jun 91 18:19:43 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I found a booklet from AT&T called "The AT&T STudent Consumer Guide"
published in 1989. On pages 15-16 there is a list of the 800 for
several countries.

  AT&T COuntry Direct SErvices offer internation calling convenience
  from the U.S.  These services are offered through the cooperation
  of AT&T and the overseas telephone companies and allow calls to be
  made directly to a foreign operator, thereby eliminating any language
  barriers. Calls may be billed collect (reverse caharges) and in most
  cases, to the calling card issued in the overseas country.

Calls can be made from all US States execpt Alaska. (why?)

Country            Dial for Access (Numbers are
                        listed with 1 800 in front)

Australia Direct    682-2878
Austria Direct        624-0043
Brazil Directo        344-1055
Danmark Direkte        762-0045
Deutschland Direkt    292-0049
Finland Direct        232-0358
France Direct        537-2623
HK Direct        992-2323
Italy Direct *          543-7662
Japan Direct         543-0051
Korea Direct *        822-8256
Nederland Direct    432-0031
Norge Direkte        292-0047
NZ Direct        248-0064
Panama Direct *        872-6106
Singapore Direct *     822-6588
Sweden Direct        345-0046
Thailand Direct        342-0066
UK Direct *        445-5667

* AT&T oountry Direct calls to these countries cannot be made from
Hawaii. (why?)


[Moderator's Note: I think the thing with Alaska and Hawaii may have
been (may still be?) that AT&T has no presence in those states. Tariff
considerations come into play with the telcos operating in those
states.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Reading Back Your ESN on Cellular Systems
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1991 20:16:07 GMT


On GTE, there is a system used by installers to read back the
Electronic Serial Number of a telephone. You dial *ESN, enter a
six-digit account number, and the system reads back your ESN and phone
number, and then says "Correct Combination" if the ESN and phone
number match the records in the switch.


Bruce Perens

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

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91  0:27:00 PST
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Commercials with Candice Bergen
Reply-to: [e-mail]


A current syndicated entertainment column by Robin Adams Sloan deals
with the question of where the current Sprint commercials were filmed.
These are the ones starring Candice Bergen of the "Murphy Brown" TV
series.

The spots were shot at the Bradbury Building in Los Angeles, something
of a popular spot for film crews. Scenes from the movies _The_Wiz_ and
_Blade_Runner_ were filmed at this structure. The location is also
listed in the National Register of Historic Places, whatever that
publication or service is.

One of Sprint's commercials promotes a service that automatically
selects the discount plan to use for Sprint service. In that spot,
Bergen seems to talk about the feature as if it were a substitute for
comparison shopping. There are other ads in the series that appear on
the tube, though. None of the other carriers' ads seem to be using
high-profile people these days, although I recall AT&T featured Jack
Palance (?) for its early post-divestiture commercials.


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

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

From: "Steven M. Palm" <myamiga![e-mail]>
Subject: Measured Service
Date: 28 Jun 91 23:29:49 GMT


Wisconsin Bell, an Ameritech company, recently switched to measured
service.  At least they now charge you on a per-call basis instead of
unlimited calls for a flat monthly fee.

My problem is this: I highly distrust their count of my phone calls.
Is it possible to get them to provide me with an itemized billing?  I
know that my long distance carriers provide me one, and it seems that
if they are going to be charging me on a per-call basis, they should
provide me with a listing of those calls.

Is there any way I could legally make them provide me with such a
listing if they don't voluntarily offer it?

Regards,

Steve

Fido: 1:154/600  |  myamiga![e-mail] |  rutgers!uwm!fps!myamiga!smp |


[Moderator's Note: You won't have to ask very hard. Illinois Bell
sends out detailed statements on request, but you have to ask when you
want one and be reasonbable in the number of requests you make. Ask
them to send it to you for a couple months (you would probably have to
ask each time you got the bill). If you find their count is wrong, and
can prove it, I'd be surprised. When I've gotten those print outs in
the past, there would only be one or two calling 'units' I could not
immediatly identify, and maybe a few minutes of talking time I might
have disputed had I been certain.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 21:23 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecommunications Takes the Holy Orders


        For that large proportion of the population that still wants to
deny that electronics and telecommunication have become the shuttle of the
loom weaving our world's fabric, here's yet another of the almost daily
examples that appear in the press.  This one is from the Associated Press,
as published in the 29 June {Charlotte Observer}:


               "FRIARS VERIFY THE FAX: U.S. FULL OF NEW WAYS

  "Foreign Brown-Robed Delegates Find New World Culture, Size `Astounding'

"By Eduardo Montes - Associated Press

"SAN DIEGO - Franciscan Friars remain dedicated to simplicity and
tradition, but members of the nearly 800-year-old order have adopted
new ways for their first meeting in North America.

"Amid the swirl of brown robes and sandals, there often is a flash of
tennis shoe.  And the word once sent by foot and ship is spread by
laptop computers, fax machines and media-savvy priests.

"Since we've been in the United States, we're trying to get much more
media converage," said the Rev. Jeremy Harrington, communications
officer for the month-long General Chapter in San Diego.

"The Roman Catholic friars have been meeting every six years, mostly
in Europe, since St. Francis of Assisi founded the order in 1209."

<end of quoted portion of story>

       The story goes on to say the Franciscans chose San Diego for
their worldwide conclave to recognize the 500th anniversary of
Franciscans arriving in the New World as well as the work of Junipero
Serra founding California's network of missions. It does also mention
the friars will visit Sea World and the San Diego Zoo.  Mention is
made that the proportions of America and its culture are "astounding."

       But then, telecommunications is probably no more astounding
today than would have been sailing off on a ship across the endless
ocean 500 years ago.  Somehow, the Franciscans can probably handle it.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 9:43:00 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Maryland N0X Prefix Local to PA and WV


301-707 in Cumberland, Md. appears in the call guide for March, 1991
Allegany County (MD) C&P directory.  It is treated exactly the same
as the other Cumberland prefixes, and is thus listed as having local
service to a few points in PA (area 814) and WV (area 304).

The call guide also gives the local calling area for Ridgely, WV,
and it includes Cumberland!  So Ridgely (726 and 738 in area 304) has
a 707 prefix as a seven-digit local call; notice that leading 0 or 1 is
required if you are in the Ridgely exchange and using 707 as an area
code (California, northern coastal area).  Possibly some reprogramming,
transparent to the customers, was required in those out-of-Maryland
prefixes which are local to Cumberland, because I noticed years ago
that if I attempted a long distance call of NPA + 7D form in Newark,
Delaware, I got a message telling me to use the leading 1.

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 17:41 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid Centrex Question


Is CENTREX a registered trademark?  Can it be used without any
reference to "a registered service mark of (AT&T, Bellcore, God,
etc)"??


Paul Cook   Proctor & Associates   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Answer Supervision on DID Trunks
Date: 30 Jun 91 00:08:53 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> In a PBX with DID trunks, what happens if something breaks and the PBX
> never does return supervision? Does a two-way audio path exist? Will
> the connection stay up as long as desired, or time out?

    It depends upon the type of central office apparatus serving
the DID customer, and it also depends upon any interface apparatus
installed by the telephone company at the DID site.

    One extreme is best illustrated from the days of the Bell
System "voice connecting arrangement".  In the case of DID trunks, the
voice connecting arrangement was known as the C22, and utilized the
WECo 112A interconnecting unit.

    This arrangement contained a one-way amplifier which was
switched in the circuit to permit transmission of call progress tones
and intercept announcements from the PABX to the calling party; i.e.,
no voice transmission could exist from the calling party to the PABX.
Only when the PABX made a contact closure on the supervision leads was
the one-way amplifier switched out of the circuit.

    If the PABX were never to return answer supervision, a two-way
voice path would never exist.

    DID installations where bi-directional transmission is
"enforced" by supervision from the PABX still exist today.

    At the other extreme are wink-start outgoing DID trunks
running directly from the CO to the customer PABX without one iota of
restrictive interface apparatus.

    From a practical standpoint most ESS CO's monitor the duration
of an outgoing DID trunk that has not seen supervision from the PABX;
after a given time interval (usually three to five minutes) the
connection is automatically dropped.

    Trunk usage reporting software in an ESS CO will monitor DID
trunk usage with and without supervision, and any attempt to "cheat"
on the part of the PABX will show up as abnormally long trunk holding
times without supervision.

    I've not heard of a PABX being intentionally configured to
defeat answer supervision, but I feel certain it has been tried. :-)


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: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answer Supervision (was: Modification of Ringback Tone)
Organization: SwitchView
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1991 19:36:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Tom Perrine <tep%tots.UUCP@
ucsd.edu> writes:

> What kind of trunk provides "positive indication of answer supervision"?
> Is this a test function in the CO, or can you get at this through a
> porperly-featured PBX?

The following trunk types inherently support answer supervision
signaling:

    ISDN PRA (Primary Rate Access)
    ISDN BRA (Basic Rate Access)
    T-1
    2 Wire E&M TIE
    4 Wire E&M TIE

Some operating companies now offer answer supervision on analog CO
facilities.  US West has tariffed it for sure (I have a copy).  The
PBX must be able to deal with the signaling though and I am not sure
what equipement currently does.

Either PRA or TIE definitly works with any good PBX by definition.
Any trunk provided over T-1 should use the answer supervision
signaling provided but some times the signaling is ignored by the
switch (read "unexpected").  In this case programming the switch data
base as a TIE line will work in some cases (eg. SL-1).


Vance Shipley     vances@xenitec  vances@ltg  ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #502
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14637;
          30 Jun 91 17:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24278;
          30 Jun 91 16:08 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19028;
          30 Jun 91 15:03 CDT
Date:     Sun, 30 Jun 91 14:52:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #503
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 30 Jun 91 14:52:06 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 503

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    WAIS For C.D.T Archives? [David Lesher]
    'Free' AT&T Call Detail Reports - Just $30 per Month [Chip Rosenthal]
    COCOTS: Is There Any Improvement? [Bob Frankston]
    Electronic White Pages [Info-Mac Digest via Sean Williams]
    Kerberos and Cellular Phones? [[e-mail]]
    AT&T Toll Free Directory [Dave Leibold]
    Edison's Recordings and Energy Conservation [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Old Pole Climbing Straps Can Be Dangerous [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: Esoteric Telephone Stuff For Sale [Mike Anderson]
    Re: Ayn Rand on Privacy [Rick Smith]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: WAIS For C.D.T Archives?
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 12:43:12 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


I've been looking at the Thinking Machine Corp. offering called the
Wide Area Information Server. Here's how it would work:

If you have WAIS software installed on your system, you query the
telecom database to search through the archive. For example, a query
with the words "call waiting modem" returns documents with a score (is
it a perfect match, or close??) and the article identifiers. The best
part is still to come. You then request the article, and WAIS fetches
it for you to see/save!

Having once ftp'ed a year's worth of c.d.t. to local storage (good
thing my sysadm was off that day - that's a LOT of storage!!) and
grepped throught the lot looking for something; all I can say is this
sounds great!

Now I'm not sure how it could work on compresssed files, or even if
our archive sponsor would be willing to let the server run on its
machine.  If they did, it would still likely need a lot of time just
to set it up. But I hope someone will look into this.

If you don't have WAIS and are interested in it, the most recent
version of the software is accessible via anonymous ftp to think.com,
in /Wais/wais-8-b1.tar.Z. There is also a Mac client in
/Wais/wais.sit.hqx, and some other files in the /Wais directory
explaining the WAIS project.


[e-mail]                          (305) 255-RTFM


[Moderator's Note: The Telecom Archives has long been an area in great
need of improvement and streamlining. I just don't have the time, and
resources available to me, nor have I found anyone willing to take
over the task and give it the several hours of work needed for the
initial organization followed by the couple hours per week needed for
updating and maintainence thereafter.  We need an index to the
articles within the various volumes/issues over the years, as well as
an index of authors, etc.  We need a convenient way to pull single
issues (based on the results of an index search) rather than large
blocks of issues. The software you describe would no doubt be very
helpful. But I can't do these projects alone.    PAT]

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: 'Free' AT&T Call Detail Reports - Just $30 per Month
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Inc.
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1991 01:34:35 GMT


I was overjoyed when I learned that AT&T could provide detail reports
on my (pro*wats) phone usage.  Before, it would take me a rainbow
assortment of highlighters and two hours on the calculator to figure
out what I was paying for modem usage.  I called up the business
office and was told I could get three reports free, after which there
was a charge.  Great - I asked for breakdowns by city, area code, and
most frequently called numbers.

Months pass...

Surprise #1.  The reports never arrived.  I figured my request got
filed in the bitbucket.  Suddenly, after a four month delay, a 0.25"
stack of paper arrives in my mailbox.  There it is, in glorious
detail, how much it costs me to feed the Trailblazer.

Surprise #2.  A month passes.  Another 0.25" stack of paper arrives.
A few days later, a teensy weensy envelope with a bill for $30 from
`AT&T Detail Manager' arrives - $10 apiece for my `free' reports.

I guess I'll be talking to the business office next week.  I don't
have a problem paying $10 apiece for the reports - the time they save
is worth much more than that.  However, If I have to pay, I'll
probably drop at least one of them - breakdown by city and area code
is nearly redundant.  Furthermore, I do mind being billed for a
supposedly free service.  Anybody alse out there using the AT&T Detail
Manager service?  What were you told about charges?


Chip Rosenthal  512-482-8260   Unicom Systems Development
<[e-mail]>

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

From: frankston![e-mail]
Subject: COCOTS: Is There Any Improvement?
Date: 30 June 1991 10:18 -0400


I ran across two interesting customer-owned phones recently.  They
booth took quarters for local calls.  While this might seem normal to
most of you, those of us in Massachusetts still think that phone calls
cost a dime.  But I don't really mind the 150% price increase given
that it only brings us to the national average.

I tried to place a credit call on one and was surprised to find that
the LD carrier was ATT.  That was a pleasant surprise.  I wonder
whether it is become common for premises phones to use a major
carrier.

      Location: Papa Gino's Needham Street, Newton Mass.

The other was assigned to an outfit called IMR.  I tried calling their
number (800-227-1010) for more info but only got a recording.  What
makes this one interesting is that it was competing as being cheaper
that NET for LD calls.  The deal was .25/minute for anywhere in the US
vs $2.04 for NET.  This is a bit suspicious since NET doesn't place
the LD calls and the rates look rather inflated (even for operator
assisted).  The table went, I think, up to four minutes.  I don't know
if the charges are linear or not beyond that point nor what the credit
card/operator charges are.  Still, it was an interesting ploy.  I
wonder if anyone is more familiar with them?

      Location: Ground Round, Highland Ave, Needham, Mass.

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 18:18 GMT
From: Sean Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Electronic White Pages


Here's an article which may be of interest.  I'm reposting it from the
Info-Mac Digest:

[e-mail] writes:

The PSI White Pages project is an ongoing project to provide the
electronic equivalent of a telephone book White Pages, using X.500
technology.  There are currently 77 organizations, with approximately
200 000 entries available in the PSI White Pages.

PSIWP is a front end to the White Pages, allowing searching of the
databases from a Macintosh.  For example, it is possible to issue the
following search

        levinn,psi,us

('Find ...' option in the 'WhitePages' pull down menu)

System requirements for using PSIWP are: Macintosh (MAC-II
recommended) with 1MB of memory, Finder 6.x (Finder 7.0 WILL NOT
WORK), and MacTCP.  Connectivity to the U.S.  TCP/IP Internet is also
required (PSIWP needs to establish a TCP connection to a White Pages
server).

        Copyright 1991 Performance Systems International Inc.

PSIWP is shareware.  If you find it useful/interesting and would like
to register as a user, please consult 'Shareware Information' within
the application for registration information.


Wengyik Yeong
White Page Project Manager
[e-mail]

[Archived as /info-mac/comm/psi-white-pages-16.hqx; 96K]

                           ----------

Sean E. Williams              |  [e-mail]
Spectrum Telecommunications   |  Have a good day!
PO Box 227                    |  <<no disclaimer needed>>
Duncanon, PA 17020-0227       |  voicemail [phone]

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

From: 99700000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Kerberos and Cellular Phones?
Date: 29 Jun 91 05:24:31 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Open Access Computing


I was just reading in comp.risks about the high level of cellular
phone fraud - I guess cellular phones are identified by a supposedly
unique number in an internal ROM; and crooks are substituting a known
valid number into the ROM of a bogus cellular phone so the latter can
make calls at the expense of the owner of the phone with the valid
number.  (Or at the expense of the cellular company, since the
legitimate customer will deny that the calls from the bogus phone are
his.)

It seems to me, in a bout of daydreaming, that perhaps Kerberos is the
solution to this problem.  The cellular phone is like the public
workstation; its integrity is not guaranteed.  So there needs to be a
secret shared between the legitimate phone user and the cellular
service provider.  The phone user should be able to request a ticket
from the provider and decrypt it using the shared secret key.  It
could contain a session key that would be stored in the phone with a
lifetime of several hours, unless cancelled by the user.  This could
be used to get tickets good for the kinds of things cellular phones
do.

Another nice thing about this is that the user could use any cellular
phone interchangeably; the services would be billed to the person who
gets the tickets, and not to the owner of the particular phone used.


[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91  0:34:00 PST
From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Toll Free Directory
Reply-to: [e-mail]


On a recent call to AT&T 800 directory assistance (1 800 555.1212),
the canned announcement playing back the requested number was followed
by a plug for AT&T's new 800 number directory. These directories can
be ordered from 1 800 426.8686 for those interested or from the AT&T
phone centres.

I saw a copy of the '91 directory, and it seems they've now dropped
the note in the introductory pages about 800 service for the
*thirteen* Canadian provinces. In previous editions, AT&T might have
counted the Yukon and Northwest Territories (as much Canadian
provinces as Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands are American states)
plus Labrador (politically and administratively part of the province
of Newfoundland). Most Canadians generally think of ten provinces
(plus two territories), but it would be big news for an American long
distance carrier to discover a couple more...

Otherwise, the directory is an interesting reference to various
services. I don't know if they'd list 800 numbers of other carriers,
such as Sprint's 800-800 prefix, though.

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


[Moderator's Note: I know the 800 numbers of other carriers can be
listed in the 800-555-1212 service (actually 800 DA is operated by
Southwestern Bell under an arrangement with AT&T) but I don't know
about the paper directory.  Any answers?   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 22:21 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Edison's Recordings and Energy Conservation


        From a recent "Dear Abby" column (copyright 1990 by Universal
Press Syndicate) it would seem that Thomas Edison knew early on that
little jingles would be useful for energy-saving reminders.  In the
vignette that Dear Abby printed, we learn about Edison and one of his
employees:

                 "Let There Be Light, But Not All The Time

"Dear Abby:  The enclosed article was published in our local paper, and I
thought it deserved a wider audience. ....

                Your Fan in Vermont

"Dear Fan: I agree.  And here it is"

                            "SINGING FOR EDISON

"Annette Anderson, who died several years ago in Rutland, VT at the
age of 99, was a singer.  From 1914 to 1917, she worked with Thomas
Alva Edison, singing song after song as he developed his phonograph
recording system.  He had stacks of sheet music everywhere, and would
pick one out, saying, "Here, Annette -- sing this one."

"I remember Annette telling me about Edison's eccentricities and his
small soundproof recording room (completely lined with horsehair), but
the strongest memory is of a jingle I heard daily in my childhood.  It
was written by Edison, and it hung from the electric light chain in
his recording room.

"It went like this: `Save the juice, save the juice, turn out the
light when not in use!"  ...

                        Doris Erb
                        Cuttingsville, VT"


        Edison was, however, a little inaccurate in his refrain, as Dear
Abby responded:

"Dear Doris: With all due respect to Mr. Edison, `juice' is saved only
if the lights are switched off for ten minutes or longer.  According
to a spokesperson for the Department of Water and Power in Los
Angeles, there is a power surge when lights are turned on, so lights
should be left on if one plans to be in and out of the room.  Perhaps
the jingle should be amended to read, `Save the juice, save the juice,
turn out the light if it won't be needed for ten minutes or more.'  Of
course, the meter is all wrong, but the message is accurate."

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

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 18:31:46 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Old Pole Climbing Straps Can Be Dangerous

mka <sean![e-mail]> writes:

> I have a bunch of strange telephone stuff for sale, much of which came
> from a boiler-room (the jerks who call to sell you stuff at dinner
> time) auction and a alarm company auction a few years ago.  Also some
> flea-market stuff.  I believe that all of it still works OK.

> 1 - set of pole-climbing hooks and waist belt. for those closet
> linemen (or women) out there.

I'd just like to take a moment to warn the readers of TELECOM Digest
of the danger of using old pole safety straps.  About a year ago a ham
operator died in south Alabama after his strap broke while climbing a
tower.  There are a lot of leather straps around that are not safe to
use.  OSHA, as well as the safety personel of every telephone company
I've ever worked for (SCB, Southern Bell, Contel, Alltel, and GTE) do
not allow all leather straps at all.  There is a company that makes
leather covered nylon straps that are approved by OSHA.  Klein also
makes a neoprene impregnated nylon strap that has the feel (at least
to me) of leather.

Anyone who wants to learn to climb should be taught by an expert.
Poles are easy to cutout of if your don't have the proper equipiment
or your hook's aren't properly maintained.


Pat Turner       KB4GRZ       [e-mail]

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

From: mka <sean![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Esoteric Phone Stuff For Sale
Date: 30 Jun 91 05:44:46 GMT
Organization: Intelligent Systems Associates, Oklahoma City


Thanks for all the responses to the posting for the strange phone
stuff that I posted for sale. I have been absolutely swamped by
responses and have not had time to sort through and answer the
inquiries. I will try to answer each one. It was a mistake not to set
some price on each item as the range of offers was very wide.

I am in the process of moving, and have posted a variety of computer
items for sale also, whose disposition is a higher priority.  Thanks
for your patience,


Mike Anderson    {uunet|uokmax}!sean!mka

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

From: Rick Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ayn Rand on Privacy
Organization: SCTC
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1991 14:25:49 GMT


[e-mail] (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes:

> "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy."

Probably one of her better lines.

A favorite of mine, for the wrong reasons of course, is (in
paraphrase) "When the choice is between food and poison, there is only
one rational decision." She probably said this while smoking a
cigarette. :-)

I spent an early part of my undergraduate experience reading all of
Rand's stuff. I think Steve Martin unintentionally sums her up best
when he intones: "Let us now all repeat the Individualist's Oath..."

I know this has nothing to do with Telecom, but I thought you might
appreciate the comment.


Rick   [e-mail]    Arden Hills, Minnesota.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #503
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24349;
          30 Jun 91 21:50 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27803;
          30 Jun 91 20:13 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15074;
          30 Jun 91 19:08 CDT
Date:     Sun, 30 Jun 91 18:18:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #504
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 30 Jun 91 18:17:47 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 504

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [John G. Dobnick]
    Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [Andrew Payne]
    Re: Emergency Calls [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: Bellevue Prefixes (Washington State) [Mark Allyn]
    Re: Bellevue Prefixes (Washington State) [Gideon Yuval]
    Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' [Scott Huehn]
    Re: Line-Powered 'In Use' Circuit Problem [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day [Michael VanNorman]
    Re: Blocking of Room-to-Room Calls in Hotels [Sean Williams]
    Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? [Bob Frankston]
    Re: Problems With Meridian 1 and 2400 Baud Modems [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Now it Can Be Told - Part 29 [David Lesher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John G Dobnick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60
Date: 30 Jun 91 00:21:18 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


> [Moderator's Note: What you pay for is the right to use your telephone
> in accordance with published tariffs, one or more of which address the
> scenario of emergency requests for the use of the line, etc.

Say what?  I fail to understand the reasoning here.  Someone wants to
use *my* phone line for some "emergency purpose" by *calling* me?
This scenario makes no sense whatsoever.

If the person attempting to pester me through the operator really
needs to use *my* phone for an emergency purpose, he better be
standing right next to me so he _can_ use my phone line, in which case
he can speak directly to me.  Otherwise, this is just harrassment.

Maybe things are done differently where you are, Pat -- you are in
Illinois, after all :-) -- but up here in Wisconsin, the phone book
says the following:

"Wisconsin law requires you to yield a party line in an emergency.
That means you must get off the phone to permit others using your line
to report a fire or summon law enforcement agencies, ambulance
service, medical or other aid in any situation where property or human
life ids in danger.  No one can legally claim to need the line for an
emergency when no emergency exists.  The penalty for either offense
may include a fine not to exceed $1,000."

The situation being discussed here does not seem to meet _these_
requirements -- no party line, no one attempting to use _my_ line to
report an emergency.  It seems this "service" is only to allow someone
of little patience who is getting tired of busy signals to push
himself to the "head of the line".  I see it now -- "Ohio Bell: The
Rude Phone Company".  Miss Manners will not be pleased.

So, what am I missing in this discussion?  How does Ohio Bell justify
this "service"?  (Oh, that's right: "We're The Phone Company -- We
don't have to justify _anything_!"  Wasn't that in "The President's
Analyst"?)

> [Moderator's Note: Your telephone book pretty accurately describes an
> 'emergency'.  Examples perhaps you could understand: Your neighbor's
> phone is out of order; they knock on your door and ask you to call the
> Fire Department. You refuse, because your single line is engaged on
> another call. You are at work using the phone and your landlord or
> neighbor calls to say YOUR house caught fire. You are using a pay
> phone on the street corner. There is an autombile accident and one of
> the victoims asks you to get off the phone so they can call the police
> or ambulance.   Good enough examples for you?   PAT]

Only one of them, actually.

1) Neighbor knocks on door.   This does not involve an operator
   busting in to an in-progress call.  (That *is* the topic of
   this thread, after all.)

2) At work -- caller wishes to report (personal) disaster.  _This_
   is a  legitimate reason for the operator to interrupt an in-progress
   call.  This is a generally recognized "emergency" situation.

3) Automobile accident.  Same scenario as (1).

Perhaps the point to be made here is that Ohio Bell is apparently
pushing the "operator interrupt" situation for what are clearly not
*emergency* situations!  It's merely an extended form of "call
waiting", and apparently one that can not be disabled.


John G Dobnick  (JGD2)
Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
INTERNET: [e-mail]                      ATTnet: [phone]
UUCP: uunet!uwm!jgd

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Payne)
Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-In Now Costs $1.60
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1991 12:12:09 GMT


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

>> Do you need to talk to someone, and the line is busy?  For a $1.60 per
>> call, you can ask the Ohio Bell Operator to interrupt a busy line.

> This is going to play merry hell with data calls, as I'm sure many
> others have mentioned (or will mention).

The tariff here in NY states the busy/interrupt procedure goes like:

"1.  The operator will determine if the line is clear or in use and report
to the calling party.

"2.  The operator will interrupt a call on the called line only if the calling
party indicates an emergency and requests interruption."

I suspect that (1) is a listen-only for the operator and thus wouldn't
affect your data call (though the operator would get an earful!).


Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI        UUCP:  ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne
                          INTERNET:  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 19:30:24 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Emergency Calls


Gordon Burditt <[e-mail]> writes:

> I claim that an 'emergency call' directed TO ME, a person who does
> not work for emergency services, can never happen because an
> emergency call is directed to emergency services, by both legal
> definition and common sense.

I disagree.  Several years ago there was a wildfire near some property
my family owns.  I happened to drive by soon after the fire started.
A friend of mine had a farm almost across the road from the fire.  I
intended to borrow his tractor and help put the fire out, but he had
removed the key from the ignition.  I open a ped containing the drop
to his barn, clipped my test set on the C wire, and called his house.
The line was busy, so I asked the operator to break in on the line.

His wife told me were the spare key was hidden, and I got the tractor.
I attached a rear blade to the tractor and got to the fire several
minutes before the local fire department.  Two other tractors, myself
and about 20 others put the fire out in about an hour, but not before
it burned a barn down.  It wasn't until after the fire was out that
the Alabama Forestry Commission showed up with their tractor-plow.

Several years ago (1987 I think) a Sheriff in Dolmite, AL tried to
serve a warrent on Frank Camper who ran a mercinary traning camp.  Mr.
Camper fled into wood shortly before their arrival, so the sheriff
formed a posse of local turkey hunters, who tracked him down in a few
hours and arrested him.

Living in rural Alabama, events such as this aren't all that unusual.
I've known a number of people not affilated with emergency services to
be called in an emergency including SCUBA divers, pilots, boat and
four wheel drive owners, hams, contractors, hunters, etc.

The case could also be made for emergency calls to plant managers and
engineers, personel employed in critical industries such as power,
telephone, and gas companies, or people who owned equipiment or possed
knowledge useful to emergency services personel.


Pat Turner    KB4GRZ      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Allyn)
Subject: Re: Bellevue Prefixes (Washington State)
Date: 30 Jun 91 18:48:28 GMT
Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix [phone]


>> Bellevue, WA Central Office: 641, 643, 644, 747 and possibly
>> others now (area 206)

> Other Bellevue prefixes as of 1982 were 451,453,454,455,746.

Also 865 and possibly 965 should be included.

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

From: [e-mail] (Gideon Yuval)
Subject: Re: Bellevue Prefixes (Washington State)
Date: 30 Jun 91 16:22:24 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gideon Yuval)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA


There are also 562-XXXX Bellevue numbers.


Gideon Yuval, [e-mail], 206-882-8080 (fax:-883-8101;TWX:160520)

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 00:04:11 -0400
From: Scott Huehn <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker'


What most of you misunderstand is that hackers and phreakers are not
united.  Some of you believe that they all work together to cause
havoc, and if you catch one of them, it will stop the rest.  You are
wrong. The 'Underworld' or 'Underground', so to speak, is in chaos.
They are not one big group atempting to access everything under the
sun.  There is quite a bit of competition, and if you stop one person,
it may be a rival of another, and in essence no big 'loss'.  They work
in a 'gang' such as you see on the street, except through computers.
It may be interesting to watch, but the stakes are high; it is for
publicity.


Scott  [e-mail] - Internet

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 05:15:16 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Line-Powered 'In Use' Circuit Problem


Rich Mintz <[e-mail]> writes:

> 4) Does an alternative device exist that will simply "suck" all the
>    line voltage away from the other phone extensions in the house when
>    mine is in use, to prevent pickups from disturbing my modem's
>    activities?

A Radio Shack Teleprotector (43-107, $7.95) installed upstream of the
remainder of the phones in your home will acomplish this.  Unless you
want to buy one for each phone in your house, connect a modular tee to
the network interface.  Plug the entrance bridge into the
teleprotector and plug the teleprotector into one of the ports on the
tee.  From the other port run a line back to your modem.  When your
modem goes off-hook the remaining phones are disconnected from the
line.  We have had one of these devices installed at a repeater site
for a year now with no problems.

If your home goesn't have a network interface the teleprotector can be
spliced into the line.  Just remember to attach your modem line on the
CO side of the device.


Pat Turner      KB4GRZ        [e-mail]

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

From: Michael VanNorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reusing Numbers After Just One Day
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1991 16:53:50 GMT


[e-mail] (David Gast) writes:

> I called a friend of mine who lived in one of the dorms at UCLA last
> school year the other night.  I called on Sunday and the quarter ended
> on Friday so I expected to get an intercept like "The number you
> dialed is not in service ..." and I was hoping "the new number is ..."
> Instead I got connected to new tenants.  I am not sure if it was the
> same room number, but it was the same dorm (I asked).

I used to live in the dorms at UCLA and discovered that the phone
numbers are assigned permanently to each room.  If you think about it,
it does help GTE on data entry.  The only thing they need to change
about the billing is the name.  The account number (phone number) and
address are always the same.  With the high turnover rate in the dorms
it probably adds up.


Mike

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 07:19 GMT
From: Sean Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Blocking of Room-to-Room Calls in Hotels


Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]> writes:

> The attendant usually operated the key to disable room-to-room calls
> between 11 PM and 7 AM or so.  The intention, of course, was to
> prevent guests from disturbing other guests . . . Does anyone know
> if such a feature is still used?  I have a feeling that this is no
> longer considered to be a "problem".

I returned from a week-long vacation in Ocean City, MD a few weeks
ago.  The telephones in our 42nd Street Days Inn Convention Center
were ringing just fine well into the wee morning hours!  Not only were
the girls downstairs calling us, but so were the front desk people,
telling us to keep it quiet!  "Senior Week" can be such great fun ...

But really, it's not the ringing phones which are a problem. It's the
AC receptacles near the decks which people use to plug their portable
stereos into. They should have a front desk switch to turn *those*
things off!

Oh, by the way: The hotel's default LD carrier was MCI.  Local calls
were $.50, LD calls had *no* surcharge, 950 and 800 were free and
un-blocked.  RBOC and non-950 access calling cards had a $.50 charge
per call, as did collect calls.  Calls to 411 were free (that's
directory assistance, but calls to *room* 411 were free also.)  Equal
access was available via 10xxx codes.

The phone number and address for MCI customer service was listed near
the phone, along with a note telling of your right to use other LD
carriers by entering the codes provided by them.

"Direct complaints to Enforcement Division, Common Carrier Burear/FCC,
2025 M ST, NW, Washington, DC 20554."

The only problem with the phone was that it took *forever* for calls
to go through (both locally and long distance).


Sean E. Williams        |  [e-mail]
Spectrum Telecommunications    |  Have a nice day!
PO Box 227            |  <<no disclaimer needed>>
Duncannon, PA 17020-0227    |  voicemail: [phone]

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

From: frankston![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper?
Date: 30 June 1991 17:15 -0400


You simply tag the digits on the end of the dial string.  If you have
a blind dialer using Hayes sequences, just add ",,,,,," and the
numbers.  If you have a wait for voice or some other indicator, you
can use that instead.  Since this is in the dial string itself there
is no issue of waiting for a handshake.  Add a ";" at the end to stay
in control and then hangup the modem using ATH0".

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Problems with Meridian 1 and 2400 Baud Modems
Organization: SwitchView
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1991 19:43:27 GMT


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

> The main problem is that 2400 baud is almost unusable.  Lots of
> suprious characters and noise.  Our users have pretty much given up on
> 2400 baud and have either retreated back to 1200 baud or gotten
> Telebit modems to use with our in-bound Telebit lines.

This should work perfectly, the Meridian is a "CO quality" switch.

You may be having frame slip problems somewhere.  Can you call
reliably from one extension to the other?  Are you using digital
trunks to the CO?


Vance Shipley     vances@xenitec  vances@ltg  ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Now It Can Be Told - Part 29
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 17:59:38 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


>         ...It's likely this story is a fairly common one.  But it
> makes one ponder how many telephone careers such "phreaking" caused,
> at the sum of a nickel at a time.

I know of several. A friend of mine and his high school comrades
prided themselves on working on pay phones. After Ma raised the toll
to a dime (OUTRAGEOUS!), they changed them all back. One of them
looked up the patent description for the 10-G key {that fitted
virtually all the "three gonger" upper housings around} and he made
keys from the patent text.

One of them was finally arrested for collecting some abandoned drop
wire. The Judge told him he'd never get a *real* job with that blot on
his record.  His Honor was correct: Douglas worked for 15+ years for
some outfit in Murray Hill NJ with funny green copper roofs.  My
friend worked about that long at Lorain Products. There, he worked on
early UPS systems, including one in the White House.

Attn US Attorney types: These crimes all took place during the Ike
presidency. Please don't ask me for details -- I was not there.


[e-mail]     (305) 255-RTFM

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #504
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26572;
          1 Jul 91 23:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06966;
          1 Jul 91 21:28 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17896;
          1 Jul 91 20:22 CDT
Date:     Mon, 1 Jul 91 20:02:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #505
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 1 Jul 91 20:01:56 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 505

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Hotel Surcharges, Marriott [David Lesher]
    Can AT&T/Sprint/MCI Serve Motels? [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Robert Bulmash Leads Charge Against Telemarketers [Wayne D. Correia]
    Lionel Hampton's Roots in Telecom History [Parade Magazine via D Kimberlin]
    Phrack Magazine [Patton M. Turner]
    How to Phix an AT&T Phone [Gil Kloepfer Jr.]
    Tracing a Call on a DMS-100 [Bob Frankston]
    TNC, BNC, N Cellular Connectors [Bill Kennedy]
    MCI Operator Assisted Rates [Joshua E. Muskovitz]
    A Snappy Higdon Salute to Pac Bell! [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 20:37:08 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


About a year ago, I stayed at a Marriott "Residence Inn" in
Alexandria.  Virtually every call (800, 10xxx, local, 950xxxx) was
priced at +$0.75.  [Well, the calls to the front desk were free ;-] I
retaliated by making all my calls from the second floor one-arm See &
Pee bandit. It was only a quarter. Alas, the coil slot did not have an
RJ-11 jack, and I was on the 5th floor, so I paid through the nose for
my data calls.

I'm going to be in the DC area again. Lacking another place with
better price/features ratio, I may end up staying there again. So I
think it's letter writing time.

Q1) Do other elements of Marriott also charge such outrageous
surcharges? Note that Metro DC is, at worst, flat rate $0.08 /call.

Q2) Some time back, a hotel/inn manager posted a query regarding such
surcharges. Does anyone remember who he was, and/or how to reach him?
I'd like to forward his feelings to Mr. Marriott.

Q3 ;-} Anyone know where to find a coin slot with an RJ-11?


[e-mail]  (305) 255-RTFM

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can AT&T/Sprint/MCI Serve Motels?
Date: 1 Jul 91 21:19:47 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


A few days ago, I was staying at a "motor inn" (nice motel) on Cape
Cod and had occasion to make a phone call to a town two exchanges
away.  In Mass., that makes it a toll call, since it's a noncontiguous
exchange.  The instructions on the phone said that to make an LD call,
use the normal procedure (9+0+...) and 10xxx calling was fine.  They
even indicated that to use AT&T, dial 9+10288.  No dishonesty
intended.  Right?

So I dialed "9 0 508 xxx xxxx" and awaited the New England Telephone
operator.  Instead, after a rather long delay, a voice came on.  He
was from Tell-us-Fear, not NET.  I said I wanted to make a call via
NET, and he said he couldn't let me.  So I hung up and rang the lobby.
The manager answered "0" and said he'd try for me.  After maybe ten
minutes on hold (punctuated once by "I'm still talking to him") while
he spoke to the AOS operator, he told me he was sorry but I couldn't
use NET.  But Tell-us-Fear would take my NET number and place the call
at there rate.  (Whatever it was!)  Note that the AOS was probably far
away so the 15-mile call would "splash" halfway cross the country and
back!

So I told him no, I wouldn't, but I would be hesitant about
recommending the hotel since I don't like rip-off AOSs!  I told him
how some major hotels had returned to AT&T, and besides intra-LATA
intrastate calls were NET's province, not that of LD companies.  (I
don't know if the AOS has a Mass. resale license.  It's not
automatic.)

His answer was that he wanted to use AT&T, but just last week they
told him they had no plan for him, so he was stuck with the existing
service.  If he hooked up AT&T, he could get long overseas calls on
his bill without billing the room.  I presume that's because a 9+0-
call would not show its value on his little rate computer, and there's
no HOBIC anymore.  The current arrangement sends all calls to an AOS
who won't let the hotel be billed for anything that doesn't show up.

Is that true?  I presume that there's some arrangement that a "real"
carrier (vs. an AOS) can make to allow a motel's SX-200A to access the
local carrier for intra-LATA calls.  Anybody want to make a firm
suggestion so I can hit the guy with it next time this happens?

I walked down the hall to the pay phone.


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: "wayne d. correia" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Robert Bulmash Leads Charge Against Telemarketers
Date: 1 Jul 91 22:14:33 GMT
Organization: apple computer, inc. - macintosh system software


  WARRENVILLE, Ill. -- Robert Bulmash is the telemarketing industry's
worst nightmare. He and a small army of followers, fed up with the
modern epidemic of junk calls, are fighting back. Their motto is
"Leave Us Alone or Pay the Price!" Their strategy is mischievous,
ruthless and surprisingly effective.

  Bulmash instructs the 550 members of his group, Private Citizen
Inc., to answer junk calls cordially and tease out all the information
they can about the identity and location of the "junker." Then twice a
year, he sends a notice to more than 800 telemarketing companies, with
a list of his members and a warning on their behalf:

  "I am unwilling to allow your free use of my time and telephone ...
I will accept junk calls for a $100 fee, due within 30 days of suchuse
 ...  Your junk call will constitute your agreement to the reasonableness
of my fee."

  Private Citizen members, who pay $20 a year for the service, say
their junk calls drop 75% or more. As for the "invoice," it has left
Sears, Roebuck & Co., ChemLawn, and a handful of other telemarketers
so bemused they've actually coughed up the $100. Others, though not
all, have had it dragged out of them in court.

  The leader of this rebellion is an intense 45-year-old paralegal
with the flair of an angry stand-up comic. His little war, run out of
his home in his spare time, has stirred up the giant telemarketing
industry, where mention of the name Bulmash draws shudders of disgust.

  "Everyone in the industry knows Bob Bulmash," sighs Kenneth Griffin,
an American Telephone & Telegraph Co.  official and past head of the
American Telemarketing Association. He worries that the Bulmash
crusade will "regulate us and put us out of business," and adds: "I'm
sorry, but we're going to defend ourselves." (In fact, AT&T right now
is defending itself against a $100 claim from Bulmash.)

  At the other end of the telemarketing line, Bulmash is a hero.
"Thanks for taking on the greatest annoyance to man since the
invention of the housefly!"  wrote a grateful Oregon woman who read
about him in a local newspaper.

  In a 1990 national survey of telemarketing targets, 70% said they
consider such calls an "invasion of privacy." Walker Research Inc. of
Indianapolis conducted the survey via, of all things, random calls to
U.S.  telephone numbers. The survey also found that 44% of the targets
considered their last telemarketing call "pleasant," and 41% think
telemarketing serves a "useful purpose."

  All these calls are coming from an exploding industry with an
awesome arsenal of new technology. American companies will spend an
estimated $60 billion on telemarketing this year, up from $1 billion
in 1981, says the industry association.

  One especially popular purchase, all too familiar to households, is
the "adramp," short for automatic dialing recorded message player. It
courses like a virus through the phone system, blaring its come-on to
one number after another in sequence.

  Another hot new weapon is the "predictive dialer," which speed-dials
one number after another, sending to live agents only the calls that
answer. With one of these, a telemarketing shop can double the number
of prospects its agents talk to in a day.

  Lawmakers are starting to worry about this calling frenzy. A
proposed federal law would create a national list of people who don't
want junk calls, and make it illegal to telemarket them. States have
also introduced some 300 bills this year curbing unsolicited sales
calls.

  Bulmash's group, Private Citizen, is reachable at Box 233,
Naperville, Ill. 60566.


wayne correia   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 21:25 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lionel Hampton's Roots in Telecom History


        Most readers have probably at one time or many heard the jazz
vibraharp recordings of Lionel Hampton.  However, his taking it up as
an instrument from its most famous role as the NBC radio network
"chimes" is probably not so well known.  In the June 22, 1991 {Parade
Magazine} supplement to many U.S. newspapers, he was reported to have
sta9ted in about 1930 as follow~:

        "One day, a 22-year-old drummer named Lionel Hampton was
making a recording with his idol, Louis Armstrong, at NBC studios in
Los Angeles.  Armstrong pointed to an instrument sitting over in the
corner and asked Hampton what it was.  `It's called a vibraharp,"
Hampton said. NBC used it as chimes for intermission signals during
radio broadcasts.  `Do you know how to play it?' Armstrong asked.
`Yeah,' Hampton lied.  `Play somethin' then,' Louis Armstrong said.

        "Never having played a note on the instrument before, Hampton
tapped out a solo he'd learned from an Armstrong recording.  `Man,
that sounds great,' Armstrong said.  `Let's put it on record.'  They
did.  `Memories of You' marked the first time jazz was played on the
vibraharp.  Hampton made sweet musical history and found his
instrument."

        ("Today, at 83, Lionel Hampton -- one of the last of the great
Big Band leaders -- gives upward of 200 concerts a year here and
abroad...")

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 20:05:26 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phrack Magazine


Timothy Newsham writes in Vol 11 Issue 61 (Jan 91):
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> There's an article in Phrack magazine Issue 11, File 9  that tells of
> the potential problem that making programming information public would
> be.  It was written by a few  engineers in the  cellular industry.  It
> isn't  an   article written  by  a  hacker.    Good  reading   for  the
> comp.dcom.telecom type, check it out.


Are issues of Phrack still available?


Pat Turner   KB4GRZ    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note:  Since Craig N. is a regular reader here, perhaps
he will respond with an address where people can obtain back issues of
the magazine as desired.   PAT]

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

Subject: How to Phix an AT&T Phone
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 18:30:11 CDT
From: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." <[e-mail]>


I'm sure that the following information will be of use to some pholks
out there ...

I've seen three AT&T phones damaged by lightning with an interesting
problem: it sometimes will ring/sometimes won't ring, and when it
doesn't ring, it causes a problem which makes the calling party hear a
ring, then busy when they try to call you.  It has also manifested
itself as a problem where the phone cannot hang-up (it will always be
"off-hook").  The latest problem was where the phone rang once, then
the CO sensed trouble and refused to let any of the other rings go
through ... I've finally found the cause of this problem, and I'm
forwarding the fix so that those in-the-know can apply it when needed.

On all the new AT&T phones (in particular, the Traditional 100 desk
and wall phones, but should be the same on the other phones), they
have a bridge rectifier arrangement connected across ring and tip
which provide power for both the telephone (ie. talk/receive) and
number memory/dial sections.  When lightning (or a very high voltage
spike) is present on the phone line, it appears to exceed the PIV
rating of the 1N4007 rectifiers (don't ask me how...) they use for the
bridge.  You'll know which ones they are by the fact that four of them
are clustered together close to where the wires from the phone's RJ11
plug/jack enters the circuit board.  One or more of these rectifiers
are bad.  If you change all of them, you'll probably fix the problem.
You can also try replacing them one-by-one until you find the bad
one(s).  Always try the phone in both polarities when testing to see
if you've fixed the problem.

Important note: These rectifiers test "good" when you apply common
sense to them.  They are bad in some way, but I don't know enough
about electronics to apply uncommon sense to figure out what's really
wrong (I throw the bad parts away).

I've repaired two AT&T phones this way already, and in all cases I've
restored them to perfect working order.  At $35 a phone, this $2 (at
the most) fix is a great deal.  It's a shame that the MOVs that are
supposed to prevent this condition don't seem to do their job ...


Gil Kloepfer, Jr.              [e-mail]   ...!ames!limbic!gil
Southwest Systems Development Labs (Div of ICUS)   Houston, Texas

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

From: frankston![e-mail]
Subject: Tracing a Call on a DMS-100
Date: 30 June 1991 19:59 -0400


NET doesn't yet offer call tracing, but I'm on a DMS-100 exchange
(Newton Mass).  I need to know where a recent call originated.  Is
there anyway to ferret out this information in a standard DMS-100?

Thanks.

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

From: Bill Kennedy <[e-mail]>
Subject: TNC, BNC, N Cellular Connectors
Date: 1 Jul 91 03:08:55 GMT
Organization: W.L. Kennedy Jr. & Associates, Pipe Creek, TX


I have a Motorola bag phone and it has a miniature UHF connector for
the antenna.  Both the rooftop and car whips have TNC, the mobile
systems dealer wants to sell me an outdoor antenna which only comes
with type N.  Because of the thin ethernet cable that runs around here
I have gobs of BNC connectors and the crimp tool for them.  Maybe the
same tool will work for TNC and mini-UHF, I haven't tried.

The question is what connector is going to be the most reliable?  The
last time I knew anything about it 860MHz was nearly voodoo, so I'm
way stale.  My preference is BNC because I'm used to them but if some
one knows one to be better, I'd like to know.  Even if type N is the
best it's the least convenient.  Is it enough better?  Thanks,


Bill Kennedy  uucp      {att,cs.utexas.edu,pyramid!daver}!ssbn.wlk.com!bill
              internet    [e-mail]   or ssbn![e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 09:55:34 EDT
From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Operator Assisted Rates


When I was in Philadelphia last month, I was having trouble getting
MCI's computer to accept my card number using 10222-0-###-###-####
(bong) card #.  When I called customer service, they said to just dial
10222-0 and place the call through the operator.  When I complained
about having to pay assisted rates, they said they don't charge for
operator assist anymore.  Is this new?

Also, when I use my credit card via 950-1022, it works fine.  Why
would 10222-0 not accept my card?


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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 14:03 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: A Snappy Higdon Salute to Pac Bell!


The job is complete. The ten individual drops to an assortment of
protection devices spanning a quarter of a century are history. Three
brand new six-pair cables are in place to new six-line demark boxes
which are nicely labeled.

The six new lines are in and working. In view of the fact that as of
Thursday of last week no pairs were available, this appears to have
been a major accomplishment by the various installation crews of
Pac*Bell.

My hat is off to Pac*Bell in the handling of my service order. It was a
first-cabin job from start to finish.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #505
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01920;
          2 Jul 91 1:04 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22624;
          1 Jul 91 23:37 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10637;
          1 Jul 91 22:28 CDT
Date:     Mon, 1 Jul 91 21:47:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #506
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 1 Jul 91 21:46:53 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 506

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Transoceanic Cables [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    AT&T Call Detail (was 'Free' Report Costs Thirty Dollars) [Jack Dominey]
    No Five on my Phone! [[e-mail]]
    Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266 [Jim Smithson]
    Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacking' and 'Phreaking' [Steve Kuo]
    Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacking' and 'Phreaking' [Peter Creath]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Jun 91 14:59 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Transoceanic Cables


       This is a very delayed response ot Tad Cook's (hpubvwa!ssc!
Tad.Cook @beaver.cs.washington.edu) question in Digest v10,iss846
of 27 Nov 90:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
> R. Levine) writes:

>> TAT-1 was only laid in 1956.  Transatlantic telephone service
>> started in 1927, but until 1956 used SSB radio.

> I thought single sideband radiotelephone wasn't developed until after
> World War II.

       Use of amplitude modulation with only a single sideband is
another of those bits of telecommunications technology with a
surprisingly long historical tail.  The histories of radio and
telephone carrier telephone technologies were closely connected at the
dawn of the electronic communications era.  During the same 1891-1895
era that Marconi was developing his arc transmitters for
radiotelegraphy, wireline telephone and telegraph workers were
experimenting with similar techniques using wirelines for the
transmission medium. One early researcher with the resonant name of
John Stone. Stone demonstrated multiple-channel telephony on a wireline
using small carbon arcs for the carrier sources in 1894.  Obviously,
Stone's "carrier" didn't sound any better than when radio researchers
tried connecting a microphone into the antenna circuit of a raspy arc
radio transmitter.

       But, both radio and wireline workers soon knew that the
process of shifting speech signals upward in frequency produced dual
resultant high frequency outputs - an upper and a lower "sideband"
centered on the high frequency "carrier."  This was known, but didn't
matter much in that decade prior to having Deforest's three-element
vacuum tube.  Since in that decade, there was no such thing as
amplification, hihg-frequency communication by either wire or radio
relied totally on brute force transmission techniques simply to have
enough signal left so the receiver detector could find it.  The
problem was more severe for wire workers than for radio because of
course there was a finite limit to how much power the wire workers
could use, while the radio workers could focus on building ever larger
behemoths of radio transmitters -- right up to a million Watts of
transmitted power.  (From "Star Trek - The Nickelodeon": "I kinna gie
ye a megawatt, Commander Kirk.  It'll gie the Earth a magnetic
hernia!"  "Dammit, Scotty -- go ahead.  We need to reach Africa with
this thing!">

       So, as soon as amplification could be utlized, reducing the
amount of carrier power to be transmitted was of prime importance to
wireline workers, and "suppressed carrier" transmission was used in
the earliest wireline carrier systems to avoid need for larger, more
expensive "repeaters."  In the decade following availablility of
Deforest's Audion, the art of building filters wasn't yet fully
developed, so although it was already known that two sideband~ weren't
needed for transmission, and represented even more unnecessary
transmitted signal, techniques for removing the unwanted one at the
transmitter weren't really in use.

       When workers like Campbell defined the art of electrical
filter-building (and if you read into the early journals, you'll find
there were plenty of German, French, (olish and Scandinavian
developers who contributed to this), means became available to filter
out one of the sidebands.  This was around World War I, and radio was
focused on providing something immediately useful to military and
international communications, so telegraphy was the driver for radio.
Its gargantuan transmitters were ever larger and larger sparks or
high-frequency AC generators.  Even though Reginald Fessenden had
connected a microphone in the antenna of his Brant Rock, Massachusetts
alternator and astounded ship radio operators on Christmas Eve, 1906
by presenting them his voice, violin and (acosutically played)
phonograph records; and Lee Deforest broadcast speech using his vacuum
tubes as oscillators at New York in the following year, radio users
weren't as interested in spectrum and power conservation as telephone
workers were.

       Meantime, telephone systems were under continuous development
using but a single sideband and suppressed carrier in their "carrier
systems."  Spectrum conservation and power reduction became prime
considerations in wireline telephony.  Despite the vision David
Sarnoff had of a "radio music box" in his memorandum to the management
of his American Marconi Corporation managers, Marconi's focus was
completely upon public message telegraph business.  It wasn't until
the U.S. forced Marconi to sell out to a new joiwt venture of
Westinghouse, GE (and early on, AT&T) called The Radio Corporation of
America that Sarnoff got a commercial manager's job and was able, as
the record shows, to make RCA a leader in radio (and later television)
broadcasting.

       There wasn't much pressure to extend the telephone across
oceans, so it wasn't until October, 1927 that Bell Laboratories, using
a rented RCA transmitter at Rocky Point, Long Island exchanged signals
with the British Post Office, using the radio frequencies of 55
kilohertz one way and 60 kilohertz the other to establish a
radiotelephone circuit across the Atlantic.  Although numerous
amateurs had spanned the Atlantic and other oceans prior to this time,
the operational requirements of commercial use were for a "circuit"
that could be maintained 24 hours per day, all year, and only low-
frequency radio could do this.  With the strong bent its wireline-
oriented engineers had, this link operated using SSB techniques.  To
them, it was merely an extension of what they had been using more and
more widely on wire transmission.

       Shortwave radio, meantime, developed around the globe using
mostly ordinary double-sideband AM, largely because it was an heroic
enough effort to simply generate and receive signals at those
frequencies with high power levels.  By the late 1930's "SSB"
high-frequency radio was beginning to come into use for international
radiotelephony, which itself first started out using DSBKAM.  During
the WWII era, SSB on HF continued to expand unitl finally just after
WWII, it explod{d into becoming the common commercial operating method
on HF radio.  By 1950, SSB was becoming of great interest to amateur
radio operators, but even them it was still quite complex and
expensive for the "home-brew" amateur operator.

(All this does not mean to say that a curtain drops on one stage of
the drama of telecommunications technO}]logy when another rises.  As
late as 1966, the one commercial radiotelephone circuit from the
Caribbean island of Antigua to the U.S., put in operation for Jackie
Kennedy's use when she was at her Caribbean hideout, as an ordinary
old double-sideband AM link from St. John's, Antigua to Ft. Lauderdale,
FL.  I doubt Jackie was very concerned if her voice rode one or two
sidebands.  Security heads would have been shocked, though.  It wasn't
encrypted at all.  If they simply had a receiver and knew the
frequencies, the {National Enquirer} could have known All About Camelot!)

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Jul  1 16:39:46 EDT 1991
Subject: AT&T Call Detail (was 'Free' Report Costs Thirty Dollars)


Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]> writes in Digest Vol 11 #503:

>> I was overjoyed when I learned that AT&T could provide detail reports
>> on my (pro*wats) phone usage.

>> Surprise #1.  The reports never arrived.  I figured my request got
>> filed in the bitbucket.  Suddenly, after a four month delay, a 0.25"
>> stack of paper arrives in my mailbox.  There it is, in glorious
>> detail, how much it costs me to feed the Trailblazer.

>> Surprise #2.  A month passes.  Another 0.25" stack of paper arrives.
>> A few days later, a teensy weensy envelope with a bill for $30 from
>> `AT&T Detail Manager' arrives - $10 apiece for my `free' reports.

#1 I've heard about delivery problems with Detail Manager, but no one
has seen fit to tell me where the problem is or who's fixing it.
Sorry I can't help out on that count, Chip.

#2 Initially, the three reports were free, but pricing has changed
this year.  Your sales rep gave you out-of-date info.  The current
price list follows.

There was a promotion going on during the early part of this year, but
I forget just when it ended.  It sounds as though you got your first
month's reports under the promotion.

Basically, the Detail Manager people would much rather send out disks
than paper reports, and have priced the service accordingly.  There's
a number down below for a demo copy of the software.

There may actually be a way to get your modem calls broken out on the
bill for free.  If you're getting billed by AT&T, you can try dialing
0 + <phone number> and after the 'bong', dial 15xx.  This should get
your calls to show up on the bill with a breakout for the xx code.


                      DETAIL MANAGER PRICING
                         - As of 05/10/91

  PAPER MEDIA:    PER REPORT REQUESTED

        VOLUME           NUMBER
         RATE              OF
        STEPS            RECORDS       RATES

          1               01-1000    $ 10.00
          2             1001-2500      15.00
          3             2501-5000      20.00
          4             5001-10K       25.00
          5            10001-25K       30.00
          6            25001-50K       35.00
          7            50001-100K      40.00
          8           100001- >       100.00


  PC APPLICATION:

     SOFTWARE FEE:                   $25.00
                             ONE TIME CHARGE
     MONTHLY DATA
     DISK FEE:               FLAT $10.00/MO. FEE
                             FOR UNLIMITED DISKS
                             PER SERVICE/LOCATION

                             $10.00 UPGRADE -
                             ONE TIME CHARGE
                             WHEN CUSTOMER
                             WANTS NEW SOFTWARE

For a copy of a demonstration diskette, call 1-800-722-7742.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (The Gypsy)
Subject: No Five on my Phone!
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 21:33:22 GMT


Some of you may have heard comedian Steven Wright joking about how he
can't call everyone he wants because his phone "has no five!"
Anyway, for me it is no joke!  The "5" on my phone just plain died
yesterday!  I can't figure it out -- I've checked any connections that
could possibly cause a problem.

Since all the other tones work -- and are made up of two tones each
(as you all know about DTMF) -- it doesn't make since!  The two tones
for "5" MUST be working -- but they aren't.  It's just a cheap-o phone,
so I don't want to spend much money or anything, but if someone can
tell me how I can simply build a circuit to produce a "5" or has any
ideas on fixing the phone, let me know!  Thanks.

ALSO:  If someone tells me how to build that circuit, it may solve my
       second problem - my answering machine.  The "remote" thing is
       wasted, but according to the bottom of the device, it is a
       Dual-Tone (like touch tone) of 600 and 950 hertz - so if you
       can give me a simple circuit to produce that, it would be
       greatly appreciated.

Thanks.


The Gypsy    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Is it possible it is the *contact switch* under the
'five key' on the keypad which is broken, or not making proper
contact?  Take off the cover and try pushing hard on the contact where
the plastic 'five cap' sits. See if it works okay then.   PAT]

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

From: Jim Smithson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 10:17:08 MESZ


> It's trivial to intercept cellular calls at random over the
> air, but a court-ordered interception of a single cellular phone must
> physically tap all the cells, because calls from that phone could go
> through many single physical places -- there is no central point
> common to all the calls, except the portable phone itself.

It is not as difficult as you believe to monitor cellular calls.  I'll
give you a hint, it has something to do with trunk loop around.

> The FBI *wants* phone system designers to start thinking about
> interception -- in particular, they want interception to be easier.
> Just like the East German secret police.

You are way out of line drawing any comparisons between the STASI and
the FBI!  I'm as much a civil libertarian as anyone, but I want the
cops to catch the crooks anyway they can.

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Kuo)
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and "Phreaker'
Date: 29 Jun 91 06:08:12 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jennifer Lafferty) writes:

> I'm kind of lost here. Exactly what is "phreaking" and "hacking" as
> you are using the terms. I'm a computer novice who barely managed to
> plug in the modem and figure out the communication program!

Hacker -- Person that obtains free phone service by entering (or
hacking out) someone else's long distance codes (which can very from five
to seven digits). This is outdated as dial-1 service is now available

Phreaker -- Person that gains control of phone services by "tricking"
long distance truncks and controlling them.  In the olds days (pre-
1987ish) a 2600 Hz tone would gain control of a trunck.  Now control
tones are out of band (greater than 3100 Hz) or computer controlled,
thus this method is outdated (as far as I know.)


Steve Kuo


[Moderator's Note: I think most folks here would disagree with you on
'hacker'.  The correct term there would be 'cracker' or 'phreak'.   PAT]

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

From: Peter Creath <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker'
Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1991 21:51:26 GMT


>  Using a computer to steal it is no different morally than breaking
>  down my door and rifling my filing cabinet.

You, sir, appear to know nothing about hacking.  Morally, fine, you
may be right.  But I think a more accurate analogy would be something
along the lines of:

Using a computer to steal it is no different morally than going house
to house, finding somebody who left the key under the door-mat,
entering the house, and rifling their filing cabinet.

Hackers could not operate were there not utterly comical security.  If
there weren't an easy place to get in (ie: some Unix with an
unpassworded "root" account), hackers couldn't learn more complicated
strategies for better-secured computers.  You wouldn't have the bulk
of hacking (trying all default accounts), and your amount of "elite"
hackers (those who can get around something like that -- none that I've
heard of) would decline.  Instead of shafting the over-curious kid who
steps a legal boundary and browses through your files, how about fixing
the security?

It's almost a case of attractive nuisance.  You put up a computer with
the "front door" wide open.  Someone comes in, you prosecute, execute
them, etc.  Let's take a little responsibility for our own oversights.

Not that I condone hacking, I just think too many people get all
self-righteous about it.  Face it, if half the people who scream
"HACKING IS WRONG!" actually spent an hour securing their computer,
the overall incidence of hacking would probably be about 10% what it
is now.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #506
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04822;
          2 Jul 91 2:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16901;
          2 Jul 91 0:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22624;
          1 Jul 91 23:37 CDT
Date:     Mon, 1 Jul 91 22:37:00 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #507
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 1 Jul 91 22:36:35 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 507

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pac*Bell Trivia [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [John Higdon]
    Re: Official Phone Tapping in UK [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Highly Remote Extensions [Macy Hallock]
    Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [John Higdon]
    Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc. [Frederick Roeber]
    Re: IDDD From a Cellular Phone [Kent Borg]
    Re: Edison's Recordings and Energy Conservation [Chris Jones]
    Re: What is This Number? [Dave Neibuhr]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 08:12:01 CST
From: Jim Redelfs <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Trivia
Reply-To: ivgate!macnet![e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


John Higdon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> They didn't make the due date (6/28).

Argh!  I'm beginning to see "the light" about Pac*Bell!

> the six new lines (I upped the order) are yet to be installed.
> Earlier in the week, my rep told me that the order had been referred
> to the "P102" desk.

That's probably their name for where our "PFd" (Plant Facilities are
lacking) orders go.  It doesn't happen much in my area but I have yet
to install a "jillion" residential lines, fed from an aerial cable to
the home of a telefanatic.  (grin)

> It seems that the neighborhood facilities are under some strain.

I'll bet!  Depending on your particular area, they may well have to
climb poles and open numerous closures to REPAIR their defective pairs
 -- JUST to provide the service you requested.  They may in fact have to
hang new cable.

> the only reason the PUC was now "letting" Pac*Bell finally replace
> all the crossbar was so that the company could provide 976/900
> blocking universally. If true, it goes right along with our
> regulatory embarassment that calls itself a PUC. Apparently,
> providing modern, useful telephone service is not important;
> protecting idiots (those who cannot help dialing 976/900 numbers) is.

You may be right that the CA PUC is afflicted with cranial/rectal
inversion.  It seems to me that the ADVANTAGES (read: income potential
from CLASS) of upgrading to ESS would be obvious.  I'm amazed that
you're STILL XBar!

As for the new drops demarcd on individual RJ11s: Do you prefer that?
Surely your setup by now must include backboard(s), 66 blocks and the
like.  I think I'd rather have a single, RJ21X w/amphenol plug --
although I'd simply pull the bridging clips to test an individual
line.

Good luck.  Let us know how it ends up!

 -- Tabby 2.2
 MacNetOmaha(402)289-2899 Multitasking w/MacOrphans (1:285/14)


[Moderator's Note: As pointed out in an issue earlier Monday evening,
the work got finished today.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 20:49 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In)


Greg Andrews <[e-mail]> writes:

> I'm not saying that I would be called upon to respond to a
> fire or automobile accident, but that the need to contact me regarding
> the imminence of death to my immediate family DOES constitute an
> emergency.

Maybe to YOU. I have no spouse. I have no children. No one needs to
reach me on an emergency basis EXCEPT for my clients. But I have made
provisions for this with many lines, pagers, cellular phones, etc., ad
nauseum. It is important for my clients to reach me FAST in some
cases.  It is NEVER necessary for any of them to use the operator to
interrupt my conversation.

So if it is so transcendentally important to you that you be reachable
concerning family emergencies, then shoulder burden of the mechanism
yourself rather than insist that all of the rest of us endure the most
annoying and ineffecient procedure of "operator interrupt".

What I hear in your post is that you would like to be notified about
certain emergencies, but don't feel the need to establish the
environment for that notification. You want it on a "casual" basis.


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

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 13:23 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Official Phone Tapping in UK
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]>:

> To avoid possible confusion: the term `engineer' is widely used in the
> UK for any sort of technician or service person.  All those
> `engineers' needed to tap phones are certainly not the sort with
> engineering degrees from universities.

In the US, this is also true, but in a slightly different fashion.

The title engineer is used for anyone technical whose time costs more
than $100 per hour.  Thus the terms:

Customer Engineer = Repair Tech + $100/hr billing
Field Service Engineer = Slightly more knowledgeable Repair Tech + $100/hr
etc.

Although I do not have a degree, I have been a telephone engineer for
20+ years.  Draw your own conclusions. [grin]


Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 [e-mail] [e-mail]
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you]

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 13:18 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Highly Remote Extensions
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]>:

>> ....No way, say the few people I have asked who ought to know.
>> But I think they probably have a vested interest in not having to take
>> the trouble to figure it out.  I have no knowledge of the switch
>> itself, or any apparent access to its features: I have to pay some
>> moron $100/hour to come and do adds&changes (which I have managed to
>> avoid doing so far).

> Take the advice of a "MORON" (I assume you mean someone who has
> trained and worked hard to learn and be proficient at their skills) ...

> If you have no knowledge of the switch, leave it alone!

> I've had to correct *doit yourself and save* mistakes before.  Most of
> the techs I know are compelled to charge double for this kind of work.

Well, as both a moron and the owner of a company employing morons, I guess
I'll add a few words to this disucssion:

I replied to this message directly when it first appeared, giving
suggestions about use of the Mitel LCR feature and asking for the
software generic level so I could frame a more specific reply.  Even
with my background, I did not interpret this request as a "do it
yourself" project.

The comments about avoiding "do it yourself" programming on a PBX you
know little or nothing about are quite valid.  I, too, have cleaned up
quite a few messes made by indviduals who assume they know everything
based on little or no actual knowledge.  I have posted previous
articles on my pet peeve: plant electricians who think they know
everything about telecom and computer wiring.

However, this forum exists because it is often difficult to obtain
specific or authoritative information from many telecom vendors.  How
many times do we discuss "the phone co. told me it couldn't be done"
in this digest a week?

Personal experience has shown that this problem is not a monopolized
by the telco's and carriers.  Quite a few equipment vendors are either
unwilling or unable to discuss anything but the simpliest operational
requirements with customers.  I spend a lot of time visiting sites
where XYZ Co. or ABC Co. has told their customers that "it couldn't be
done the way the customer wanted it" and then arrange to have my
company proceed to do the requested work.

The only notable exception to this problem is during the proposal
process for the sale of a new system: then all vendors are willing to
say all things are possible [1/2 grin here].

I have absolutely no problem discussing any aspect of the operation,
installation, programming or maintenance of a telecom or computer
system ... in this forum I assume I am working with people
experienced enough to know that they do not know all the answers, and
some things are best done by experts.  I also assume all Digest
readers know that no single person or organization has "all the
answers" (tm) ... and is intelligent enough to seek help when
confronted by the answer "you can't do that" ... especially when there
is a lack of confidence in the organization making that statement.

In talking to my customers and propective clients, I do find myself
making the statement "I'm not sure I an accomplish your request in a
manner you would find cost effective" .. and I am usually prepared to
back that statement up with a number .. and sometimes that number is
replacement cost for their PBX ... of course I have established my
technical competence to make that statement in a credible manner by
then.

In summary:

1. No one knows it all, and many know very little.
2. All things are possible if your budget is large enough.
3. Keep you hands off technology you do not understand.
4. Ask and listen carefully to the answer you get.

(Notable Exceptions to the above rules: the opposite sex and money.)

Gee ... I've never responded so positively to being called a moron before,
guess the net just brings out the better aspects of my personality.


Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 [e-mail] [e-mail]
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you]

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 21:26 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions


Bob Izenberg <[e-mail]> writes:

>     On June 19th, I mailed a FEEDBACK message to CompuServe's
> customer service account.  I had some questions suggested by a FidoNet
> sysop's concern over a message in German that passed through his
> system.

I don't know how FidoNet works, but why would this have been a
concern?  My computer processes literally thousands of Usenet articles
a day as well as many hundreds of private e-mail messages. I have
absolutely no idea what is in 50% of the Usenet articles and no idea
what is in 100% of the e-mail messages. I would not know if they were
in German, Russian, Venusian, or any other language. By the time I
read a Usenet article, it has already passed to many other sites and
is probably queued to many others.

Is there some suggestion here that I am responsible to become root and
read every one of the mail messages that pass herethrough? Many of
them are processed and passed on within seconds (outgoing mail is
immediate to local neighbor sites). If so, what standards am I to use
in "censoring" this mail, and what software should I use to accomplish
it?

If I really am responsible for every article and pass-through e-mail
message that writes to my disk drive, then I lack the facilities
(mostly manpower) to remain an intermediate UUCP site. If not, why
would a FidoNet site operator be held responsible?

Inquiring minds want to know.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc.
Date: 30 Jun 91 09:42:26 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Stan Reeves) writes:

> My wife and I are planning to build a house beginning in a few weeks.
> I've been trying to think ahead and figure out if there's any extra
> wiring we might like to put in the house before the sheetrock is put
> up.

When my father's office building was being built, he asked me the same
question.  What I suggested was to install empty conduits along likely
paths.  Later, when you decide to actually put in a LAN, CATV net, or
something not yet invented, you just blow a string and pull whatever
cable is needed.  This avoids the guessing, saves you buying expensive
wire that might never be used, and gives you flexibility for the
future.  After having installed a CATV network and other miscellaneous
wiring in my parent's house, I can highly recommend keeping such
flexibility.

If you do install wire during building, be sure the electricians and
contractors all thoroughly understand its purpose.  Some 30 years ago,
when my family was building our house, we put in speaker wires between
every room and the living room Hi-Fi.  After most of the house was
finished, but before all the details were completed, some airhead of
an electrician decided to take an inspection tour.  When he saw these
wires he didn't recognize, he thought to himself "messy, messy," and
proceeded to clip off all the loose ends.  We could only rescue one
room's connection.

Of course, my solution is to skip the sheetrock and use plywood and
paneling, *screwed* into place.


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

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

From: Kent Borg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IDDD From a Cellular Phone
Date: 29 Jun 91 00:29:41 GMT
Organization: Camex Inc., Boston MA


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

> John is right. The rate of change of the [cellular] subscriber
> enrollment is so high .  They even have coined a name for it. They
> call it "CHURN".

Actually the term "churn" predates cellular telephones.

It is a great word though, isn't it?


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

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

From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Edison's Recordings and Energy Conservation
Date: 30 Jun 91 17:13:56 EDT
Reply-To: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp


In article <[e-mail]>, 0004133373@mcimail (Donald
E. Kimberlin) writes:

[Thomas Edison penned a jingle...]

> "It went like this: `Save the juice, save the juice, turn out the
> light when not in use!"  ...

> Edison was, however, a little inaccurate in his refrain, as Dear
> Abby responded:

> "Dear Doris: With all due respect to Mr. Edison, `juice' is saved only
> if the lights are switched off for ten minutes or longer.  According
> to a spokesperson for the Department of Water and Power in Los
> Angeles, there is a power surge when lights are turned on, so lights
> should be left on if one plans to be in and out of the room.  Perhaps
> the jingle should be amended to read, `Save the juice, save the juice,
> burn out the light if it won't be needed for ten minutes or more.'  Of
> course, the meter is all wrong, but the message is accurate."

This may or may not be true for fluorescent lights, but I don't
believe it's true for incandescent lights.  I just tried flipping a
light on and off while watching the electric meter.  There was little
enough drain on the meter (it runs lights and circulators in the
common area of my building, and on a summer day there's almost no
electricity being used) so that I could see the effect of the light
going on and off.  There was certainly no surge.  It may well be that
there is wear and tear on the switch and bulb so as to render it more
cost-effective to leave the light on, but that's not what the LA Power
department said.


Chris Jones    [e-mail]    {uunet,harvard,world}!ksr!clj

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1991 13:12:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is This Number?


In [e-mail], [e-mail] writes:

> I have an 800 number that I would like to find out who owns and where
> they are located.   Do you know of anyway to get this info?  The number in
> question is [phone].

Try calling them and see what they say.


Dave Niebuhr   Brookhaven National Laboratory   Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #507
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06784;
          2 Jul 91 3:25 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12906;
          2 Jul 91 1:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16901;
          2 Jul 91 0:42 CDT
Date:     Tue, 2 Jul 91 0:06:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #508
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 2 Jul 91 00:06:02 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 508

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Is Pacific Bell Giving AT&T What is Due? [John Higdon]
    Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [J. Philip Miller]
    Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [David Cornutt]
    Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc. [R. Kevin Oberman]
    Re: Bellevue Prefixes (Washington State) [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? [Max Rochlin]
    Re: Call Message Delivery [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Poor Abused Phreakers [Jon Allen]
    Re: C & P Outage: What's the Story? [Doug Fields]
    Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' [Charlie Mingo]
    Caller-ID Data Sources and Format Information [Will Martin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Jun 91 22:08 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Is Pacific Bell Giving AT&T What is Due?


"Steven M. Palm" <myamiga![e-mail]> observes:

> My problem is this: I highly distrust their count of my phone calls.

To which the Moderator replies:

> If you find their count is wrong, and can prove it, I'd be surprised.

Perhaps Ameritech is blessed with better accuracy than Pacific Bell.
Let me tell you about an ongoing case of gross billing error
perpetrated by Pac*Bell that continues to this day.

I have a "Full State 800" service line. It has two bands and two rate
periods. The bands are "Pac*Bell-IntraLATA" which includes all calls
from within the San Francisco LATA; and "AT&T" which includes calls
from the rest of the state. The number is not reachable from outside
California. Note that the IntraLATA rate is significantly higher than
the "AT&T" rate. In other words, a call from next door costs more than
a call from San Diego.

All calls come from a small handful of people, all located in southern
California -- well out of the San Francisco LATA. In addition, those
calls are always made during the lower time-of-day rate. For the past
several years the bill arrives showing about 60% of the usage charged
as IntraLATA calls and the other 40% billed correctly as AT&T traffic.
The total hours shown is correct, as is the time-of-day usage. The
bill, because of the incorrectly billed IntraLATA usage, is significantly
higher than it should be.

At first, there was great skepticism on the part of the Pac*Bell reps.
How did I know where all the calls came from? Answer: I know personally
every single person who calls and where he is calling from.  Perhaps
there were calls answered by others on the premesis. No, there is no
one else here. The difference was credited.

Again -- the next month. "We'll look into it and let you know." In the
meantime, it was credited once again. Over the years, the following
has taken place:

I was told that they did not actually bill according to usage, but to
a formula. I pointed out that others who could accurately track usage
had been properly billed. I also said that nowhere in any of the
advertising was it said that usage was "estimated" and that such a
policy was contrary to the history and customs of US telephone service.
They backed down on that little piece of pacification.

A "trap" was put on the line for two months to find out where the
calls "really" came from. One thing was for sure: they did not come
from within the LATA, according to the results of the trap.

"Programmers" were presented with the problem. No one, but no one had
an answer. The billing errors persisted.

I submitted a two-month detailed record of ALL calls received on the
line. The report included time of the call, duration, and the area
code and number originating the call. No luck.

A rep suggested that I convert to Pac*Bell "custom" 800 and reject the
IntraLATA exchanges. No soap. Custom 800 charges are significantly
higher than the service to which I subscribe.

To my knowledge, there has been no recent progress in tracking the
billing problem. Right now, someone in the business office pulls up my
bill each month, recomputes the charges based on total AT&T usage, and
then issues a credit that appears on the following month's bill. This
happens month after month. The reps do this now without even being
told. But the billing problem remains.

Not long ago, an associate who is also in the SF LATA, who has the
identical service for the identical purpose complained of the
identical problem. Month after month, his bill shows Pac*Bell usage
when there is none and it is in reality AT&T usage. He also gets
credits by the business office, but not yet automatically. He is also
served out of a different CO and rate center than myself.

We are in the peculiar position of being to state categorically where
calls do and do not originate, but what about businesses that have
this service? How many Pac*Bell accounts do you suppose are out there
that have inaccurate billing and that are completely unaware of it?
How much money do you suppose AT&T is being screwed out of since it is
not being credited with the calls by Pac*Bell's billing computers?

The moral of all of this is that if you have any reason at all to
suspect that telco is improperly billing you -- CHECK IT OUT!


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

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 6:33:09 CDT


John G Dobnick <[e-mail]> writes:

> Say what?  I fail to understand the reasoning here.  Someone wants to
> use *my* phone line for some "emergency purpose" by *calling* me?
> This scenario makes no sense whatsoever.

Well, perhaps here is a scenario that makes sense:

Someone in your immediate family (e.g. spouse, child) is in an
accident.  Authorities need to contact you to arrange a variety of
details involved in treating your loved one (e.g. what hospital to
take them to, who their docotor is, permission given for treatment,
details of medical history).

If this is not an emergency in your book, I am glad I am not in your
family :-)


     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

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

From: David Cornutt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In)
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1991 13:17:28 GMT


I know that there is a law in Alabama which makes it a misdomeanor
(sp?) to "hinder or interfere with the extinguishing of a fire".
There was a rather notorious case a few years ago of a gas station
owner who was convicted under this law when he refused to allow use of
his fire extinguisher to put out a burning car (which was not on his
premises).  I would assume that the same would apply if there was a
car on fire in the street in front of your house, and you refused to
allow use of your phone to call the fire department.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc.
Date: 1 Jul 91 17:14:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Stan Reeves) writes:

> My questions:

> 1) Would ISDN require special wiring in the home, or would it use
> existing phone lines?

It uses "standard" phone wire; one pair. You will get the best results
(by far) if the wiring is a twisted pair that is not twisted with any
other pair. While it may be in the same jacket as other pairs, I would
be prone to keep it seperated from analog lines. The ring current gets
ugly!

Standard telco wiring has met these requirements (except seperate
jackets) for some time. Some older wiring may be four or more wires
all twisted together. If you are having a home wired, make sure it is
done to Bellcore PDS specs.

> 3) Would you recommend trying to wire the house in anticipation of
> ISDN service becoming widespread and being offered in my area?

Since it requires no special wiring, no problem!

> 4) Do you have any advice that I should consider for wiring the house
> to make it easy to add other communications devices as desired (smart
> house wiring)?

Put lots of holes on the headers and any firebreaks. Put strings
(nylon, cotton rots) in the walls to an accessable point in the attic
or basement to allow you to pull through the holes. Record where the
strings are located.

> 5) Are there other newsgroups that might be more appropriate for some
> of these questions?

You might try comp.dcom.lans.


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: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bellevue Prefixes (Washington State)
Date: 1 Jul 91 18:08:32 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> In a recent Digest is listed:

>> Bellevue, WA Central Office: 641, 643, 644, 747
>> and possibly others now (area 206)

> Other Bellevue prefixes as of 1982 were 451,453,454,455,746.

    There are two COs in Bellevue. The Glencourt CO serves 451,
453, 454, 455, 462, 637, and 646, and the Sherwood CO serves 562, 641,
643, 644, 746, 747, and 865 (which is mostly if not completely handled
by Boeing's 5ESS). This info from the June 1990 directory.

    I understand that 957 is also being used by Boeing in
Bellevue, and a friend recently gave me a new phone number which, if
memory serves, was in the 958 exchange. Both of these would be routed
through the Sherwood CO, which I believe is now serving 649 as well.

    The Sherwood CO is located at 148th Avenue SE and SE 16th St.
The Glencourt CO is located in downtown Bellevue somewhere.


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]

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

From: Max Rochlin <gupta![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper?
Organization: Gupta Technologies Inc
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 21:54:53 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> mtxinu!Ingres.COM!elvira@
uunet.uu.net writes:

> We are looking of a way in which a program, probably on a Sun
> Sparcstation, will call a phone number and after a few seconds dial
> another number.

Easy as pie,;make the page part of the dial string.  Call the pager
manually a few times and time the interval from the last digit until
you get the enter number beep from the paging company.  Divide the
time by two and add that many commas between the number for the pager
and the numeric string you want to send.

eg: dial string ATDT999-9999,,,12345 will call the pager, wait six
seconds and dial 12345, the numeric message to be sent to the pager.

This technique also works for answering machines that have what is
called a call transfer feature.  My Sony 820 pages me whenever I get a
message because I put my pager number and a numeric message in the
"Transfer" phone number.


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

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Message Delivery
Organization: CMC (a Rockwell Company), Santa Barbara, California, USA
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 22:04:01 GMT


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

> MCI provides the MCI Messenger Service.  [ dialling instructions deleted ]
> With MCI's service, you can record a one-minute message and have it
> delivered to any direct-dialable phone.  You can delay delivery up to
> 48 hours, and the system calls back every 20 minutes for 5 hours until
> it gets through to someone.

I bet this kind of service does not interact positively with an
answering machine.


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

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

From: Jon Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Poor Abused Phreakers
Reply-To: Jon Allen <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T IMS - Piscataway, NJ (USA)
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1991 11:57:02 GMT


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

> I see that you get really pissed off about phreaks poking around where
> they shouldn't, but what about coorporations poking around where they
> shouldn't, in your presonal finances? They SELL the information they

It's time to fight back and sell their information.  With Caller-ID
spreading across the country it's now possible to compile telemarketer
lists.  Just think if there were some central list where each person
could send the Caller-ID numbers of telemarketers.  These lists could
then be sold for a nominal charge to ordinary folks to avoid, and
could be sold to corporations who like to exchange lists. (Maybe you
could sell these lists to telemarketers who market telemarketing gear!
The possibilities are endless).


[e-mail]   Piscataway, NJ USA

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

From: [e-mail] (Doug Fields)
Subject: Re: C&P Outage: What's the Story?
Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1991 23:15:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Charlie.Mingo@f421.n109.z1.
fidonet.org (Charlie Mingo) writes:

>   I tried it and it worked, but I wondered if it was legal for MCI to
> carry intra-LATA calls. Didn't John Higdon mention that all IXC's
> (other than ThriftyTel) should reject intra-LATA calls, or does this
> restriction apply only to AT&T?

I am under the impression that all LD carriers must do that; however,
they can accept the call and route it back to the local company and
let them do the billing, I'd suppose. Personally I hate those laws --
it costs me $20 to call from New Haven to Greenwich (45 miles) using
SNET for 1.5 hours while AT&T'd cost me $9.50 or so (if it were a 2500
mile call).


Doug Fields -- 100 Midwood Road, Greenwich, CT 06830 --- (FAX) [phone]
uucp: uunet!areyes!admiral!doug ------- Thank you areyes/mail and wizkid/news!
Internet: [e-mail] --------------- (Voice@Home) [phone]
BBS: (HST/V32) [phone]; (MNP6) -2967; (PEP/V32) -2873; (V32/V42) -0450

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Date: 01 Jul 91  22:37:53
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker'


Last Sunday, the {New York Times Magazine} ran a column on computer
lingo, that stressed the distinction between 'hacker' and 'cracker'.
As this publication is fairly widely read by other journalists, we may
soon see more careful usage of the term 'hacker' ("an endearing term
for people who were interested in computers").

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 12:17:08 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID Data Sources and Format Info


The August '91 issue of {Radio-Electronics} magazine has a "Hardware
Hacker" column beginning on page 69 which contains a list of the
Bellcore papers on caller-ID specs, their prices, and a source to
order them from. There are also some figures and text on the details
of the data format used. It's not complete, but is mainly a
preliminary introduction, and refers to the papers for more info.

[Note: Don't ask me for more info; I just saw this in the library and
made note of the publication to pass on the pointer. Same with the WSJ
info I posted some days back -- the WSJ is available just about
*everywhere*, so I posted citations. Those who are interested can
easily get to a copy to read the complete text.]


Regards,

Will   [e-mail]  OR  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #508
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02858;
          3 Jul 91 0:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02370;
          2 Jul 91 23:01 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13496;
          2 Jul 91 21:54 CDT
Date:     Tue, 2 Jul 91 21:12:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #509
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 2 Jul 91 21:11:52 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 509

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Greensboro NC Phones Crap-out 7/1/91 (Southern Bell) [William T. Sykes]
    Cellular ESN Fraud: Any Help For Victim? [Phil Wherry]
    Power Surge Myth (was Edison Recordings) [Bruce Perens]
    New Boston/Conn. DMX? [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Obselete Parts For a GTE Microwave System [Aodh Dalton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: wts1 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Greensboro NC Phones Crap-out 7/1/91 (Southern Bell)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 17:24:02 GMT


Reprinted from the _Greensboro (NC) {News & Record}, Tuesday,
July 2, 1991, pg. B1


"COMPUTER GLITCH STOPS TELEPHONES

Greensboro Firms Endure a Long, Quiet Afternoon

    by Meredith Barkley and Betty Joyce Nash - Staff Writer

A computer glitch at Southern Bell's Eugene Street switching station
shut down 45,000 telephone lines in central Greensboro Monday, causing
an anxious afternoon for downtown businesses and affecting 911
emergency service in both Greensboro and Winston-Salem.

About one-third of all telephone lines in the city were silenced by
the outage.  Service was fully restored by 4:40 p.m., but Southern
Bell officials were still not sure what caused the computer foul-up.

Computer software problems are also blamed for disrupting service to
more than 1 million customers in southwestern Pennsylvania Monday, as
well as nearly 10 million customers in Washington, D.C., and Los
Angeles last week.

Clifton Metcalf, Southern Bell spokesman, said company officials "have
no indication that there is anything more than coincidence, no
indication that they are in any way connected."  The failures
originated from glitches in the technologically advanced computer
switching system that has been adopted by all the major telephone
companies.

Basic 911 emergency service for both Greensboro and Winston-Salem was
restored within minutes.  Those calls, which are routed through the
Eugene Street station from both cities, were rerouted until the
problem was solved.

The rerouted calls, though, did not give dispatchers such vital
information as the caller's address and telephone number - information
that enables emergency crews to respond even if a caller cannot speak.

Southern Bell officials said they believe the problem occurred when
information in the computer system was being updated between 8:30 a.m.
and 1 p.m.

The glitch knocked out service most of the afternoon to customers with
telephone numbers beginning with the prefixes [AC919] 230, 271, 272,
273, 274, 279, 337, 370, 378, 379, 680, and 691.

The disruptions were frustrating for many Southern Bell business and
residential customers.

"It had an effect because this is a telephone business and anything
that takes away from our ability to provide services to our customers
we don't view in a positive way," said Hugh Williams, manager of the
Shearson Lehman Brothers stock brokerage.

Guilford County Emergency Service's dispatchers used direct
communications with Moses Cone Memorial Hospital to help a patient get
in touch with a doctor.

"We just happened to be lucky we could get through to the doctor's
phone," said George Drake, shift supervisor for the county's 911
communications."

[END of ARTICLE]


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

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

From: Phil Wherry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular ESN Fraud: Any Help For Victim?
Reply-To: Phil Wherry <[e-mail]>
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1991 12:14:01 GMT


After reading the accounts in comp.dcom.telecom regarding the
fraudulent use of another's cellular ESN, I am somewhat curious as to
how such a situation would be resolved from the point of view of the
fraud VICTIM. Say, for instance, my ESN is "grabbed" and stored in
someone else's modified cellular phone, and that the fraud is
discovered. I assume, then, that the ESN would be blocked and put on
the national "hot list." This would then deny me the legitimate use of
my phone. How is this situation resolved? Can the ESN be reset by
exchanging a part in the phone, or is the victim simply out of luck?


Phil Wherry        Member of the Technical Staff
MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA    [e-mail]    703-883-6694

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Power-Surge Myth (was Edison's Recordings)
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 02:04:11 GMT


<regarding Dear Abby's response to Edison's "Save the Juice" jingle>

I'm entertained by the endurance of the "power-surge" myth in
<[e-mail]>.

This is the myth that one can only save money by turning off a light
if the light will be off for some long time, ten minutes, half an
hour, it differs every time I hear this. The explanation given for
this is that there is a power-surge when the light goes on. There is
indeed a power surge, but it isn't as big as they'd have you think.

Say the break-even point was ten minutes. Think about how much power
it takes to run the light for just five minutes. Now, pack all of that
power into a surge that is supposed to happen in the _second_ you turn
the light on. If it didn't throw the circuit breaker it would vaporize
the house wiring!

In the case of an incandesent (Edison) lamp, the resistance of the
filament varies directly with its temperature, so a cold filament does
conduct _much_ more power. It heats up extremely quickly, so the surge
is very short in duration, perhaps a tenth of a second. During that
time, say it uses 200 times the normal power (an absurdly large
amount), and that would still place the break-even point at only
twenty seconds.

Perhaps what they are talking about is the cost of the bulb: the shock
of the rapid temperature change when it is turned on shortens its
life.


Bruce Perens

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

Date: 2-JUL-1991 03:28:14.31
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Boston/Conn. DMX?


I recently noticed a few odd things going on between Metro Mobile/CT
and Cell One/Boston.

I got a call about week ago, via call forwarding from my Metro Mobile
number. No big deal right? I asked the caller how he was calling me
(as call-forwarding costs airtime), and he replied, "Oh, through the
roam port", ie, using the car call-forwarding, so I intended to call
him back.  So I said "Ok, I'll call you back in Hartford, ok?" and my
friend (Scott) replied "Hartford, why should I be in Hartford? Aren't
you in Boston?  I'm calling the Boston port!"

Now the fact that call-forwarding will work even through the roam port
is nothing new. In areas that are "DMXed" together, usually two
bordering systems, a DMX allows this sort of thing. Although a DMX is
generally intended to offer cross-system paging (ringing) and use of
Custom Calling features outside of your home area (ie, in the nearby
DMXed areas), it seems a bit less well-known that a DMX also
(generally) allows a customer's call-forwarding to be utilized by
callers via a roam port, as well as using the roam port as a means to
(ahem) save on some toll charges (although this at times is more
costly than dialing direct, since the ports always "supervise"
(answer) so it is a dubious savings at best).

For example: I have Call-Forwarding (*71 let's say) active to forward
to my house. I have a CT mobile number. A friend in Providence, RI
wants to reach me. Instead of dialing me in CT, a long-distance call,
he can call the Rhode Island roam port, a free call, enter my mobile
number, and this will page me in ANY area that is DMXed to RI, namely
Boston and CT. Note that although this is a way to save some money, it
also has some valid uses, as it allows a roamer to give out fewer roam
ports. Thus, if you are going to be in the "New England Area", you may
just want to give out the RI port, which will get you all over
Southern New England, ie, all the systems which are DMXed to the Rhode
Island system. (You will be billed by whatever carrier you are being
serviced by when you receive the call, NOT only the RI system, even
though all your callers used that port).

Additionally, since the Rhode Island system is DMXed to to CT system,
*AND* I have service in the CT system, the RI port will "pay atention"
to my Call-Forwarding commands (*71 in this case), and thus when
someone calls me through the RI port, they will get my home number
which I had forwarded my cell calls to. The same would work for a
Boston customer who was access through the RI port; ie, generally, any
system that is DMXed to your home system will respond through its own
roam ports as if someone had called you mobile number directly.

(Since this means that you can, in effect, get "free" long-distance,
many carriers have taken the "easy" solution, and started charging
airtime for call-forwarding. That is, if I forward my calls from my CT
mobile number to a friend in CT, anyone in RI can use the port to call
my mobile number, which will forward to my friend, all for free!  By
charging airtime for all call-forwarding, this practice is discouraged.)

Which brings me to Boston: Apparently, Boston now has a "psuedo-DMX"
to CT.  It has been DMXed to Metro Mobile/RI for a while now, but when
I first spoke with Metro/CT, they said no such thing was in place yet
with the CT system. When I asked them "So why can callers reach me
through the Boston roam port via call-forwarding?" they said "Well, we
have a new PRV system (positive roamer validation, I think), that may
have something to do with it." So I go "Hmm ... that's weird" and say
goodbye.

However, this got me thinking: Dialing my number through the Boston
port will NOT page me in CT. It *queries* my phone, ie, I can actually
hear the thing click after I enter my number into the Boston port, but
it won't ring me. It *will*, however, follow my "Busy-Transfer" or
"No-Answer Transfer" instructions, so I fowarded these to my own
mobile number, and, amazingly, it works! So now callers can use the
Boston roam port to reach me in CT and NY/NJ, which they previously
could not do. (I may pay double airtime for this - ie, for the actual
airtime and airtime for the "call-forward" to myself ... this will no
doubt confuse the hell out of Metro's billing system!)

So great, a neat new hack I can play around with, which increases my
coverage area for poeple calling me from Boston. Previously, since
Boston was only DMXed to RI and New Hampshire (maybe Maine as well?),
someone calling me at the Boston Roam port could only get me in these
areas. Now, although I may pay double airtime, I can be reached in a
much larger area through the Boston port.

I drove up to Boston this weekend, to visit friends, and try out this
new "feature" a bit more (and YES, in that order! :) ).

On my way up, as I enter the Boston system from CT (I-84, old I-86), I
see the "roam" light come on, so I know I am in the Boston system.  So
I call myself in CT. Usually, since Boston was not DMXed to CT, the
call would just die in CT, or forward to wherever I sent no-answer-
transfer to before leaving the CT system. However, this time, I got a
busy signal, since my phone was being used, in the Boston system! Ok,
"great" I said, another new neat feature. Callers calling me will
know when my phone is busy ... looks like a DMX to me!

Then I think "Hmmm ... DMXs allow for call-forwarding, etc. Let me try
that".  And sure enough, *71 (no-answer-transfer), *72 (call-forwarding)
and *73 (cancel all forwarding) worked fine! Really neat! I can now
forward my calls to any landline phone from within the Boston system!
Very impressive expansion of the "call forwarding" features!

Interestingly, *74, or "busy-transfer" didn't work. Does Cell
One/Boston have this? Do they use some other code? Strange how this
didn't work.

So very happy to "discover" this apparently new DMX, I called my
friend Scott (who started this whole thing!), and told him: "Hey,
Scott, I'm just outside of Boston, but call me back through CT!".
After I explained the "new" DMX, we hung up, and he tried to call
back.

But it didn't work! All Scott got when he called me was a short ring,
and then a re-order. As a matter of fact, all attempts to call me
directly (NOT via the Boston or RI or whatever roam port) failed.

I took the phone indoors, and saw what was happening. When someone
called me directly (no roam ports), the call would seem to come to
Boston, my phone would "click" as it always does before it starts
ringing, (letting the system know it is active?), yet not ring. The
call would just "die" in the Boston system! And when I turned my phone
off, so that I could not be queried in Boston, everything returned to
normal, ie, calls would ring 3 times (in CT), and then go to my
"No-answer-transfer" number as they always had done in the past. It
would seem then, that my phone being active in the Boston system had
an effect on the way my home system processed calls.

So I called Metro Mobile today, explained to lots of people what was
going on, and said "Look, the new features, like Call-Forwarding and
my phone returning a busy signal when I use it are great ... let's keep
that ... but WHY isn't my phone ringing?". Needless to say, they were
stumped, and just couldn't answer. (Which is better than Metro's usual
"Say anything to get the customer off of our backs!" attitude.)  They
said that they were planning a DMX to Boston, but that it was by no
means in place yet, and PRV or interactive validations would NOT do
this. So they are going to get back to me.

I recall the same thing happened last year between GTE/San Francisco
and the Pac*Tel/Sac system, ie, you roam into Sac, callers just get a
re-order even though your phone is queried, and when you turn your
phone off in Sac, everything goes back to normal, except, of course,
you can't use your phone! (Call-Forwarding did not work as it does
with Boston, though.) I was told then by GTE that this was due to some
sort of interactive validation as well, but later, they corrected
themselves, and stated it was due to the (presently active)
interactive roaming systtem ("*28") that was slowly being implemented
in California and Nevada. (The "replacement" for Follow Me Roaming in
these states).

Thus, has anyone had any similar experiences? I am particularly
interested in Cell One/Boston customers who roam into Connecticut.
When callers dial your Boston number, and you are in CT (away from RI
so you don't get that system), do THEY also get a re-order? Is your
phone queried?  (Hard to tell, I know...). Of course, any help,
information or similar anectdotes from other systems will also be very
interesting to me, as well as helpful.

Sorry for another long "cellular" post ... and thanks in advance for
any help!

(BTW: A good test to see if there is a DMX between your system and
nearby ones (but not 100%): Call your mobile number directly, or
somehow make it busy. (Call 611? :) ). Then, while your phone is still
busy, call the nearby roam ports, and enter your number. Chances are
if you get a busy signal through the roam port, there is a DMX, or the
functional equivalent of one in place.)


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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 12:50 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Obselete Parts For a GTE Microwave System


Can anyone help me to locate the following diodes for a GTE CTR144,
3.55 - 4.2 GHz microwave system (1800 telephone channels or TV links)
Manufactured '72 - '76 in Milan.

GTE #        Part#        Description

402/006-82                Varactor Diode in VCO
402/406-01     DH742-01            Varactor Diode in Up Converter
402/403-06     826BAY            Diode

I can be faxed at [phone] (Galway, Ireland.)


Thank you,

Aodh Dalton

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #509
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05695;
          3 Jul 91 1:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06372;
          3 Jul 91 0:08 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02370;
          2 Jul 91 23:01 CDT
Date:     Tue, 2 Jul 91 22:24:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #510
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 2 Jul 91 22:24:07 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 510

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?) [Brian Cuthie]
    Bell Atlantic SS7 Problems [Ron Atkinson]
    Latest Outage in  Pittsburgh, PA [Dave Querin]
    Big Service Outage in Pittsburgh [Kevin Brown]
    007 Loses License to Call [David E. A. Wilson]
    Caller ID Against Telemarketers [Cris Pedregal-Martin]
    More on IMR Telecom [Bob Frankston]
    Radio Based Car Recovery Systems (was: Cellular Phone Jamming) [David Neal]
    COCOT and Local Calling Areas [Neal Goldsmith]
    Is Randy History? [Ed Hopper]
    Re: Exchange Upgrades in Australia [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brian Cuthie <umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?)
Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 14:49:26 GMT


Several recent postings, and some friends in the right places, have
mentioned that the cause of the phone outage here in the DC area was
the result of a poorly behaved signaling transfer point (STP).  An STP
is, as I understand it, roughly the equivalent of a gateway.

What is truely amazing to me is the architecture of this network.  You
mean to tell me that there are only *FOUR* STPs for four states!?
This seems absolutely ludicrous to me.  I mean, what were these guys
thinking?

For many moons, as most of us are aware, the government has sponsored
research in the area of survivable networks.  We have all come to know
and love one of these networks as the ARPA net.  Granted, it has
*it's* problems too, but it does not have any inherent choke points.
Points, who's loss or incapacitation would cause the entire network to
go down.  Why do the phone companies seem to have ignored the results
of millions of dollars worth of study?

Now, before you flame me, I admit that I know virtually nothing about
SS7. What I *do* know, however, is that it is just plain insane to
have an entire region's telecommuncations controlled by at best, four
points.  Not to mention that many areas, such as mine, are fifteen
miles from the nearest STP.  There are lot's of things that can happen
in fifteen miles of fiber.  It just seems unconscionable that two
central offices, two miles from each other, must get routes from an
STP fifteen miles away.

I certainly can understand why an STP would be needed to place calls
out of the immediate area, but calls between neighboring switches
should be routed at a different level.  And, yes, I am aware that SS7
allows calls to be setup out of band, in their entirety.  However,
this goal can be accomplished without a centalized control scheme.
There is no need to involve an STP in Baltimore with a route from East
Columbia to West Columbia (all of two miles).

The way it is now is equivalent to all of the campus LAN traffic first
going through some machine in Baltimore for *every* college campus in
the state.  Thus, if the machine in Baltimore, or one of the links
connecting me to it, goes down, I suddenly can't talk to the machine
down the hall.  Would you tolerate this in a computer network?  Should
you tolerate it in your telephone network?

I don't know why the network is structured the way it is, but I also
don't trust the *phone company* to necessarily know how to do it
right.  Considering the importance of local phone service to the
health and well-being of us all, I think it may be time to get some
outside oversight to make sure the phone companies don't engineer us
into a cost effective, but highly vulnerable, network.  After all,
it's not like the old days when survivability was the *key* issue in
any design.  These are now profit seeking companies and they are going
to do everything they can to maximize profits; and we all know what
that means.


brian

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

From: Ran Atkinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Atlantic SS7 Problems
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 18:54:16 GMT


  By now readers of this list should be aware of the problems recently
in LA, Washington/Baltimore, and yesterday in Pennsylvania involving
switches from a Texas manufacturer and new SS7 software.

  News reports from local press in the VA/DC/MD area indicate that the
DC area problem arose during or shortly after a software change being
made to the originally failing switch.  Today's paper is indicating
that there are now serious concerns about the software implementation
of SS7 by the Texas firm that made the switch and its software.  News
reports appear to indicate that the switch hardware wasn't much of a
factor in the problems.

  I inquired about the problems with a former cohort who now works for
C&P Telephone and he said that some of the folks there are seriously
concerned about insufficient software testing and verification on the
part of the manufacturer.  The view of those with the concerns is that
if adequate testing and verification had occurred then these problems
would never have happened.  These folks are probably ex-Bell System
people and there may be some bias against non-AT&T equipment implicit
in their views.  AT&T practically wrote the book on fault tolerant
electronic systems beginning at least as far back as 1ESS days.

  The articles also report that the Chairman of the switch
manufacturer was called in to meet with high-level Pacific Telesis
officials to discuss their concerns with the LA incident.

  My contact also indicated that a few folks are beginning to express
internal concern and uncertainty about whether the SS7 protocol itself
might have problems.  He didn't offer details about where their
concerns lie, but news reports indicated that it was "a flood of
maintenance messages" to the non-faulted switches that ultimately
caused them to fault.  It would be interesting if anyone on the list
might be able to find out what kind of testing/verification was
applied to the protocol itself (as opposed to a particular
implementation).


Ran Atkinson    [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Querin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Latest Outage in Pittsburgh, PA
Date: 2 Jul 91 13:32:15 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station


I caught a news blurb this morning before I left for work.  Apparently
there was another service outage on the east coast yesterday.  It
seems that another software error caused a fairly massive service
outage in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  The extent of it was not
accurately mentioned, but interestingly enough, the reporter stated
that the three service outages nationwide in the past two weeks have
been software related, and all from the same vendor (didn't mention
the vendor however).


David Querin    [e-mail]

The message contained herein is my own.  It reflects not upon my
university or employer.

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 19:09:05 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Big Service Outage in Pittsburgh


    Did anyone else here about the outage in Pittsburgh, PA?
Apparently more than one million customers lost most local *and* LD
service around 11am.  The area code involved was 412.  Some were
restored by 3pm, but most by 5pm.  Cause is unknown, but there is a
team looking into the problem.  Sounds familiar to the C&P problem
ehhh??  It is known that the computers that failed to process the
calls were from a single manufacturer.  I wonder what area is next?


-kev-

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: 007 Loses License to Call
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 06:47:45 GMT


On the 30th of June this year 6,500 phones using Telecom's MTS (Mobile
Telephone Service) were made obselete. Launched in 1981 and using the
007 prefix, this was the original mobile network. It was overtaken by
Telecom's newer Mobilenet (launched in 1987) using the 018 prefix.
Mobilenet has 290,000 users.

The Federal Department of Transport and Communications has withdrawn
the bandwidth used by this service. MTS users will have to buy
cellular phones if they wish to continue mobile communications
(Telecom is offering A$500 off the A$1000 retail price of a new
cellular phone).

In the near future Mobilenet itself may become obsolete when new
digital mobile phone networks based on the European GSM (Groupe
Societe Mobile) standard. If this were to occur, Mobilenet would be
run in parallel with the new system until at least the year 2000
(because of the large number of existing users).


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

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

From: Cris Pedregal-Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Against Telemarketers (was Poor Abused Phreakers)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 11:02:39 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, Jon Allen suggests:

  [quote from someone on selling CID info on companies]

> It's time to fight back and sell their information.  With Caller-ID
> spreading across the country it's now possible to compile telemarketer
> lists.  Just think if there were some central list where each person
> could send the Caller-ID numbers of telemarketers. [...]

Nice Idea (tm). One more chore to take care of just to be left alone.
And one more gadget (or service) to buy (you don't expect your
"ordinary folks" to scan a list of thousands of telemarketer's numbers
each time their phone rings, do you?). And a service.  I picture this
situation:

[Riinnng] ...  Hello?

Hello, this is the ultimate, and last, telemarketing call you will
ever receive.  For $49.99 plus shipping, we will send you the device
that stops all calls from telemarketers! ... and for only $9.99 a
year, we will update on-line the list of numbers in your reject-a-call
box.

Or this:

[TV or newspaper Ad]

Tired of all the advertising? All the telemarketing calls at
dinnertime? Dial 1-900-CUT-SLEAZE and we will take care of it for you.
No more unwanted calls to your number!  [in small print, or very rapid
voice in the background] "Only $29.99 per call, we make our customer
lists available to selected companies."    :-)


                     Cristobal Pedregal Martin
COINS Dept.  --  Univ. of Massachusetts / Amherst --  [e-mail]

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

From: frankston![e-mail]
Subject: More on IMR Telecom
Date: 2 July 1991 12:30 -0400


IMR seems to stand for "In Medias Res".  They called back and are
actually trying to compete with New England Tel on price.  They have a
filing with the Mass DPU (91-30, dated June 24, 1991) to challenge
NET's ability to give their own phones a preferential rate.

They are also selling their service to the commercial sites by
contending that the pay phone should be a customer convenience and not
a profit center.

Their rate table for calls from Boston:

Minutes           :    1    2    3    4
Bell Springfield Ma: 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.75
Bell Chicago     Il: 2.05 2.30 2.55 2.80
IMR Anywhere in 48 :  .25  .50  .75 1.00
 states using Call America

Bell is their shorthand for NET and/or ATT.

Since I'm suspicious of COCOTS in general, others more up on the
issues might want to look into this some more.

The number and address on their filing:
 IMR Telecom
 1451 Concord Street
 Framingham, Ma 01701
 608-877-1070

PS: I saw another COCOT variation at a small restaurant.  It was a
simple desk set at the cashiers table with a quarter slot.  Looks like
a low tech way of offering convenience to customers.

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 12:01 CDT
From: David Neal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Based Car Recovery Systems (was: Cellular Phone Jamming)


The latest issue of {Mobile Office} (June, 1991) covers the five car
locating devices now offered.

Briefly, they are:

LoJack $595  hidden kill switch, add $100

"A coded, high frequency radio signal (173.73 MHz) acts like a homing
beacon for any police cars within a 12 to 25 square mile range which
are equipped with on-board tracking systems." [The tracking equipment
and software is leased to law enforcement agencies for $1/yr.]

Code Alarm's Intercept $995 or $1495 with required Diamondtel Cell Phone

"Tracks a stolen vehicle with Loran-C, a nationwide, low-frequncy
(100kHz) radar system maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard."

Teletrac $500-$700

"This system uses a technique called spread-spectrum RF Telemetry (900
MHz) to pinpoint the location within 100ft..."  "The unit, backup
battery, and antenna can be hidden in any of 25 spots within the
vehicle."

Mets $595

"Uses them same basic spread-spectrum technology as Teletrac, [can be
hidden a dozen different places on the vehicle]..."

Locator $695

Uses Loran-C but also has one-way radio link to the car to warn
perpetrators that the alarm has been activated and that police are
about to be called.

                       -----------

The article also mentions that some systems are still in pilot stages
or are not actually yet deployed, but that LoJack claims a 100%
recovery rate in Los Angeles and offers FULL replacement value if the
car is not recovered.

The article is well written and goes into many details that I have
skipped here. For those who may not have access to {Mobile Office},
the West Coast Office # is [phone], East Coast office (212)
213-9590. But, they have an 800 for subscriptions: [phone]. and
are also under Compu$erve as CEForum. MCI Mail Id: Mobile Office,
Compu$werve, 76646,3722.

Pretty well connected for a magazine, no?

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

From: Neal Goldsmith <mtxinu!asche.sybase.com![e-mail]>
Subject: COCOT and Local Calling Areas
Date: 2 Jul 91 18:56:05 GMT
Reply-To: Neal Goldsmith <mtxinu!asche.sybase.com![e-mail]>
Organization: Sybase, Inc.


Last month Pacific*Bell changed the local calling areas in the SF Bay
area.

This past weekend I was in San Francisco and needed to call home in
the East Bay (now a local call). All I could find was a COCOT and of
course it wanted 65 cents to complete the call.

Do COCOTs have to follow the PAC*BELL zones, or can they slip by over
charging users who may not know better?


Neal E. Goldsmith                                  Sybase, Inc.
[e-mail]                                   1650 65th Street
What I sez is my opinion and not my employers.     Emeryville, CA  94608
                                                   [phone]

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

Subject: Is Randy History?
From: ED HOPPER <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon 01 Jul 91 00:47:25 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, TX - 713-997-7575


In Digest #498, our Moderator mentioned the Randy Borow's affair.  He
mentioned that Randy "was fired" over the disclosure of confidential
information regarding an AT&T customer.

My last recollection of the affair was that Randy had been suspended
and that nothing had been settled on Randy's continued employement.

What's the story, Pat?


Ed Hopper   AT&T Computer Systems (for now)


[Moderator's Note: The story is you caught me using the common
parlance for people in Randy's predicament. I *assume*, with no basis
for this other than gut-feeling, that he is indeed fired by now. The
last word I had was several weeks ago, when I talked briefly with
Randy on the phone and the union was attempting to get him back on the
job. At that point he had lost the first two rounds in the process,
but had yet a third appeals level to use. He did not seem enthusiastic
when I spoke with him last. Maybe Randy or someone from AT&T would be
willing to speak for the record at this point.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 11:02:49 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Exchange Upgrades in Australia
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> A push-button phone using the new tone dialling will also
> enable you to access services such as home banking, voicemail and
> pagers.

This sounds like the Pacific Bell White Pages, which claims you must
have TouchTone service in order to use a modem on the line.  How much
do you wanna bet that this will not be in the new directories now that
TouchTone is free?  Since this "useful information" will no longer
generate additional revenue, it probably won't be considered "useful"
anymore.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #510
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14084;
          3 Jul 91 5:41 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30124;
          3 Jul 91 3:28 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19196;
          3 Jul 91 2:20 CDT
Date:     Wed, 3 Jul 91 1:42:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #512
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 3 Jul 91 01:42:11 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 512

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Highly Remote "Extensions" on Mitel [Irving Wolfe]
    Re: Highly Remote "Extensions" on Mitel [Marty Brenneis]
    Re: Phrack Magazine [Brendan Kehoe]
    Re: Phrack Magazine [John R. Schutz]
    Re: TNC, BNC, N Cellular Connectors [John Higdon]
    Re: TNC, BNC, N Cellular Connectors [John A. Limpert]
    Re: MCI Operator Assisted Rates [Sean Williams]
    Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc. [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Bell Labs: Shakeout Follows Breakup [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott [Richard L. Reynolds]
    What Kind of Exchange Am I On? [Jamie Mason]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Highly Remote "Extensions" on Mitel
Date: 29 Jun 91 01:09:32 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island


What exactly IS an "off-premises extension" anyway?  I have a phone
system that claims to support them (with an add-in card) but the
manuals fail to give any idea what one is.


 [e-mail]      Happy Man Corp. 206/463-9399 x101
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 09:52:09 PDT
From: Marty the Droid <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Highly Remote "Extensions" on Mitel


Jim Hickstein, Teradyne/Attain, San Jose CA, asks:

>> Now that this is possible, I want to set things up so that I can dial
>> an "extension" (2xxx or 3xxx) on my phone, and have it somehow prepend
>> the area code and exchange and hand it to a CO loop.

>> Note that this is the INVERSE of the usual "off-premises extension".
>> Is this possible without spending a lot of money?  Is it possible at
>> all?

Sure Jim, this is easy on most modern PBXs. You need to set up an
entry in the ARS tables to add digits when it sees those extension
numbers dialled.  (ARS = Automatic Route Selction). This will work if
there are no conflicts with local extensions or feature access codes.
You should try to get an interconnect with some better knowledge of
Mitels, (and telephony in general, this may be like finding an honest
lawyer.)


Marty 'The Droid' Brenneis            ...!uupsi!kerner!droid
Industrial Magician                    [e-mail]
[phone]     KAE7616 - 462.700 - 162.2    KD6????

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 09:41:19 -0400
From: Brendan Kehoe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phrack Magazine
Organization: Widener CS Dept


> Are issues of Phrack still available?

They are available as part of the Computer Underground Digest archives:

  - FTP from ftp.cs.widener.edu [192.55.239.132] in pub/cud/phrack
    (note this number should change to 147.31.254.132 in the next week)
  - FTP from chsun1.uchicago.edu [128.135.12.60] in pub/cud/phrack
  - [e-mail] (Subject: line of `help')

It's requested that people get the Index to the Phrack issues first,
and then get those issues they're specifically interested in, rather
than hit the sites with transfers that're 2Mb a pop.


Brendan Kehoe - Widener Sun Network Manager - [e-mail]
Widener University in Chester, PA

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

From: "John R. Schutz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phrack Magazine
Date: 2 Jul 91 15:09:40 GMT
Organization: Those wacky, wacky fellas at UT's CSR


The Moderator guy Noted:

> [Moderator's Note:  Since Craig N. is a regular reader here, perhaps
> he will respond with an address where people can obtain back issues of
> the magazine as desired.   PAT]

Hmm, well, I'm not Craig Neidorf, but Phrack (plus loads of other CU
materials, if you're interested) are located in the CuD archives.  For
those with FTP look at chsun1.uchicago.edu (128.135.12.60).  For those
without FTP, there is a mail server at the same location.  In fact
here is a quick help file from it (stolen from CuD):

A note about the e-mail archive server at chsun1.uchicago.edu:

Please send any and all requests for files/help to:
        [e-mail]

This is not the address for receiving the latest issue of CuD from the
mailing list.  Either subscribe to alt.society.cu-digest on USEnet or
send mail to [e-mail] (although I'm not sure, you might be
able to do uunet!NIU.BITNET!TK0JUT2 if you do not have a definition
for .BITNET sites).

The archive server is automated and it only understands a few commands
placed in the body of the message you send.  These commands are HELP,
INDEX, SEND, and PATH (case doesn't matter).  In short:

help:   sends a help file describing each command in detail
index:  sends an index of available topics.  If the topic is on the same
        line, it will send a detailed index of that topic.  Available CuD
        topics are:

        ane ati bootlegger chalisti cud hnet law lod narc network
        nia papers phantasy phrack phun pirate school synd tap
send:   sends a file.  Commands for send must be in the following format:
        send topic filename
        send topic filename1 filename2 filename3 ...

        Please note that the arguments are separated by spaces, not slashes
        or any other characters.  Also, some mailers between this site and
        yours might not be able to handle mail messages larger than 50k in
        size.  You will have to make special arrangements to receive these
        files (see address below).
path:   This command forces a specified return path.  Normally, the server
        will guess what the return address should be (most of the time,
        successfully), but in some cases, it will cause the requested
        files to bounce, leaving you without your files.  If this is the
        case, you should use the path command to set the return address.
        Please note, the mailer here cannot handle .uucp addresses, these
        addresses must be fully expanded.  Here are some examples:
           path [e-mail]         [for BITNET hosts, direct]
           path [e-mail]
           path hosta!hostb![e-mail]

Some useful commands to give to the server (once you know your mailing
address is OK) are:

send cud cud-arch
      which sends the master Index for the CuD archive.
send cud chsun1.email.files
      which sends a directory of all files that are in the CuD archives by
      topic, filename, size of the file, and other less useful information.
      This file is updated whenever new files are added to the archives.

If you have any problems and wish to have someone help you with the server,
please send mail to:

        [e-mail]
(also   [e-mail])

Bob Kusumoto
chsun1 archive manager

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

There, hope that helps.  Sorry to steal your limelight, Craig <grin>.


John R. Schutz           | Email&NeXTmail:
A learning NeXTie        | [e-mail]
[phone]            | 3009 Hatley Dr., Austin, TX  78746

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 22:02 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: TNC, BNC, N Cellular Connectors


Bill Kennedy <[e-mail]> writes:

> I have a Motorola bag phone and it has a miniature UHF connector for
> the antenna.

Precisely the arrangement I have. I use a one-piece mini-UHF to TNC
adaptor for a roof antenna. However...

> The question is what connector is going to be the most reliable?

The TNC is a miserable connector for quick disconnect. Since both the
mini-UHF and the TNC have threads sometimes it is a crapshoot as to
which one will unscrew first. When I get around to it, I will snip off
the TNC, replace it with a BNC and change the adaptor. The BNC is
perfectly capable of providing acceptable performance at 800 MHz. It
is electrically identical to the type N which is the standard
connector for broadcast auxiliary devices that operate at 950 MHz.

> My preference is BNC because I'm used to them but if some
> one knows one to be better, I'd like to know.  Even if type N is the
> best it's the least convenient.  Is it enough better?  Thanks,

As I said, they are electrically the same. Use the BNC.


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

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

From: "John A. Limpert" <gronk![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TNC, BNC, N Cellular Connectors
Organization: BFEC/GSFC
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 13:33:43 GMT


[e-mail] (Bill Kennedy) writes:

> The question is what connector is going to be the most reliable?  The
> last time I knew anything about it 860MHz was nearly voodoo, so I'm
> way stale.  My preference is BNC because I'm used to them but if some
> one knows one to be better, I'd like to know.  Even if type N is the
> best it's the least convenient.  Is it enough better?  Thanks,

TNC, BNC and N are all good connectors for UHF applications.  Threaded
connectors are preferable for outdoor use (TNC and N).  Since coax
losses are high at 860 MHz your best choice would be to use N
connectors with a good, low-loss RG-8 size coax such as Belden 9913 or
RG-213.  Make sure the coax has a non-contaminating jacket if you want
it to last.


John A. Limpert        [e-mail]    uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl
Code 530.2              Goddard Space Flight Center

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 05:58 GMT
From: Sean Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Operator Assisted Rates


"Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]> writes:

> When I was in Philadelphia last month, I was having trouble getting
> MCI's  computer to accept my card number using 10222-0-###-###-####
> (bong) card #.  When I called customer service, they said to just
> dial 10222-0 and place the  call through the operator.

Did you be sure to specify to customer service that you were using an
MCI Card?  When using your MCI Card, you should always use the "950"
access number.  This assures that you are reaching the MCI network.
Then, and only then, should you dial 0+10D followed by your card
number.

Why wouldn't 10222+0+10D [ka-bong] accept your MCI Card?  Because it
isn't programmed to.  Using this method accesses a shared telco
database which contains card numbers issued by Bell Operating
Companies and other independent telcos.  It doesn't contain
information about your MCI Card, and therefore won't accept it.  At
best, you will reach an MCI operator who will then complete your call
 -- but this is an inconvenience to the operator which you may be
expected to pay for...

> When I complained about having to pay assisted rates, they said they don't
> charge for operator assist anymore.  Is this new?

What they may have meant is that there is no operator-assist charge
when using the MCI "950" access number; this is so you can use your
MCI Card from a rotary phone for the same rates as Touch-Tone(tm)
capable customers.  I would be suprised to see that regular operator
charges have also been waived from 10222+0+10D calls.  There may have
been just a simple misunderstanding.

To review the dialing procedures for your MCI card, follow the simple
instructions on the back of the card, or call MCI's Card "Test-Drive"
at 1-800-950-TEST.  A recording will walk you through the procedure.


Sean E. Williams               |  [e-mail]
Spectrum Telecommunications    |  Have a nice day!
PO Box 227                     |  <<no disclaimer needed>>
Duncannon, PA 17020-0227       |  voicemail: [phone]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc.
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 15:47:11 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Stan Reeves) writes:

> 4) Do you have any advice that I should consider for wiring the house
> to make it easy to add other communications devices as desired (smart
> house wiring)?

> Put lots of holes on the headers and any firebreaks. Put strings
  *****************************************!!!!!!!!!!

> (nylon, cotton rots) in the walls to an accessable point in the attic
> or basement to allow you to pull through the holes. Record where the
> strings are located.

Just in case the name of this structure does not mean anything to you,
the purpose of a firebreak is to stop fire from spreading within a
wall, floor or ceiling structure.  Unfilled holes (even relatively
small ones) defeat this by letting hot gases travel from the fire area
to the (previously) uninvolved area -- causing ignition of the new
area.

You don't need to worry about this if you promise never to have a fire.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 10:57:14 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Labs: Shakeout Follows Breakup
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 501, Message 5 of 11

> Prior to divestiture Bell Labs was really a national resource, paid
> for by a "tax" on all telephone users.  After divestiture AT&T was a
> much smaller company, operating in a highly competitive business
> environment, so it's no surprise that Bell Labs could not be supported
> in the style to which it had been accustomed.

Although I think that a lot of good things have come from divestiture,
one of the biggest losses was the Bell Labs.  Just think of how much
this nation, and the world, has benefitted from such Bell Labs
advancements as the transistor.  If the United States is to maintain
whatever lead we have left in such things, it would seem that the
University setting will have to fill the gap.  And we all know who
pays for their grants, don't we?  By and large, the Federal
Government, which means more political, less efficient operation and
decision- making.  Will the AOS folks fill the gap with their
"enhanced services?"  Who knows, with their rates, they might just
have the money! :-(


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: "Richard L. Reynolds" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott
Organization: Colorado SuperNet Inc.
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 18:42:40 GMT


The charge of $.75 is rather standard around the country.  I spend
upwards of 75+ nights a year in hotels (mostly Marriotts) and the one
item on the bill that always burns my tail is the charges for calls.
In some areas where they have unit pricing on all calls I can see the
reasoning but they don't charge to flush the toilet or turn on the
TV!!!!!!  The last straw was when I was at the Portland Marriott and
got charged for two calls to their 800 reservations number.  As as
Platinum Honored Guest member they refunded the charge and fell all
over themselves trying to apologize.  The easiest was to fix this
would be jack up the cost of the room a couple of dollars and stop
this stupid practice of charging for calls.  The cost and hassle of
tracking all of these little charges are a nightmare.

After another lengthy stay at the Irvine Marriott, my bill was 63
pages long.  The hassle of trying to figure that one out was really a
nightmare!!!!


Rich Reynolds    [e-mail]

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

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Kind of Exchange Am I On?
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1991 00:14:09 -0400


    Bell Canada does not feel like telling me this; I am curious
to know what kind of switch I am on and what other exchanges share the
same physical switch.  I am even more anxious to know now that a
particular implemntation of SS7 seems to be failing all over the US.

    I would also be curious to know simmilar information for other
exchnages in the area.  Is there a list in the archives listing the
technology used for each exchange and/or which exchanges share a
physical switch?  The closest I could find were the NPA exchange
charts, but this is not the info I am looking for.


Jamie


[Modserator's Note: It would have been helpful had you given us the
area code and prefix of your telephone number; then someone would have
looked it up and sent a note back to you with specifics.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #512
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15819;
          3 Jul 91 6:19 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21086;
          3 Jul 91 4:35 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30124;
          3 Jul 91 3:28 CDT
Date:     Wed, 3 Jul 91 2:21:47 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #513
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 3 Jul 91 02:21:30 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 513

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: A Day Off; Catchup, Then More Time Off [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: SPECIAL REPORT: NY Tel Plans For Caller ID [Bob Hale]
    Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Mickey Ferguson]
    Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [Brad Hicks]
    Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or What Were *These* Guys Thinking?) [S Forrette]
    Re: Call Message Delivery [Sean Williams]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 3 Jul 91 1:55:18 CDT
From:  TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Administrivia: A Day Off; Catchup, Then More Time Off


There will be no issues of TELECOM Digest Wednesday overnight/Thursday
morning, July 4.  Publication will resume late Thursday evening.

Then over the weekend, July 5-7 I will catch up on messages pending in
the queue, in anticipation of a few days off line between July 8-13. I
will be in and out much of next week, and someone with access to my
account will publish an issue or two of the Digest *if* and only if
there is some important news story which arrives.

So please, let's finish up existing threads of discussion, and hold
new topics until the end of next week. Obviously, if you feel something
is really important, do send it in ... but publication next week will
not be guarenteed.

Have a happy and safe holiday!


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

From: Bob Hale <btree![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: NY Tel Plans For Caller ID
Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 91 21:31:16 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> cyberoid@milton.u.
washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes:

[ about telco diatribe defending per-call blocking of caller-ID ]

> This has GOT to be bogus.  Isn't SS7 and associated services fully
> reprogrammable, so that 911 calls get special treatment regardless of
> line-blocking for usual calling?  If not, we as ratepayers are getting
> rooked twice over, once for an expensive service and again when it's
> able to be used only in conjunction with the collection of personal ID
> for marketing purposes.

By the same token that the switching equipment is programmable, the
user equipment is (or can be) programmable.  That is, if these
Caller-ID plans go into effect I expect that someone will soon be
marketing a phone that automatically inserts *67 (or anything else,
for that matter) before it outputs the first of the keyed-in digits.
It would also be smart enough to not insert the *67 for a 911 call.

Since, according to the telco spokespeople, already 30-40% of the
customers have unpublished numbers there should be a huge market
for such a programmable phone.  Sign me up for two or three.


Bob Hale                        ...!ucsd!btree!hale
619-535-3234                    ...!btree![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Further followup on Caller ID should go to the
Telecom Privacy Digest ([e-mail]).   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 14:41:28 PDT
From: Mickey Ferguson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In)


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> Greg Andrews <[e-mail]> writes:

>> I'm not saying that I would be called upon to respond to a
>> fire or automobile accident, but that the need to contact me regarding
>> the imminence of death to my immediate family DOES constitute an
>> emergency.

> Maybe to YOU. I have no spouse. I have no children. No one needs to
> reach me on an emergency basis EXCEPT for my clients.  ...

> What I hear in your post is that you would like to be notified about
> certain emergencies, but don't feel the need to establish the
> environment for that notification. You want it on a "casual" basis.

I'm afraid I have to take issue here.  I interpret your statements
here to mean that you feel that everyone should have to be expected to
throw money at their configurations because they don't have enough
phone lines to handle emergency calls without the need for an operator
break-in.  I can't speak for everyone, but I'm *sure* that most people
don't have multiple lines for such purposes.  I only have one phone
line, and if I need to receive an emergency message, I want to be
interrupted even if what I'm doing will cause some sort of hardship.
I, too, have no family here (in fact, none within 2000 miles of me!),
but I'm not short-sighted enough to believe that no situations will
arise that are more important than my data call (since a
person-to-person conversation can always be interrupted temporarily).

My conclusion is that if we have to choose between 1) not allowing any
operator interruptions and 2) allowing them, any reasonable person
will choose 1).  Unless there is an option 3), for which I'm not
aware. :)


Mickey Ferguson   Rolm Systems
[e-mail]

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper?
Date: 2 Jul 91 18:30:29 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, mtxinu!ingres.com!elvira@
uunet.uu.net (Eric G. Elvira) writes:

> We are looking of a way in which a program, probably on a Sun
> Sparcstation, will call a phone number and after a few seconds dial
> another number.

> Essentially have it call and maybe cat a file that has already the
> touch tones stored on it or something similar. The problem is that
> using a modem it will wait for a handshake in the other side and a
> beeper is definitely not going to give a handshake back.

You can prevent the modem from waiting for handshaking by ending the
phone number with ";".  The "D" (Dial) command is terminated, and the
modem is left off hook but ready to accept another command.
Additional commands can, in fact, be added on the same command line
after the semicolon.

Let's say that your beeper number is "555-1234", and the message you
want to give is "9999#".  You could call the beeper service, give the
message, and hang up in one command line to the modem, as follows:

    ATDT 555-1234,,,,,9999#; H

You may need to adjust the number of commas by trial and error so that
it allows enough time, but not too much time, for the service to be
ready to accept your message.  Hopefully, the connect time is pretty
much always the same.  You could also use ONE comma, and set the S8
register to the number of seconds you want it to pause.

Another possibility is to use the "@" dial modifier instead of commas.
You'll need to do some testing to see if the service allows five
seconds of silence to trigger the "Wait for Quiet Answer" function.
Many do.  In this case, you'd simply substitute a "@" for the commas
in the command line above.

The "H" after the semicolon disconnects the call, putting the modem
back on-hook.  You might want to add an additional comma AFTER the
"9999#", before the semicolon, so that you're not hanging up instantly
after sending the "#".

I'm happy to try to help more, if you like.


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       [e-mail]

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

Date: 02 Jul 91 19:15:05 EDT
From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions


In TELECOM Digest #11.507, John Higdon writes:

> If I really am responsible for every article and pass-through
> e-mail message that writes to my disk drive, then I lack the
> facilities (mostly manpower) to remain an intermediate UUCP site.

John, in every meeting of four or more sysops I have been at in the
last three years, I have heard this one argued.  I have submitted this
exact question to maybe a half-dozen lawyers.  The only thing that ALL
agreed upon was that until we have three or more cases prosecuted in
the federal courts, no one knows whether you are liable or not.

Mike Godwin, the EFF's attorney, told a bunch of us that he's been
researching this exact question for most of a year, and so far it
comes down to three broad categories:

 (1) ENTIRELY PRIVATE, ONE-TO-ONE MAIL

     Covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

Sysop/sysadmin is not liable for content; may read for technical
reasons such as to check service; may not disclose to anyone for any
reason without a court order.  (Aside: Since the search warrant at
Steve Jackson Games said nothing about third-party mail, in the
seizure of Illuminati BBS the aptly-acronymed SS almost certainly
violated ECPA over this very issue.)

 (2) ENTIRELY PUBLIC MAIL ON ONLY ONE SYSTEM (local BBS messages)

Only limited case law, but it does appear that the sysop is liable in
general.  More cases or new laws will be necessary to determine WHEN
the sysop becomes liable ... e.g., if somebody posts a Sprint access
number on your BBS, you are definitely liable if it is still there a
month later.  But what about the next day?  An hour later?  Five
seconds later?  Nobody knows until the lawyers fight it out.  Godwin
thinks it comes down to "if the sysop could reasonably have known
about it" -- and then some poor ignorant bunch of jurors will get to
decide how often a "resonable sysop" checks his mail.

 (3) WIDELY-DISTRIBUTED PUBLIC MAIL (newsgroups, echomail, mail
lists, etc.)

No readily applicable law.  No CLEAR precedent ... but the few half-
precedents, taken from the world of ham packet-radio repeaters,
suggests that in fact, you are liable for any public message residing
on your system, even if it originated elsewhere.  If you allow your
system to forward public messages before you clear them, you may find
yourself charged with moving illegal messages across state lines.

As an ex-sysop of seven years' experience, #3 horrifies and terrifies
me.  I almost got caught in this trap myself, when a Dallas TV
station tried to persuade police that as the conference moderator on
MagickNet, I personally was responsible for a message on MagickNet
offering assistance to a man seeking to smuggle his daughter out of
the country so his inlaws couldn't take her away.  (Note: message
from someone else, to a third party outside the country, and the hue
and cry arose two days before I even saw the message.)

Maybe common sense will prevail in the courtroom.  (And maybe chickens
have teeth.)  Maybe Congress will pass clear, reasonable, technically
feasible legislation to clarify the issue and President Bush will sign
it.  (And maybe we =can= balance the budget in 1993.)  Or maybe the
Rehnquist court will recognize this as an important freedom-of-speech,
freedom-of-association, freedom-of-press issue and grant appropriate
protection.  (And maybe we'll find a universally popular solution to
the abortion issue tomorrow after lunch, and everybody will agree to
it.)

 . . . Riiiiiight.

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 22:28:12 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

> Considering the importance of local phone service to the
> health and well-being of us all, I think it may be time to get some
> outside oversight to make sure the phone companies don't engineer us
> into a cost effective, but highly vulnerable, network.

Perhaps we can lobby Congress to pass legislation which details how
the STPs should be placed to provide maximum reliability. :-(


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 06:19 GMT
From: Sean Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Message Delivery


I wrote:

>> MCI provides the MCI Messenger Service.  [ dialing instructions deleted ]
>> With MCI's service, you can record a one-minute message and have it
>> delivered to any direct-dialable phone.

Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]> writes:

> I bet this kind of service does not interact positively with an
> answering machine.

Actually, it works very well.  The message repeats several times, so
the machine is bound to get the whole message even after playing an
outgoing greeting.  I would think that AT&T's Voicemark (sm) also
repeats its message.

By the way, the "dial from home" method that I described no longer
works from my house, and I have also tried it from a friend's house
who is also using MCI.  I called MCI Customer Service, and reported
the apparent problem.  After about half-an-hour reviewing my account,
verifying that I hadn't been switched to another carrier, and talking
to the MCI "network people" the problem was logged as being technical
in nature.  I was informed that I shall be receiving a call from MCI
within the next 24 hours.  It's not just my house, but at least the
whole exchange that's being affected (assuming the 1-700 number still
works).  We'll see what happens.

Your note brought recollections of other messages I have received on
my voicemail saying "press one to accept this collect call" from the
automated Bell of Pennsylvania operator.  Too bad the voicemail system
couldn't decide for me ...


Sean E. Williams                   |  [e-mail]
Spectrum Telecommunications        |  Have a good day!
PO Box 227                         |  <<no disclaimer needed>>
Duncanon, PA 17020-0227            |  voicemail [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #513
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01428;
          3 Jul 91 13:14 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01260; 3 Jul 91 7:38 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19196;
          3 Jul 91 2:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03076;
          3 Jul 91 1:09 CDT
Date:     Wed, 3 Jul 91 1:02:59 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #511
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 3 Jul 91 01:02:45 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 511

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Tarl Neustaedter]
    Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Bruce Albrecht]
    Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Mark Brader]
    Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [Jordan M Kossack]
    Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Telescam: Be Careful Who You Send Checks To [David B. Thomas]
    Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266 [John Higdon]
    Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266 [Dennis G. Rears]
    Re: Poor Abused Phreakers [Rick Farris]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tarl Neustaedter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In)
Date: 2 Jul 91 06:10:39 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John
Higdon) writes:

> Maybe to YOU. I have no spouse. I have no children. No one needs to
> reach me on an emergency basis EXCEPT for my clients.

> What I hear in your post is that you would like to be notified about
> certain emergencies, but don't feel the need to establish the
> environment for that notification. You want it on a "casual" basis.

How about on an emergency basis? Dean Ing (random author) documents a
case where he had to notify his neighbor about the fact that he (the
neighbor) had a chimney fire. Dean could see it from his house a mile
away, but the occupant of the house clearly could not. In that
particular case, he didn't try calling the owner (for various reasons,
lead by stupidity -- he ended up hoofing the mile in foul weather on a
icy road), but it's the kind of case where there is an emergency that
the recipient didn't predict.

Maybe you don't own any property either. Maybe a friend needs you to
bail him out. You say he could wait until morning? I suppose that's
the same thing as saying you don't have any friends either.

Abuse of such a system would be a crime; If a telemarketer pulled this
on me, I'd sue his gonads off. But I've received enough real emergency
calls (from "my car died" to "someone's breaking in") to be convinced
they exist.  In these cases, I would even have wanted the operator to
break my data connection.


         Tarl Neustaedter    [e-mail]
         Marlboro, Mass.    Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

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

Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1991 20:10:40 -0500
From: Bruce Albrecht <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In)


In Volume 11, Issue 496, message 4 of 7, Gordon Burditt writes:

> I claim that an 'emergency call' directed TO
> ME, a person who does not work for emergency services, can never
> happen because an emergency call is directed to emergency services, by
> both legal definition and common sense.  (When was the last time
> someone was in an automobile accident and needed an emergency port of
> UNIX to a new platform?  How about the last time a building was on
> fire and the fire department needed the root password to put out the
> fire?)

I must disagree.  I can think of two examples where calls to you could
reasonably be considered emergency calls, in answer to the following
comments.

>> You are at work using the phone and your landlord or
>> neighbor calls to say YOUR house caught fire.

> This is not an emergency (unless I'm working at the fire department).
> An emergency is a situation where human life or property is in danger
> and prompt summoning of aid is essential.  Not 'prompt notification of
> the owner'.  Not 'prompt notification of the next of kin'.  Not
> 'prompt claim processing from the injured's insurance company'.  Not
> 'prompt identification of the injured/dead bodies'.  Not 'prompt
> payment for medical services'.  Not 'prompt signing of legal forms'.

Suppose your house is on fire, and your neighbor suspects your
children may be at home?  It wouldn't necessarily be wise for your
neighbor to charge into your house looking for them, but it would be
important for the fire department to know whether they need to be
looking for people in your burning house.

Perhaps this is stretching the problems of our legal system and
medical malpractise too far, but as next of kin, you may need to be
notified of an automobile accident and give permission to perform the
necessary medical treatment, for example, on minors.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 20:14:00 -0400
From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In)
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


I think there is a less drastic option available to people than
refusing emergency break-ins.  If falsely claiming an emergency is
illegal, and you have reason to suspect that the interrupting caller
is doing so, why not ask the operator to stay on the line and witness
the first part of the conversation?  Then if it *is* a false claim of
emergency, you have a plausible legal threat against the caller, even
though you might not want to carry it out.

This is still pretty drastic, but less so than refusing an emergency
call.

By the way, I too remember rules similar to those already cited --
must yield the line for an emergency, must not falsely claim emergency
 -- but a search of the fine print in the current Toronto phone book
reveals nothing.  Either it's changed, or I'm remembering rules from
somewhere else, or the rule is somewhere other than the Bell Canada
tariff.

There was a mailing about two years ago about operator interruption,
very similar to the one that started this thread.  The current fees
here are like this:

    $1.50 to verify that someone's talking and then interrupt;
    $1.00 to just verify that someone's talking.

These are in Canadian dollars and before taxes.  There is no charge if:

      - the called line is idle
      - the called line's receiver is [presumably "was left"] off-hook
      - the operator finds evidence of trouble with the line
      - the request originates from a hotel switchboard (!)
   or - it is a call to which long-distance charges apply


Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]

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

From: Jordan M Kossack <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 1:26:04 CDT
Organization: Rice University   Houston Texas


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (J.
Philip Miller) writes:

> Someone in your immediate family (e.g. spouse, child) is in an
> accident.  Authorities need to contact you to arrange a variety of
> details involved in treating your loved one (e.g. what hospital to
> take them to, who their docotor is, permission given for treatment,
> details of medical history).

   I have to agree with John Higdon on this one.  Like him, I have
neither spouse nor children.  In addition, my parents and my brother
live out of state and in neither case am I legally _able_ to give
consent for treatment, etc.  Finally, I have two phone lines -- if
someone REALLY needs to reach me and one is busy, they are welcome to
call the other and leave a message.  Yes, I have two answering
machines.

   I don't see why I should have to terminate a phone call because of
situations that don't apply to me.  As John Higdon said, "shoulder
burden of the mechanism yourself rather than insist that all of the
rest of us endure the most annoying and ineffecient procedure of
'operator interrupt'."


 Jordan 'I hate Call Waiting' Kossack  |   [e-mail]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1991 15:38:42 GMT


"J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]> writes:

> John G Dobnick <[e-mail]> writes:

>> Say what?  I fail to understand the reasoning here.  Someone wants to
>> use *my* phone line for some "emergency purpose" by *calling* me?
>> This scenario makes no sense whatsoever.

> Well, perhaps here is a scenario that makes sense:

> Someone in your immediate family (e.g. spouse, child) is in an
> accident.  Authorities need to contact you to arrange a variety of
>.details involved in treating your loved one (e.g. what hospital to
> take them to, who their docotor is, permission given for treatment,
> details of medical history).

> If this is not an emergency in your book, I am glad I am not in your
> family :-)

Wait a minute.  All of these scenerios are of the form "Authorities
need to contact you..."  So I suppose the Police or Hospital will pay
the $1.60 in order to get authorization to treat your loved one.  But
this "service" is for a random user, not just authorities.  Unless the
random user is an itenerant brain surgeon who needs immediate
permission to do surgery to your spouse in the field, I fail to
understand why the "service" is needed, or under what conditions a
true emergency would exist.

To my knowledge, police departments have always enjoyed special
privleges with respect to operator break-in.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: "David B. Thomas" <mailrus!gatech!unmvax!bbx!yenta![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telescam: Be Careful Who You Send Checks To
Organization: yenta unix pc, rio rancho, nm
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 02:33:49 GMT


I went for one of those one time.  First I "won" their silly contest.
Whoopee.  They were offering travel to Las Vegas, and a few gambling
freebies.  The catches were many: (1) you had to travel within about a
one week time slot (2) I don't think hotel accomodations or food were
included.

Of course, I hadda join their photo studio club, to claim my prize.
That was $20.  There were even catches there -- you got some large
number of pictures you could get for your $20, a good deal.  But --
you had a narrow time window in which to take advantage of each, so it
was unlikely that many would get their money's worth.

They were eager for me to say the word, and they would be on me like
 ... I mean ... they would come to my door, and give me a certificate
for the $20.

It *just happened*, though, that I was already planning a trip to Las
Vegas, in exactly that time frame, so even with their $20 charge, I
would come out ahead.  I had my tape recorder rolling and made sure
that I clearly understood what I would be getting.  At one point the
girl had asked me my age, and I told her I was 21, and I asked her if
that made a difference.  She said no, I still would be able to collect
my prize.

Well, it sounded good.  I figured ... okay, it's a gamble.  They offer
people something that's virtually impossible to actually take
advantage of.  I just happen to be in a position to actually use it,
so in this exceedingly rare case, I'm wise to go for it :-/

So the viper shows up in short order, and I hand her the check and she
skips off with it, leaving me a certificate with lots of glorious big
print, and ominous fine print.  For one thing, if you're under 25, you
can't have a trip prize.  HUH??  That was the *only* reason I went for
this thing!!

So I started the tape recorder and called back, and got a supervisor.
He said the girl was mistaken, and that in fact, I couldn't have my
trip.  I was outraged, and let him know that I had the whole thing on
tape.  He tried offering me all sorts of other slum that I didn't
want, but he wouldn't budge on a refund.  I told him I had put a stop
payment on the check, and he didn't believe me, but it was true!

I decided I would rather pay the bank $17 than let those slime get
away with any of my money.  In fact, I would have used a stop payment
even for $5.  It's the principle of the thing.

I probably should have sued them, but I already felt like I beat them
and I had learned an important lesson, which has paid off to this day.
Too bad I wasn't a comp.dcom.telecom reader then!!


little david

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

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 23:46 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266


Jim Smithson <[e-mail]> writes:

> You are way out of line drawing any comparisons between the STASI and
> the FBI!  I'm as much a civil libertarian as anyone, but I want the
> cops to catch the crooks anyway they can.

Statements such as this make me very nervous. Particularly troubling
is the phrase, "anyway they can". Communications systems designed
around easy surveilance are not necessarily the best at providing
performance for the users they are supposed to be serving.

It would be useful for the police (at any level) to be able to monitor
anyone at anytime at will. This would certainly fall under the
category "anyway they can" and as any member of the force would tell
you, some crooks slip away while warrants are being obtained. Do you
mind having all of your calls possibly monitored? Do you have
something to hide?

If the FBI and our Congress are going to insist that communications
system be designed with monitoring in mind, then considering what was
discovered in East Germany about the telephone system the phrase, "if
it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck..." takes on new
meaning.

As a civil libertarian myself, I would rather seem some of the crooks
get away than have citizens in general rousted and/or spied upon. It
has been said that it is much easier for someone to deal with crooks
than to deal with a repressive government. I tend to agree.


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

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 13:04:33 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266


Jim Smithson <[e-mail]> writes:

>> The FBI *wants* phone system designers to start thinking about
>> interception -- in particular, they want interception to be easier.
>> Just like the East German secret police.

> You are way out of line drawing any comparisons between the STASI and
> the FBI!  I'm as much a civil libertarian as anyone, but I want the
> cops to catch the crooks anyway they can.
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

   I hope this was a mistake.  You can't possibly mean it. Do you include:

    o unlawful search & seizure
    o confessions made after the cops beat the shit out of someone
    o tapping phone at random to see if a person is commiting a crime
    o paying children to inform on their parents

as "anyway they can".  If you do, do you believe cops should have the
right to summarily execute the criminals they caught "anyway they
could"?

  I am all for law enforcement groups to uphold the law and catch
criminals but only if the alleged criminals have intact their
constitutional rights.  The biggest loser of the "Drug War" is the
American citzenry and the constitution.


dennis

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

From: Rick Farris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Poor Abused Phreakers
Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 91 17:10:14 GMT


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

> It's time to fight back and sell their [telemarketer's] information.
> Just think if there were some central list  where each  person
> could send the Caller-ID numbers of telemarketers.

Sell, hell!  I expect lists of numbers that you *don't* want to take a
call from to be one of the hottest items available on the BBS scene.

Of course, I'm not sure that telemarketers operating out of boiler
rooms in Nevada (for instance) will generate usable CLI in
California...


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #511
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18380;
          5 Jul 91 0:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11195;
          4 Jul 91 22:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27301;
          4 Jul 91 21:50 CDT
Date:     Thu, 4 Jul 91 21:00:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #514
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 4 Jul 91 21:00:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 514

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [Bob Izenberg]
    Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [K Kleinfelter]
    Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott [Ethan Miller]
    Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott [John R. Levine]
    Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or What Were These Guys Thinking?) [R K Oberman]
    Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or What Were These Guys Thinking?) [F Goldstein]
    Re: What Kind of Exchange Am I On? [Jamie Mason]
    Re: Answer Supervision on DID Trunks [Steven A Minneman]
    Re: Power Surge Myth [Steve Thornton]
    Re: Power-Surge Myth [R Kevin Oberman]
    Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc. [Bob Hale]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions
From: Bob Izenberg <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 91 02:03:09 CDT
Organization: Teenage Binge and Purgin' Turtles


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> I don't know how FidoNet works, but why would this have been a
> concern?

> If not, why would a FidoNet site operator be held responsible?

I can't speak for the FidoNet sysop (and he wouldn't have to be a
Fidonet sysop to have this on his mind) but I am reminded of Tom
Tcimpidis' trouble with the telco that served his community in Florida
(Southern Bell?).  His BBS had a fraudulently-obtained credit card
number left in a message.  The message and card number expired, and
then he was held liable for having the card number (at one time) on
his machine.  Seized hardware, possible illegal entry by telco
officials, but no charges.  He sued his phone company, won in court,
and got his equipment back in bad shape.

There are more recent examples of email facilities that are no more
because of what they passed on.  "attctc" and "jolnet" spring to mind ...


Opinions expressed in this message are those of its author, except where
        messages by others are included with attribution.

             Bob Izenberg [ ] [e-mail]
       home: 512 346 7019 [ ] CIS: [e-mail]

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

From: "Kevin P. Kleinfelter" <msa3b![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions
Date: 3 Jul 91 11:18:58 GMT
Organization: Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> Bob Izenberg <[e-mail]> writes:

>> On June 19th, I mailed a FEEDBACK message to CompuServe's
>> customer service account.  I had some questions suggested by a FidoNet
>> sysop's concern over a message in German that passed through his
>> system.
 ...

> If I really am responsible for every article and pass-through e-mail
> message that writes to my disk drive, then I lack the facilities
> (mostly manpower) to remain an intermediate UUCP site. If not, why
> would a FidoNet site operator be held responsible?

Recently, several ham radio operators were fined by the Federal
Communications Commission, based upon the content of messages
forwarded through their packet-radio computer network.  The messages
solicited calls to a 900 number, and the FCC forbids commercially
related messages.  (I believe that the fines were rescinded in most
cases.)  The FCC DOES believe that the operator of a network node is
responsible for its retransmissions, if that node uses amateur radio
for its communication link.  How this affects non-radio nodes is not
clear; it may be considered a precedent.


Kevin Kleinfelter @ DBS, Inc [phone]   ...gatech!nanoVX!msa3b!kevin
Dun&Bradstreet Software, 3445 Peachtree Rd, NE, Atlanta GA 30326-1276

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 00:42:39 PDT
From: ethan miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott


The easiest way to fix this would be jack up the cost of the room a
couple of dollars and stop this stupid practice of charging for calls.
The cost and hassle of tracking all of these little charges are a
nightmare.

Why would jacking up the rate of the room even be necessary?  Motel 6
provides free local calls at a room rate of $25/night.  Other
"cut-rate" hotels do the same thing.  For some odd reason, the more
expensive hotels are the ones which insist on charging for all calls.
It'd probably be *cheaper* to just let all local calls go through and
block long distance calls which aren't charged to another number.  The
loss in revenue would be made up for by simpler billing and by more
rooms filled by business travelers who hate checking every little call
on the bill.


ethan

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

Subject: Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 2 Jul 91 12:44:20 EDT (Tue)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

> Q3 ;-} Anyone know where to find a coin slot with an RJ-11?

Not really a joke, these days.  You can find public phones with data
jacks all over the place in airports, particularly in the airline VIP
lounges.  The AT&T desktop coinless card reader pay phones now all
seem to be made with RJ-11s on the side, and at O'Hare nearly every
bank of phone booths has one with an RJ-11 jack below the phone.

Admittedly, these are all coinless payphones.  I have to admit that I
can't recall seeing a public phone with a coin slot and an RJ-11, but
I can't say that it'd be all that satisfactory to have the operator
cut in half way through a uucp transfer to ask for another nickel.
There is also the technical problem that while a coinless pay phone is
wired to the CO the same way as any other phone and an extra extension
in parallel is no problem, a coin slot phone generates signals when
you put in the money that are both easy to interfere with accidentally
and relatively easy to spoof if you could plug into its phone line.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?)
Date: 3 Jul 91 15:18:20 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>,
umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu![e-mail] (Brian Cuthie) writes:

> For many moons, as most of us are aware, the government has sponsored
> research in the area of survivable networks.  We have all come to know
> and love one of these networks as the ARPA net.  Granted, it has
> *it's* problems too, but it does not have any inherent choke points.
> Points, who's loss or incapacitation would cause the entire network to
> go down.  Why do the phone companies seem to have ignored the results
> of millions of dollars worth of study?

Brian has some valid points, but the "ARPA net" may not be the best of
examples. First, it no longer exists. It was decommissioned over a
year ago.  But since other networks had been put in place to carry all
of its traffic, almost no one realized it had vanished.

But the real problem is that there are exactly TWO primary network
commection points for the ENTIRE Internet! FIX East just off of the
UMD campus and FIX West at Nasa Ames in Mt. View, Calif.  Often only
one of these critical tie points has been available and they are
almost always badly congested. Routing does not effectively handle
them and when both are down (and it has happened more than once)
large parts of the net become disconnected.

So who is ignoring what here? The real problem is that these things
are expensive and difficult to maintain. And having more of them makes
handling traffic much harder. I don't know anything about SS7 either,
but I do know that packet routing is still not well understood
(witness the current disputes over the use of distance-vector and
link-state routing algorithms) and simply adding more interconnect
points to a network does not always improve reliability.


R. Kevin Oberman            Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: [e-mail]        [phone]

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?)
Date: 3 Jul 91 16:02:14 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA



In article <[e-mail]>, umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu!
[e-mail] (Brian Cuthie) writes...

> What is truely amazing to me is the architecture of this network.  You
> mean to tell me that there are only *FOUR* STPs for four states!?
> This seems absolutely ludicrous to me.  I mean, what were these guys
> thinking?

It doesn't matter what they were thinking.  If the outage is caused by
software, then it doesn't matter if there are four or forty STPs.  If
they're all running the same software, and it has a bug, then they'll
all be prone to the same errors!

An interesting detail about the Internet is that there are many
vendors of routers ("gateways"), each implementing the same protocols
with their own code.  The bugs are in different places.  But with SS7
nets, you have only a few vendors.  If a telco buys all their STPs
from one vendor and upgrades the software all at once, then it's time
for the Tom Lehrer song to be sung, "And we will all go together when
we go."

Personally I don't trust the SS7 protocol either.  I don't know it
well, but it's very complex and unique at all layers.  It doesn't draw
upon years of datacomm experience.  It's just now getting exercised in
real, heavy American-style loads.  Most likely the protocol itself
isn't "broken", but it may indeed put heavy loads on switches, causing
them to exercise little-used code.  Remember the January, 1990 AT&T
outage?  A silly little bug in a little-exercised piece of code.  Only
exercised during certain high-load conditons.  Oops.


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: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Kind of Exchange Am I On?
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1991 03:27:17 -0400


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

> [Moderator's Note: It would have been helpful had you given us the
> area code and prefix of your telephone number; then someone would have
> looked it up and sent a note back to you with specifics.    PAT]

Oops.  Silly oversight on my part.  FINGER would reveal it, but, alas,
all the world is not the Internet.

    I am in 416/481.

Jamie  ...  Lurker in the Process Table
Written On  Wednesday, July 3, 1991  at  03:23:45am EDT

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

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 91 12:34:13-1795
From: "Steven A. Minneman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on DID Trunks
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steven A. Minneman )
Organization: Fujitsu Network Switching of America, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail]
(Larry Lippman) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 502, Message 10 of 11

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

>> In a PBX with DID trunks, what happens if something breaks and the PBX
>> never does return supervision? Does a two-way audio path exist? Will
>> the connection stay up as long as desired, or time out?

I'm not sure what you mean by "something breaks".  PBXs these days are
software controlled.  I assume that you mean something in the trunk
card breaking and therefore not returning answer supervision, despite
the proper setting by the software.

>    If the PABX were never to return answer supervision, a two-way
> voice path would never exist.

>    DID installations where bi-directional transmission is
> "enforced" by supervision from the PABX still exist today.

>    At the other extreme are wink-start outgoing DID trunks
> running directly from the CO to the customer PABX without one iota of
> restrictive interface apparatus.

That's right -- no special apparatus between the PBX and the CO;
however, remember that PBXs have to be certified under FCC part 68,
which requires that the PBX only provide answer supervision under very
specific circumstances.  The PBXs I'm familar with also BLOCK INCOMING
AUDIO prior to returning answer supervision.  As I'm sure you're aware
most, if not all, PBX manufacturers are very reputable companies; they
have an interest in making sure that fraud is not perpetrated through
the use of their equipment.

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jul 91 09:20:11 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Power Surge Myth


Oh, well. So much for Dear Abby as a source of technical wisdom <smirk>.


Steve Thornton / Harvard University Library / [phone]
[e-mail] / [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Power-Surge Myth
Date: 3 Jul 91 15:00:38 GMT


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

> Perhaps what they are talking about is the cost of the bulb: the shock
> of the rapid temperature change when it is turned on shortens its
> life.

Nope. It's pure myth! The lifetime of a light bulb is primarily
influenced by the migration of tungsten atoms from the filament to the
glass envelope (bulb).  That's what causes the gray discoloration of
old lights. When too much of the tungsten has left the filament, it
will fail, usually under the stress of a power cycle. Since bulbs
usually fail at turn on, it's widely assumed that cycling a lamp off
and on shortens its life. And, it does, slightly, as it speeds the
migration of atoms. But the effect is largely insignificant.

One reason halogen bulbs are so much brighter is that the halogen gas
acts to limit the migration of tungsten, so the filament can run much
hotter. And those surge-suppression thermistors for lights DO help.
But not because of the surge suppression, but because they lower the
operating voltage on the light so that it runs cooler. The problem is
that it is also dimmer.

Boy, have we ever gotten off of the subject here! This would have been
sorta appropriate back when tubes were used in telecom, but not today.


R. Kevin Oberman            Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: [e-mail]        [phone]

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.


[Moderator's Note: A janitor I once knew whose duties included
changing burned out 15/25 watt light bulbs in emergency exit signs
said he found a way to make them last for *years*:  The electic lines
were 110 volts, but he used 40 watt *220 volt* bulbs. He got about the
same amount of illumination as he would from a 25 watt bulb at 110
volts; the bulb emitted a softer glow, never got hot and never burned
out.   PAT]

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

From: Bob Hale <btree![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wiring For ISDN, etc.
Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 91 23:19:43 GMT


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

> My wife and I are planning to build a house beginning in a few weeks.

[ questions about what to build in to the house deleted ]

During June there was a discussion of this very subject in
misc.consumers.house.  If your site hasn't expired these articles then
this would be a good place to start.

The suggestion of installing empty plastic conduit or ENT in the walls
has been mentioned by several people.  The obvious advantage is that
it does not lock you out of technologies that haven't been invented
yet.  Perhaps the phone companies will eventually be able to run fiber
to homes; then people like John Higdon can have all their lines on a
single fiber.


Bob Hale                        ...!ucsd!btree!hale
619-535-3234                    ...!btree![e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #514
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20749;
          5 Jul 91 1:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27798;
          5 Jul 91 0:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11195;
          4 Jul 91 22:57 CDT
Date:     Thu, 4 Jul 91 22:00:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #515
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 4 Jul 91 22:00:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 515

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [John Higdon]
    Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Steve Forrette]
    Emergencies and Selfishness [Jerry Leichter]
    Quirky Laws (was: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60) [Rob Stampfli]
    Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? [Paul Lutt]
    Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper? [Alan Millar]
    Re: Cellular ESN Fraud; Any Help for Victim? [Joe Abernathy]
    Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' [Doug Fields]
    Re: More on IMR Telecom [Carl Moore]
    508 508 508 508 508 508 (was IMR Telecom) [Bob Frankston]
    Anybody Know Where I Can Get a Crossbar Switch? [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 02:32 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In)


Tarl Neustaedter <[e-mail]> writes:

> Maybe you don't own any property either. Maybe a friend needs you to
> bail him out. You say he could wait until morning? I suppose that's
> the same thing as saying you don't have any friends either.

I own property and I have friends. My neighbors can bang on my door if
there is a problem. My friends can call any of my various numbers,
cellular phones, pagers, etc., before there would be any need to have
the operator "break in".

But this is all very silly. Many people have unlisted numbers that
their neighbors do not even know. Many people have listed lines that
they never answer. There are even people who do not have telephones.
There are many, many reasons that people might be unreachable, one of
the least is that the line is busy. By the way, ever heard of "call
waiting"?

I used to know someone who used interrupt as casually as if it was
call waiting. Before I excized him from my life, he would routinely
(and ignorantly) interfere with my modem traffic, embarass me when on
important calls, and was a generally an obnoxious pest. Believe me, if
there had been an operator interrupt equivalent of "billed number
screening", I would have used it to block all such attempts to my
lines.

Incidently, over the years it has never been necessary to "bail a
friend" out of anywhere. Draw your own conclusions.

> Abuse of such a system would be a crime; If a telemarketer pulled this
> on me, I'd sue his gonads off. But I've received enough real emergency
> calls (from "my car died" to "someone's breaking in") to be convinced
> they exist.  In these cases, I would even have wanted the operator to
> break my data connection.

Why then do you not get another line (or get call waiting) rather than
routinely have this done manually? I have never had a legitimate case
where a "break-in" was necessary. And what good, pray tell, does it do
to have the operator "break [your] data connection"? Is someone going
to explain to your modem that so-and-so has stalled on the freeway? Or
do you sit and watch your modem and if it hangs up, you immediately
pick up the line to see if it might be an "emergency"? I have five
modems here with calls going in and out twenty-four hours a day. For
all I know, any number of operators could have come on the line, but
unless they spoke PEP, my computer was most likely not interested.

Mickey Ferguson <[e-mail]> writes:

> I only have one phone
> line, and if I need to receive an emergency message, I want to be
> interrupted even if what I'm doing will cause some sort of hardship.

Have you ever heard of "call waiting"? Or is it that you want all of
your otherwise call waiting traffic to be screened by the operator so
that you only have to be interrupted with "important" calls.

Unfortunately, I have to pay for my "call waiting" -- and it is not
screened like yours.


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

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 08:01:44 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


I know of a case where Emergency Interrupt was abused on a routine
basis.  It was known in my high school best friend's house that his
sister would call his mom at 11pm sharp every night.  If we were
talking past 11:05 or so, there would be an emergency interrupt.  You
could set your watch by it.  I can't think of a more flagrant abuse of
this service.  I'm surprised someone didn't notice that the sister's
bill had five or so interrupt charges each month, all to the same
number at exactly the same time.  (BTW, until 1984, the exchange was
#5 Crossbar, so Call Waiting was not an option).

The way Pacific Bell does the interrupt seems well thought out,
though.  Before the operator comes on the line, there is a
single-frequency tone that sounds for five seconds or so (it seems
like a LONG time!), so you know to stop any private conversation that
you don't want overheard.

In cases where the operator is just listening to check the line
status, and not interrupting, the audio is scrambled somehow so that
the content is not understandable.  I think it's the same thing that
is used for simple radio scrambling; is it called "band inversion" or
something?  It's really weird to listen to.  You can tell that the
people are speaking English (or whatever language), can tell their
intonation, but you just can't decipher the words, even though the
sounds are loud and clear.  You can even hear an accent.  In this
"listen only" mode, there's no indication that the operator is
listening, but then again, since she can't tell what you're saying,
who cares?  Does someone in-the-know know if this is still the case
with Pacific Bell?  I'm sure some test personnel somewhere could
listen in if they really wanted to.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed,  3 Jul 91 08:47:27 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Emergencies and Selfishness


The OED defines an "emergency" as "A juncture that arises or turns up,
especially a state of things unexpectedly arising, and urgently
demanding immediate action".

For the last week or so, TELECOM Digest has seen a good number of
articles protesting the existence of operator breakin in emergencies.
The response to laws that say "You must yield your line to someone who
has declared an emergency; it is likewise a crime to declare an
emergency when none exists" has been to find reasons why some person's
line COULD NOT POSSIBLY be needed for an emergency.  Their calls are
SO precious that under no conditions should they be interrupted.

Really, I've never seen such self-centered, selfish rot.  If we were
dealing with a real problem here - if operator breakins for
non-emergencies were a commonplace, and there was no recourse - that
would be another story.  But we're not; I have yet to hear anyone even
claim that they've been pestered repeatedly in this way.  If someone
is being pestered, the laws I've seen quoted are drafted with just the
right balance of penalties.

Besides, if Aunt Ethel has a habit of breaking in on your
conversations to tell you her cat's gone astray again, and you really
don't want to sic the law on her -- all you have to do is thank the
operator for the message and then not call her back.  Aunt Ethel may
be a bit dim, but after ten or twenty attempts to interrupt your calls
that gain her nothing but charges on her phone bill, she'll think of
something else to do.

How many comedy scenes have been written in which a person INSISTS on
not being disturbed, yells at the person who taps on their shoulder or
knocks on their door for disturbing then -- and then finds out that the
interruption they refused to acknowledge led them to say embarrassing
things in front of the boss, or have their car towed, or whatever?

The '70's was supposed to be the "me decade".  Well, here we are in
the '90's.  Is this we have come to?  A demand that the sanctity of
our phone conversations -- or, perish the thought, our dialup
computer connections -- is so great that they mustn't be interrupted
for ANYTHING?  Those of you who think so might ponder: How about an
interruption by a knock on the door?  Seems much more intrusive to me.
Perhaps when your building is on fire, you wish to be left undisturbed
to finish your reading of TELECOM ...


Jerry

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

From: Rob Stampfli <colnet![e-mail]>
Subject: Quirky Laws (was: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60)
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1991 04:52:05 GMT


While taking a peek at the Ohio Bell white pages to see whether they
specifically mention party lines in regard to yielding a line in an
emergency (they do), I found the following: One is "not permitted" to
record phone conversations unless *all* parties are made aware and
consent to being recorded.  However, it is not a "criminal violation"
to wiretap a phone so long as *one* of the parties on the line agrees
to it (or, of course, there is a court order).  Go figure that one
out.


Rob Stampfli, 614-864-9377, [e-mail] (osu-cis!kd8wk!res), [e-mail]

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

From: Paul Lutt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper?
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1991 19:10:55 GMT


I had an application not long ago that required a PC to call a pager
number and leave a message.  I tried the modem trick of dialing the
number and inserting commas to delay until the pager prompt tone came
and went, but the dial and answer times were quite variable and my
message typically got truncated or missed altogether.

I called the paging service (Northwest Telepage) and explained my
problem.  Low and behold, I found out that there is a paging computer
that can be called with a modem to send out both alphanumeric AND
digital page messages.  The computer prompts for a simple log-on, asks
for the pager phone number, and prompts for the digital message.

I put together a crude kermit script that would call the paging
computer and interact with it to send the message.  Worked like a
charm.  I also worked up an "expect" script that uses tip on a Unix
system to do the same thing.

You might contact your paging company and ask about this sort of
service.  Good luck.


Paul Lutt   Domain:    [e-mail]
Voice:    [phone]     UUCP:    uunet!fluke!pwl
Snail:    John Fluke Mfg. Co. / P.O. Box 9090 / Everett, WA 98206-9090

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Do You Know of Any Programs That Can Call a Beeper?
Date: Wed,  3 Jul 91 14:29:11 PDT


I set up a program to call a beeper, and had some timing problems.
The beeper service was VERY inconsistent about how long it took for
the call to go through (anywhere from 5 to 25 seconds!) _AND_ there
was a five-second timeout after which it would hang up!  (Actually, it
may have been the PBX I was dialing out through that caused the delay,
for what it's worth.)

If you dialed and it answered after ten seconds, you had five seconds
after that to do your tones.  If you waited a full 25 seconds to allow
for the longest call setup, it would have already hung up on you
before you sent your tones.  However, if you did one tone, you could
wait three or four seconds to enter the next tone.  It would not hang
up if you did another tone within five seconds of the prior tone.
(Did I explain that clearly?....)

What I did was to precede the actual number I wanted to send with a
bunch of "1"s (arbitrary) spaced three seconds apart.  If the paging
service answered after 5 seconds, it would hear the "1" and wait for
the next tone.  Since the next tone came before five seconds, the
service would keep waiting.  If the call setup took longer, you would
only miss the leading "1"s.  After the "1"s (nine or ten at three
seconds apart), I did a star (which made a hyphen on the display) and
the number I really wanted to send.

The recipients were just told to ignore the leading "1"s before the
hyphen.  The whole thing is kind of kludgey, but it worked.... :-)


Alan Millar    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 18:15:52 CDT
From: Joe Abernathy <chron!magic322![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular ESN Fraud; Any Help for Victim?


One of our photographers here recently took about a $400 hit on his
bill, and the company was going to absorb the loss -- the cellular
companies at least claim that they always take the loss.

Because of the way the fraud scene works, though, you usually aren't
denied use of the phone once it's compromised. If it's a tumbler
("magic") phone, it usually only makes one or a few calls with a
particular ESN. If it's an ESN being used by a fraud shop, they know
precisely how long they can use an ESN before the billing cycle has a
chance to catch up with them.

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

From: Doug Fields <admiral![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker'
Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 1991 20:47:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Peter Creath <peterc@sugar.
neosoft.com> writes:

> It's almost a case of attractive nuisance.  You put up a computer with
> the "front door" wide open.  Someone comes in, you prosecute, execute
> them, etc.  Let's take a little responsibility for our own oversights.

It can hardly be called an attractive nuisance. There are cases (so I
have heard) of someone leaving their car unlocked, the thief stealing
the car, subsequently crashing and getting into an accident, and suing
the owner (from who he stole the car) and winning -- the owner being
at fault for failing to protect the "public" from an avoidable
situation.  Similarly, leaving a loaded gun in an accessable place
rather than taking the two minutes to hide it from children is a
crime.

> Not that I condone hacking, I just think too many people get all
> self-righteous about it.  Face it, if half the people who scream
> "HACKING IS WRONG!" actually spent an hour securing their computer,
> the overall incidence of hacking would probably be about 10% what it
> is now.

Nor do I. I have taken every precaution that I can forsee against it
here at my system. But there's always going to be the user "John Doe"
who changes his password to "DoeJohn" and there's no helping that ...
even after you explain to them to use passwords like "x98cY2h*" and
why.


Doug Fields -- 100 Midwood Road, Greenwich, CT 06830 --- (FAX) [phone]
uucp: uunet!areyes!admiral!doug ------- Thank you areyes/mail and wizkid/news!
Internet: [e-mail] --------------- (Voice@Home) [phone]
BBS: (HST/V32) [phone]; (MNP6) -2967; (PEP/V32) -2873; (V32/V42) -0450

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 11:59:06 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on IMR Telecom


You gave an address in Framingham, MA 01701, with a phone number
starting with 608-877.  Framingham's area code is 508, with 608 being
in Wisconsin.

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

From: frankston![e-mail]
Subject: 508 508 508 508 508 508
Date: 3 July 1991 14:10 -0400


Sorry about the typo in my message on IMR.  The area code should be
508, not 608.  (My spelling checker doesn't do area codes yet).

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

From: 99700000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anybody Know Where I Can Get a Crossbar Switch?
Date: 3 Jul 91 21:17:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz Open Access Computing


 ... for museum purposes.


[e-mail]      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Why don't you ask Larry Lippman? He might have
something like that available for museum purposes.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #515
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23471;
          5 Jul 91 2:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27338;
          5 Jul 91 1:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27798;
          5 Jul 91 0:04 CDT
Date:     Thu, 4 Jul 91 23:16:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #516
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 4 Jul 91 23:16:45 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 516

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    RBOC's and Cable TV Services [Tom Coradeschi]
    Praise For Miami Herald's Southern Bell Coverage [Col. Journalism Review]
    Canada -- No More Cheap Calls via the US [CS Monitor via Andy Rabagliati]
    Does Anyone Have the Spec to ATT SYS75 Datapacket? [John A. Pham]
    Telecom World Magazine [John Pettitt]
    Cellular Tracking (was New Boston/Conn. DMX) [Tony Harminc]
    American Consumer Protection [[e-mail]]
    How to Fight an Overcharging AOS [Bruce Perens]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 9:41:26 EDT
From: Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]>
Subject: RBOC's and Cable TV Services
Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ


{Network World}, 1 Jul 91, p. 6

"Proposed legislation would open cable biz to RBHCs"

By Anita Taff
Washington Bureau Chief

   WASHINGTON, DC - Lawmakers last week got feedback on a hill that
would allow the RBHCs to enter the cable television business in
exchange for a commitment from them to upgrade the public network to
broadband fiber-optic facilities over the next two to five years.

   Reps. Mike Oxley (R-Ohio) and Rick Boucher (D-Va.), along with
Sens. Al Gore (D-Tenn.) and Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), introduced the
bill three weeks ago.

   At a hearing last week, the four claimed the proposed legislation
would yield double benefits to the public. First, it would discipline
the largely monopolistic cable industry, which has generated numerous
consumer complaints about price gouging and poor service. Second, it
would ensure that the U.S.  public net stays on a par with those of
international rivals.

   Because Japan has instituted a program to deploy a fiber-optic,
digital net by the year 2015, the bill targets that date for
completion of the network upgrade here. Sponsors claim a fiber net
will support a variety of interactive services that will aid
businesses, education and health care.

   But opponents question the need for fiber in the local loop,
fearing carriers will raise rates in order to fund new cable ventures
or finance the upgrade, which is estimated at about $400 billion.

   At a hearing before the House Telecommunications and Finance
Subcommittee, opponents raised those arguments against Oxley and
Boucher's bill.

   Gene Kimmelman, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of
America, criticized the bill for choosing the regional Bell holding
companies over possible competitors as the vehicle to deliver new
broadband services.

   "Requiring the FCC to prevent cross-subsidization and ensure that
video investments or asset transfers are without cost to the
ratepayers is like 'Mission Impossible' with the commission's limited
auditing capacity and extensive responsibilities," he said.

   Decker Anstrom, executive vice-president of the National Cable
Television Association, said there is no need for the fiber-optic
investment by the RBHCs since "virtually every service conceivable,
except video, can be provided over the telcos' existing copper-based
facilities.

   "[The bill] would require American consumers to finance the telcos'
$400 billion bet on becoming the TV tycoons of the 21st century,"
Anstrom said.

   Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) also voiced reservations. He said he
supports efforts to establish goals for the national network but
worries that the bill could hurt ratepayers.

   "We must ensure that consumers don't have to foot the bill for
services they don't want or investments that do little else than gold
plate the network," Markey said. He added that the bill would have to
include "strong fire walls to prevent cross-subsidies and anticompetitive
behavior."

   Rep. Dennis Eckart (D-Ohio) expressed exasperation at the RBHCs'
grand claims about the benefits that will flow from the fiber
investment. "It sounds to me like this bill will cure everything but
baldness and the heartache of psoriasis," he said.

   At the hearing, however, Boucher pointed out that a fiber-optic
network capable of supporting broadband applications is vital to the
future competitiveness of the U.S. "I don't want us to lose our
leadership in the telecommunications industry," he said. "If we do,
the results could be severe."

   Several members of the subcommittee applauded the bill, which has
six cosponsors' as well as Senate and White House support. Officials
from the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration said the administration would endorse the
plan if the mandatory date of 2015 was eliminated.


        tom coradeschi    <+>    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 10:31:45 PDT
From: Herb Jellinek <frox!borges![e-mail]>
Subject: Praise for Miami Herald's Southern Bell coverage


This is reprinted from the {Columbia Journalism Review}, July/August
1991, p. 17, in the column "Darts And Laurels."  I don't recall seeing
anything about the cited Herald articles in TELECOM Digest, and I
thought this might be of interest:

* LAUREL to {The Miami Herald} and staff writer Tom Dubocq, for
getting through to the phone company's unlisted numbers.  Since his
ringing revelation in November 1989 that Southern Bell had underpaid,
by hundreds of thousands of dollars, the commissions that the utility
is required to pay to government agencies on calls made from pay
phones on public property, such as airports, courthouses, and jails,
Dubocq has stayed on the story line, reporting on the utility's
denials of wrongdoing, claims of technical error, refusal to produce
records, and termination of a whistleblower; he has also covered the
state's fifteen-month investigation which, according to the attorney
general's office, was prompted by his articles.  In February 1991,
Dubocq was able to report that Southern Bell had agreed to repay $5
million in back commissions and interest.  By March, he was covering
four other investigations of Southern Bell for allegedly withholding
millions of dollars due customers for out-of-order phone lines.

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

From: Andy Rabagliati <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canada - No More Cheap Calls via the US
Organization: SGS-Thomson/Inmos Division
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 18:17:39 GMT


An article I read in {The Christian Science Monitor} of 2 July 1991.

Cheers,     Andy.

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

No More Cheap Calls Via the US

By Fred Langan - Special to {The Christian Science Monitor}

CANADIAN long-distance rates -- double those in the United States --
look as if they will stay pricey after a ruling by a federal
regulator.

Just as Canadian consumers head south in search of cheaper gasoline
and groceries, Canadian business is routing telephone calls south to
take advantage of lower long-distance charges. It is cheaper to skip
across the continent on the American side and divert calls north after
bypassing almost all of the Canadian long-distance lines and charges.

Now telephone resellers in Canada will not be allowed to reroute calls
through the US.

Here's how Bell Canada compares to American Telephone & Telegraph
Company on a coast to coast call dialed direct at peak times during
the week: Montreal to Vancouver costs 43 cents (US) a minute; a call
from New York to Los Angeles is just 24 cents a minute. A wide variety
of discounts are offered in both countries, especially to business
customers.

So it is cheaper to route a Vancouver-Montreal call down into
Washington state, zap it across AT&T lines to New York state, and then
push it over the border into Canada where dedicated lines owned or
leased by the reseller take it to Montreal.

This is now a no-no, according to the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).

And the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement doesn't include telephone
calls.

"Bypassing of Canadian facilities by resellers and companies with
private networks results in our domestic carriers losing revenues,
which undermines the strength of the Canadian telecommunications
system," said CRTC chairman David Colville.

In spite of the ruling, the practice may be impossible to stop. "This
is a tricky thing to police," says Elisabeth Angus, executive vice
president of Angus Telemanagement, a Toronto consulting firm. There
already is an agree- ment between Bell Canada [the largest Canadian
phone company] and AT&T that calls should go one way and not back
again. But it is almost to impossible to tell when calls are being
rerouted over private and leased lines."

THE government ban on routing calls through the US came after
Teleglobe Canada -- which has the monopoly on handling overseas calls
from Canada -- made a request that the practice be stopped. Resellers
could also save money routing calls through the US to overseas
destinations.

The rules governing telephones and long distance are up for review.
Unitel, a firm that has many of its own fiber optic telephone lines
within Canada, is also challenging Bell Canada and other Canadian
telephone firms for the right to compete more vigorously in
long-distance service.

One reselling firm, Fonorola, says charges are already dropping in
Canada because of domestic competition. "We offer volume users savings
of up to 34 percent in Canada and from 25 to 50 percent over Bell
Canada for calls to the United States," says George Tkachuk of
Fonorola in Toronto. He says his firm does not offer bypassing, but
lowers costs by leasing lines from Bell Canada or Unitel, reselling
them at a discount.

Even the CRTC chairman wants more competition. "We recognize that the
effective long-term solution for reducing bypass is to lower Canadian
long-distance rates," said Mr. Colville.

But Canadian business says it is being hurt by higher Canadian
operating costs, including long-distance charges. One Montreal banker
whose firm uses telephone resellers denounced the government ruling
saying, "It only hurts Canada's competitive position to regulate
higher long-distance charges."

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Does Anyone Have the Spec to ATT SYS75 Datapacket?
Date: Wed,  3 Jul 91 00:44:20 PDT


   I was playing in our switch room (we have a Sys75/definity) which
connect to a 7404D data phone.  There is also a data terminal connect
to it.  I connect a standard pc with serial to the 7404 at 9600 baud
and was able to get some data, but how do I interpret it?  I want to
simulate my pc like that expensive ATT data-terminal ... I notice that
all data-packet starts with 7F (HEX) but each data-packets are of
different length.  Does anyone have any docs on SYS-75?  and yes, I
have been looking through our SYS-75 administrator manuals!!


John

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

From: John Pettitt <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 12:37:05 BST
Organization: Specialix International
Subject: Telecom World Magazine


I have just received a copy of British Telecom produced publication
called {Telecom World}.  It contains a number of interesting
semi-technical items about BT which may be of interest to Digest
readers.

A brief summary of two of the more interesting items follows:

1) `Centre Vision'

A two page article on the new directory assistance centre for
handicapped users that is being installed by BT in Sheffield.

The centre employs 300 people and takes 60,000 calls a day. Users have
a PIN number that allows them free assistance calls (BT now charges
for normal `192' DA calls).  Other information of note:

* DA calls to the centre take on average twice the time of normal DA
calls due to the special nature of the users.

* The system is the first DMS100 installed in the UK.

* The system uses TOPS MP terminals which (BT say) are used to
provide DA to 246 million people in north america.

2) `OPENING the GATE'

This item is about the new international switching centre at Madley
(`Madley B').  This is based on a DMS300 which it says can handle
128000 lines !  It implies that the new switch will provide
international caller ID.  The switch will handle all international
ISDN from the UK (single point failure here we come :-).

The claim is it's `probably the biggest international gateway anywhere
in the world'.  There ar 45000 ports on the system now and capacity is
planned to sustain a peak of 560,000 busy hour call attempts.

I'm not sure what I did to deserve a copy - however it's published by
BT ([phone] voice [phone] fax).


John Pettitt   Specialix International   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 03 Jul 91 12:13:31 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Tracking (was New Boston/Conn. DMX)


Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]> wrote:

[ most of long and interesting cellular discussion deleted ]

> However, this got me thinking: Dialing my number through the Boston
> port will NOT page me in CT. It *queries* my phone, ie, I can actually
> hear the thing click after I enter my number into the Boston port, but
> it won't ring me.

> I took the phone indoors, and saw what was happening. When someone
> called me directly (no roam ports), the call would seem to come to
> Boston, my phone would "click" as it always does before it starts
> ringing, (letting the system know it is active?), yet not ring.

This is fascinating: your phone "clicks" but doesn't ring?  There is
an "audit" order in the data stream sent from the land to the mobile
station.  It would be intriguing if your phone was quietly letting you
know that you are being audited.  The specification for audit requires
the phone to respond to the network (if it is in range obviously), but
says nothing about telling the user that the audit request has been
made.  Are there cellular test-sets that display all the orders
received?  Perhaps a test mode on a fancy phone?


Tony H.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: American Consumer Protection
Date: Wed Jul  3 13:40:33 1991


Sad to say, I got burned by the people offering, of all things, credit
card protection services and discount prices, etc. plus a prize worth
at least $400 (the $1000 U.S. savings bond if cashed immediately) just
for the price of $199.00.

My lesson, whatever, *whatever* they say, it *is* a scam!!!  The girl
even promised me that it was not a scam when I asked :-)  The good
news: it was not an expensive lesson.  I eventually got the credit
card refund even though I waited for more than sixty days to contest
the charge.

Another point: does any legitimate business ever have one address for
the people offering services, another address that bills you, and a
third address (usually in Beverly Hills, CA :-) that actually provides
the services?  If so, I don't know why they would.  From experience,
that is a Bad Sign.

What about phone solicitations with a recording saying to call 1-900-...
and the call does not indicate any charge for that call???


Alex

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: How to Fight an Overcharging AOS
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 1991 05:24:32 GMT


I just got a bill of $4.03 for a nine-minute credit card call from a
motel in California to New York. The carrier was Telesphere. I tried
to call their billing questions number, 1-800-864-0606 but I just get
a reorder signal (I use ATT at home).

The $4.03 certainly won't hurt me, but it is much more than they
should have charged, and there was certainly no notice on or near the
phone that they would be gouging me for the call :-). It's time to put
a stop to this nonsense. I have lots of time. Do you guys have any
suggestions?  The things I've thought of so far, are to instruct
Pacific Telephone to not bill for them, and require them to bill me
directly, and make a format complaint to the CPUC. What else can you
guys think of?


Bruce Perens

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #516
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25577;
          5 Jul 91 3:49 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25994;
          5 Jul 91 2:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27338;
          5 Jul 91 1:12 CDT
Date:     Fri, 5 Jul 91 0:20:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #517
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 5 Jul 91 00:19:58 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 517

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Fireworks, Food, Huge Crowds [TELECOM Moderator]
    Service Outages Across the Nation [Star-Ledger via Tom Coradeschi]
    900 Start-up Information Please [Shel Talmy]
    Information Wanted on 800 Information [Will Martin]
    AT&T PBX and Macintosh [Brad Hicks]
    Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and "Phreaker' [Ranjan Bagchi]
    Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Can AT&T/Sprint/MCI Serve Motels? [Mark A. Van Buskirk]
    Re: Is Randy History? [Mark A. Van Buskirk]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 23:37:16 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Fireworks, Food, Huge Crowds


Wednesday night, my brother, sister-in-law, the baby, myself and about
one million other people went to 'Taste of Chicago', the 1812 Overture
and fireworks display downtown on the lakefront. Official crowd tally
according to this morning's {Chicago Tribune} was slightly over a
million people.

The lines for the porta-potties was exceeded by or equal to the line
for the pay phones. People with cell phones (a few thousand of us by
my rough estimate based on my line of sight) were selling phone calls
to the folks who did not want to wait for the pay phones.  Illinois
Bell had set up a special bank of pay phones (maybe three dozen), but
they were constantly in use.

During the day Thursday we went to a picnic and then back to Taste of
Chicago fcr the final day, followed by fireworks at Centennial Park in
Evanston this evening.  I think it is time for a vacation!  :)

Due to a lot of events next week, I'll be in and out quite a bit, so
will not have regular issues of the Digest again until about July 13.
 From now through the weekend, I'll clean out the queue here of stuff
arriving in response to recent articles, etc.

*New* non-time-sensitive articles should be held until the end of next
week. Important news articles will be sent out next week should any
show up.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 9:37:22 EDT
From: Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Service Outages Across the Nation
Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ


The (Newark, NJ) {Star-Ledger}, Wednesday, 3 Jul 91, p. 59

"Telephone sleuths are on the trail of mysterious service interruptions"

Washington Post Wire Service

   WASHlNGTON - East Coast and West Coast, the pattern has been the
same: At about 11 a.m., an entire region's telephone system collapses.

   For the past six days, solving the mystery of the failing phones
has become an obsession for the nation's service-conscious telephone
companies. Yet despite recurring similarities and clues in the
half-dozen failures to date, which have struck Washington, Los
Angeles, Pittsburgh and San Francisco. the detective work remains
mired in unanswered questions.

   Yesterday, telephones in Pittsburgh were disabled for about two
hours for the second day running, underlining the phone systems'
vulnerability. The basic pattern was the same-an unexplained deluge of
electronic messages shutting down a computer built by DSC
Communications Corp. of Plano, Texas.

   The telephone companies know that the failure is in complex
electronic systems that route calls. But they cannot say why the
systems are failing, why the failures are occurring within days of
each other and why they all begin at the same time of day. They cannot
explain why the failures occur in computers that are not linked
electronically and use different versions of software, the coded
instructions that tell computers how to operate.

   Experts yesterday continued to probe whether the cause could be
sabotage, the result of a rogue program deliberately released into the
computers to disable them. "Nothing is being eliminated" as a possible
cause, said Anton Campanella, president of Bell Atlantic Corp. parent
of the Washington area's Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.

   But he and other specialists interviewed yesterday said the cause
was more likely accidental, the result of a mistake in the hundreds of
thousands of computer instructions that run the telephone equipment. A
DSC official yesterday said it was unclear whether its equipment was
to blame. "There has not been an identification of a problem," said
company spokesman Terry Adams.  "We can't point to a software issue or
a hardware issue." He also noted that the equipment was built to
industry standards that themselves might turn out to be flawed.

   The DSC computers route calls over local telephone networks. Their
complex software is designed to handle thousands of calls
simultaneously and stay in touch with other computers in the network
through a constant exchange of "maintenance messages." The software
also watches over the machines' internal operations second-by-second
in an attempt to automatically correct any problems.

   Each of the afflicted machines has for some reason generated
millions of maintenance messages, which normally help a computer keep
track of its internal operations and communicate with others in the
network. These messages generally have priority over messages that are
routing calls. Too many maintenance messages meant there was no room
for routing calls, and the DSC machines ceased to function. The key
question, said John W. Seazholtz, Bell Atlantic vice president for
technology and information services, is "why is their (DSC's) system
going into overload every time we get a little rinky-dink issue that
should have been automatically dealt with?  The software obviously has
a major problem."

   In 1988, a large national network of electronically linked research
computers known as Internet was immobilized by a "virus" that a young
graduate student released into it. A virus is a program that copies
itself and spreads within a computer system. In some cases, it may lie
dormant until the computer's clock activates it and leads it to
execute some action, such as the destruction of data.

   Phone system experts have suggested that a virus might explain why
the failures have been occurring within days of each other and at the
same time of day. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into
whether the failures were deliberately caused. But getting a virus
into the computers would be difficult, even for insiders. While
thousands of computer users can "sign on" to Internet telephone
companies normally guard carefully any electronic access from the
outside to the computers that route calls.


         tom coradeschi    <+>    [e-mail]

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

Subject: 900 Start-up Information Please
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 91 18:41:32 PDT
From: Shel Talmy <[e-mail]>


A friend of mine with a very successful "premium" phone service in the
United Kingdom, wants to open a similar service in America.  He's
interested in any information, words of wisdom etc., available on the
"900" number situation.  He'd also like to get a list of 900 number
services already in existence.  Is there such a list?

I toldh him I'd ask the net, as they have all the answers!  I'd
appreciate anybody with info to post it here or e-mail me, and I'll
forward it to him.  Thanks in advance.


[Moderator's Note: I doubt there is any one single directory of all
the 900 numbers available.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 15:20:19 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted About 800 Information


How does 800 information work now that there are a multitude of
vendors selling 800 service?  Does AT&T run 800 information for
everyone and charge the other carriers?  Are *all* 800 carriers in the
800 information database now, or are some missing?  How does the
information provider charge the other carriers for their services --
on a per-call basis, with a fee for every inquiry that results in a
reference to that carrier's 800 prefices, or on a flat-fee basis,
perhaps based on the percentage of all 800 numbers that that carrier
supports, or a percentage of the prefices it is assigned?

How likely is it these days that the 800 information database is
correct and complete?  If I call 800-555-1212 and ask "Is there an 800
number for Zygote Corp. in Milwaukee?" and they say "no", how likely
is it to be true that Zygote really does not have an 800 number?  How
up-to-date is the database; how long does it take a new 800 number to
be available to information?

What percentage of 800 numbers are "non-published"?  Is being listed
in 800 information or not a charged-for "feature" either way?  What
about all those "personal" 800 numbers that some Telecom-ers have and
which have been and are being marketed widely -- is the purchaser/
subscriber asked if they want to be listed in 800 information when
they get the number, or isn't it an option for individuals? [If your
personal number can be listed, do you have the option of specifying a
phony company or individual name for the listing, or does it have to
be the billing name?]


Regards,

Will     [e-mail] OR [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: When I first subscribed to 800 service from
Telecom* USA, they asked if I wanted to be listed in the database.
The price quoted was $12 *per month*, which they said was the same
amount they were charged by Southwestern Bell (the telco which
operates 800-555-1212). They simply passed along what they were
charged, anbd said they did not activity promote listings.   PAT]

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

Date: 03 Jul 91 11:37:39 EDT
From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T PBX and Macintosh


[I'm posting the following question for one of the internal developers
here at MasterCard.  Please reply directly to master.dev@applelink.
apple.com; if there's enough interest, I'll have Mark give me the
replies and I'll summarize to the best of my ability.

[e-mail]]

                         -------

I have a Macintosh IIfx that I need to connect with a AT&T Difinity G2
phone system, and a 7406+ phone.  This connection must provide me the
ability, through program control, to utilize most of the AT&T
functions (e.g. hold, transfer, conference...).  The 7406+ phone is
digital connected to the pbx digitally.

I've tried bridging an analog andsLe%al line to the same phone number,
and using a modem on the analog line to dial.  This works ... kinda
 ..  NOT.  You issue an "AT" command for the modem to dial, but you
must then press the "Speaker" button on the digital phone to hear
what's going on.  And to hang-up, you issue an "AT H" command from the
modem, and you must still press "Speaker" to drop the line from the
digital set.

I need a solution similar to a ROLM 244PC.  That phone allows me
complete control over the phone features.  When I issue a dial command
to the phone, and the head set is still in the cradle, the phone would
automatically select speaker-phone for me.  When I issued a hang-up
request, the phone would drop the line.  By the way, the ROLM 244PC
has a serial connection.


HELP ...  HELP ...  HELP!


Thanks in advance,

Mark Lawrence

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 23:34:12 -0400
From: Ranjan Bagchi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker'


> Nor do I. I have taken every precaution that I can forsee against it
> here at my system. But there's always going to be the user "John Doe"
> who changes his password to "DoeJohn" and there's no helping that ...
> even after you explain to them to use passwords like "x98cY2h*" and
> why.

    Ah, but you can.  This site, for instance, seems to have
pushed a COPS-like program within 'passwd', so that passwords are
checked versus a list of stupid passwords, and anything from this list
is thrown out.


rj

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott
Date: 5 Jul 91 02:55:44 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (ethan miller) writes:

> It'd probably be *cheaper* to just let all local calls go through and
> block long distance calls which aren't charged to another number.  The
> loss in revenue would be made up for by simpler billing and by more
> rooms filled by business travelers who hate checking every little call
> on the bill.

Ah, but the _bills_ of most business travellers are paid by their
companies, not by themselves.  Marriott, which caters to the business
crowd, tacks on surcharges because the final recipient of the bill is
usually not the person using the services [he's not paying, so he
usually doesn't care], and in any case rarely sees an itemized bill --
it's just a line on the old expense account.

Motel 6, on the other hand, caters to travellers who are much more
likely to be paying out of their own pockets, and thus much more
likely to bitch.  Also, their customers are much less likely to make
phone calls in general, and long distance in particular.  Given the
small size of their motels, the investment in the billing systems
usually isn't worth it -- cheaper to stick in a bargain basement PBX
with a few (very few!) outside lines and toll restriction.

Plus, of course, it would be bad for business if the phone bill was
greater than the room bill.  Bad PR, doncha know ...


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

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

Date: Thu, 04 Jul 91 15:02:16 CST
From: Jack Winslade <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hotel Surcharges, Marriott
Reply-To: ivgate!drbbs![e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


David Lesher writes: Anyone know where to find a coin slot with an RJ-11?

In the 'bag of tricks' I carry with my Zenith laptop, I have an RJ-11
cable with 'EZ Hooks' on one end.  Although I haven't used this with a
pay station (yet?) it has come in handy for worst-case travel
locations, where it was physically difficult to get to the actual
phone jacks.  It can be used almost anywhere a live connection to the
phone can be realized.  In one hotel, I had to unscrew the transmitter
and clip across the two spring contacts.  It worked, although I could
tell there was a slight loss through the network in the set.  I got it
to dial by operating the switch hook manually and then having the
modem dial the usual atdt9,,1npanxxabcd sequence.

The only real problem I have had is bypassing the Hotel's rip-rate
service by dialing the Foon Card number, pausing just the right
length, and then blasting away with the number I am calling plus the
Foon Card number.  The first few tries it timed out, a live operator
came on line, who got a blast of tones in the ear.

I suppose this type of a cable would work from a pay station, although
I can see myself in an airport or bus terminal struggling to remove
the mouthpiece and being accosted by the local constable.  ;-)


Good Day!        JSW

 Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.5
 [200:5010/666@metronet] Omaha, Best-Connected BBS City.  (200:5010/666.0)

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

Date: Thu Jul  4 05:14:09 GMT 1991
From: attmail!mvanbuskirk (Mark A Van Buskirk)
Subject: Re: Can AT&T/Sprint/MCI Serve Motels?


HOBIS or HOtel BIlling System is alive and well at AT&T.  Any hotel or
motel can subscribe to this service, It appears that the motel Mr.
Goldstein stayed at didn't want to pay for HOBIS service.


Mark Van Buskirk       ATTmail !mvannbuskirk

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

Date: Thu Jul  4 05:14:09 GMT 1991
From: attmail!mvanbuskirk (Mark A Van Buskirk)
Subject: Re: Is Randy History?


To clear up questions regarding Randy's employment with AT&T this is
the information available as of July 3, 1991. YES, Randy was fired.
Currently he has a grievance pending with the CWA on his termination.
Shortly his grievance will be appealed on the third level and if this
fails (almost certainly will) it will move to arbitration. I don't
hold much hope for Randy getting his job back because the union is
generally powerless. Maybe I can get Randy to post his side of the
story.


Mark Van Buskirk     ATTmail !mvannbuskirk

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #517
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07971;
          5 Jul 91 20:58 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27071;
          5 Jul 91 19:28 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22214;
          5 Jul 91 18:23 CDT
Date:     Fri, 5 Jul 91 17:28:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #518
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 5 Jul 91 17:28:04 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 518

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or What Were These Guys Thinking?) [W C Stewart]
    Re: Anybody Know Where I Can Get a Crossbar Switch? [John Higdon]
    Re: Anybody Know Where I Can Get a Crossbar Switch? [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Hotel Surcharges, Best Western (was: Marriott) [Stan M. Krieger]
    Re: Where Do They Get Off? [Wolf Paul]
    Re: The Former West Berlin [Jan Hinnerk Haul]
    Re: What Kind of Exchange Am I On? [Eric R. Skinner]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri,  5 Jul 91 01:41:14 EDT
From: William Clare Stewart <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Special Services Division


In article <[e-mail]> umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu!
[e-mail] (Brian Cuthie) writes:

> What is truely amazing to me is the architecture of this network.  You
> mean to tell me that there are only *FOUR* STPs for four states!?
> This seems absolutely ludicrous to me.  I mean, what were these guys
> thinking?  For many moons, as most of us are aware, the government
> has sponsored research in the area of survivable networks. [....]

I last worked on survivable signalling around divestiture, so some of
my comments are a bit out of date.  At the time, there were about 20
STPs for the entire country, which is more than enough unless there
are large numbers of nuclear devices flying about, and the military
has contingencies for that, too.

SS7 is basically a packet-switched network for passing signalling
information, and is designed with reliability, uptime, and flexibility
as its primary goals.  Everything is connected to more than one STP,
STPs know how to back up other STPs and have the capacity to do it,
and most of the computer equipment has downtime specs of one hour per
40 years.  The number of STPs isn't a significant RISK, or there'd be
more of them.  The real vulnerabilities lie in the usual software-
design areas, and potentially protocol deficiencies, because those can
give you common-mode failures, as seems to be happening in the recent
problems.

STP-based SS7 significantly *improves* network reliability, because it
allows the network to use much more flexible call-routing algorithms
than we had in the old days.  This also reduces network costs, and
significantly reduces call setup time.  The paths your call follows
are relatively independent of the signalling packets.  Associated
signalling is available, at a significantly higher cost.

> Considering the importance of local phone service to the
> health and well-being of us all, I think it may be time to get some
> outside oversight to make sure the phone companies don't engineer us
> into a cost effective, but highly vulnerable, network.

Divestiture has had a significant impact on this, as has technology.
At the time I was doing this work, the network still had a largely
hierarchical design, with about half the long distance served by dumb
switches, either crossbar or older ESS, and about half the local
service using step-by-step.  That's changed significantly. Common-
Channel Signalling (either CCIS or SS6 and maybe SS7) reached most of
the AT&T Long Lines network, but wasn't installed in local class-5
offices because of economics, even though the added signalling
capability would permit lots of features and efficiencies.  That's
changing as well.

In addition to hierarchical routing, there were also a lot of "high-usage"
trunks which provided alternate routes where there was high traffic.
At the time, our survivability studies hoped to find that we could use
these, by augmenting the routing translations or building special
boxes, to provide highly diverse routing paths through the network to
provide highly reliable communications for the government during
"emergencies".  It turned out that this was unrealistic -- the network
had lots of highly interconnected cliques at the class-5 level, but
the connectivity was highly local, due to economic and traffic needs --
the long-distance connectivity we were looking for really started at
class-4 and above (the bottom-level toll switches.)  Divestiture has
aggravated this, by separating the local phone service from the
long-distance carriers' Points Of Presence (POPs) in each LATA.

In one sense, this helps -- local-office problems tend to isolate
themselves, and long-distance and local routing decisions are made
independently.  This has increased the ability of the long-distance
carriers to experiment with better routing methods, since the local
phone company switches don't all have to be upgraded to support it.
It also means, if something goes wrong with ONE long-distance carrier,
you can try using the competition, as long as local service works.
Cellular phones add another layer of options.

On the other hand, if the government wants to increase reliability
(for *their* users) beyond what the market provides for its own needs,
they can no longer simply ask the monopoly phone company to add more
trunks or nuclear-blast-and-EMP-harden all the new switches, and
charge it to your phone bill, because the long-distance companies
really do have to care about costs -- and if it gets paid for out of
taxes, they've got to justify the spending to Congress.

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

> Perhaps we can lobby Congress to pass legislation which details how
> the STPs should be placed to provide maximum reliability. :-(

(enter Foghorn-Leghorn-voice mode)

Ah say heah, bo', we gotta have one a' them there STPs in MAH district!
Just don' put the thang in MAH back yard.


Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 00:57 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Anybody Know Where I Can Get a Crossbar Switch?


99700000 <[e-mail]> writes:

>  ... for museum purposes.

In September (I can get the exact date if you like), why don't you
appear at 1615 Foxworthy Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125, and see what
comes out the door? There is enough crossbar in that place to serve
twelve prefixes. Maybe they will give some of it to you when they
decommission it. Pac*Bell once tried selling its old crossbar
equipment to some Asian countries, but they were too smart for that.


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

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 12:09 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Anybody Know Where I Can Get a Crossbar Switch?


        In article (digest v11iss515), <[e-mail]> asks
where to get a crossbar switch:

> ... for museum purposes.

        Which raises the question: Just HOW large is your museum?
Several crossbars I've seen removed filled three to six forty-foot
semi-trailers when packed in junk form. ;->

        Our Moderator suggests:

> Why don't you ask Larry Lippman? He might have something like that
> available for museum purposes.

        Which raises the question: Just HOW large is Larry's
warehouse? ;-> ;->

        Ok, Ok. I know you really only wnat ONE part of a switch
frame.  The best straight scoop I can offer is to tell you that
crossbars tend to get totally trashed about a year after their
replacement is functional. In all the cases I've seen (being the
replacer), they are bid for by the pound by offshore junk metal
dealers.  Wrecking crews are sent in that just saw up the cabling with
bandsaws, drill the mounting screws out of the frames, and drop the
whole mess in a heap on the floor. They push the heap out the door
onto the truck that makes one stop on the scales on its way to the
ship that hauls old crossbars and automobiles across the ocean to a
smelter in places like Taiwan.  There, it makes those fine pliers and
screwdrivers you buy in the convenience store for $1.19; the ones that
break or bend the first time you put a strain on them.

       The single BEST way to get one may be to "have a friend on the
inside;" one who will dismount a frame for you before the wrecking
crew arrives.

       This is still going on in the U.S. in states like Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana and California.  There are likely others, but I
know of these.  To identify others, find places where the electronic
exchange has been put into service within the past year or so.

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

Date: Fri,  5 Jul 91 11:28:20 EDT
From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hotel Surcharges, Best Western (was: Marriott)
Organization: Summit NJ


> The easiest way to fix this would be jack up the cost of the room a
> couple of dollars and stop this stupid practice of charging for calls.

> Why would jacking up the rate of the room even be necessary?  Motel 6
> provides free local calls at a room rate of $25/night.  Other
> "cut-rate" hotels do the same thing.  For some odd reason, the more
> expensive hotels are the ones which insist on charging for all calls.

I posed similar questions to Best Western International after I stayed
at the Best Western Mardi Gras in Las Vegas last summer.  The hotel
added a flat charge of $1.50 a day for unlimited local telephone use,
and used an AOS for long distance calls.  The points I raised were:

  1. While the hotel is privately owned, as indicated in the Best
     Western guide,  I expected Best Western International to try to
     resolve the problem in order to protect their own name and to
     make sure that the actions of few of their franchisees do not
     reflect negatively on the entire chain.

  2. The $1.50 a day charge, while small, was nonetheless deceptive
     as it was not indicated in the chain guide nor in any literature
     I got from the motel; the first time I saw it was in a big sign
     behind the front desk.  Also, I indicated that such a charge was
     ridiculous and, like electricity, air conditioning, and hot
     water, telephone service was one of the things customers have
     the right to expect as part of the room rate.

  3. Finally, I pointed out that in using an AOS, the hotel was
     looking for the best deal for themselves instead of for their
     guests, and by blocking 10xxx (I supplied AT&T's, Sprint's,
     and MCI's code) they were preventing their guests from having
     the access they were entitled to.

The reply I got, which is the usual practice for businesses whose
hands have just been caught in the cookie jar, was to avoid responding
to the specific points I raised.  Best Western International, totally
avoiding the point I raised about protecting their name and their
franchisees, said they couldn't do anything about it and forwarded my
letter to the hotel.  The motel's answers were even more evasive:

   a. My point that telephone, like electricity, etc., was part of their
      overhead and thus should be factored into the room rate, was
      ignored.  Instead it was justfied as "standard  industry practice"
      in Las Vegas.

   b. The point about using an AOS instead of a more competitively priced
      company was also ignored, as was the blocking of 10xxx.  All they
      answered (and this was true) was that I could call the hotel
      operator to get AT&T  (what this didn't answer was how to get
      MCI, etc), nor did it address that I had to explicitely request
      direct-dialed calling card rates and often explain why I didn't
      use 10288 each time they connected me to an AT&T operator.

   c. Finally there was the usual crap about valuing their customer
      comments.  I hope they value it enough to do something about it.


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
[e-mail]                      policies of my employer.

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

From: Wolf PAUL <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Where Do They Get Off?
Date: 1 Jul 91 21:32:06 GMT
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria


[e-mail] (Jordan M Kossack) writes:

> 'junque mail' trying to sell me one thing or another, but I do object
> to Southwestern Bell telling Sprint my new address, since they're
> _not_ my long distance carrier and have no reason to know the
> information.

> I realize that this isn't illeagal but I do think it is kind of sleazy
> for SWB to give out such information to Sprint, since they won't give
> addresses to folk who call up directory assistance.

>  [Moderator's Note: The local telco is REQUIRED to share billing
>  information with long distance carriers. Whether or not you have a
>  non-pub number is irrelevant.   PAT]

Is this true even if the long distance carrier in question (a) is not
my default (1+) carrier, and (b) I have not made any calls via that
carrier?

That would seem to be a violation of privacy: if the carrier provided
no service, there is no billing information; any information they
receive will obviously be used for other purposes. Can I just set up a
(bogus) long distance service and suddenly get access to names,
addresses and phone numbers of every subscriber in the USA?


W.N.Paul
IIASA, [e-mail], [phone]  (till Jul 26, 1991)
ALCATEL/ELIN, [e-mail] (as of Jul 29, 1991)
Home Phone: [phone] (till Jun 30, 1991), [phone] (as of Jul 1)


[Moderator's Note: I think if the local telco supplies *any one
carrier* with information about you, i.e. change of address, new
number, etc. they are required to supply the same information to *all
carriers* on request; that is, if they wish to operate at 'arms
length' from their old parent company, which of course is who they
originally supplied the information to about you.  So if they tell
AT&T you have moved, so AT&T can solicit you for Reach Out America at
your new address/number, they have to tell MCI/Sprint so those firms
can solicit your business at your new location also.  And in any
event, once you dial a call over the network of another company, you
become part of their records. Telco must supply your (non-pub) name
and address for billing purposes.  PAT]

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

From: Jan Hinnerk Haul <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Former West Berlin
Organization: Me, Myself, and I - Wedel, Germany
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 22:57:19 GMT


[e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> Given the recent messages about unified Germany, you might note that
> the former West Berlin has city code 30 under country code 49.  As you
> probably know, Berlin is deep inside the former East Germany.

As it had since there is direct dialing (early fifties, I suppose).

> [Moderator's Note: Prior to the unification, (or now for that matter)
> how were 'local' calls between East and West Berlin dialed?   PAT]

Till about January calls from West Berlin to East Berlin were dialed
with country code 37, as is till now for the eastern part of Germany
(and will remain so till the Telekom reassigns the dial codes, which
shall take place next year).

 From east to west you use country code 49, as ever.

Nowadays you can dial intra-Berlin calls with a prefix of 9, this
works both ways.

When you want to call the eastern part of Germany, you have to take
into consideration they have a hell of a telephone system.  Getting a
connection can take over an hour, if you call in business hours. And
since private phones are rare, you cannot reach anyone outside ...


Jan Hinnerk Haul    [phone] voice

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

Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 10:55:35 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What Kind of Exchange Am I On?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Software Exoterica Corporation, Ottawa, Ontario


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

>    Bell Canada does not feel like telling me this; I am curious
> to know what kind of switch I am on and what other exchanges share the
> same physical switch.  I am even more anxious to know now that a
> particular implemntation of SS7 seems to be failing all over the US.

I was wondering the same thing myself one day, so I called Bell Canada
repair service (611), asked them, and they told me without hesitation
that I was on a DMS-100 (I'm on 613-230).  Bell seems to be
standardizing on that switch, so odds are, you've got one too.


Eric R. Skinner                    [e-mail]
Software Exoterica Corporation     [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #518
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10915;
          5 Jul 91 22:03 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11536;
          5 Jul 91 20:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27071;
          5 Jul 91 19:28 CDT
Date:     Fri, 5 Jul 91 18:29:10 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #519
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 5 Jul 91 18:28:51 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 519

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or What Were These Guys Thinking?) [Brian Cuthie]
    Re: Service Outages Across the Nation [John Higdon]
    Re: American Consumer Protection [Rich Zellich]
    Re: Poor Abused Phreakers [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Emergencies and Selfishness [John Higdon]
    Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [Andrew Payne]
    Re: The Way I Built and Operated an AOS [Andy Sherman]
    Re: What Kind of Exchange Am I On? [Charles Hoequist]
    Re: Caller ID Against Telemarketers [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brian Cuthie <umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?)
Organization: Univ. of Maryland Baltimore County, Academic Computing Services
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1991 22:23:43 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]>, umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu!
> [e-mail] (Brian Cuthie) writes:

>> For many moons, as most of us are aware, the government has sponsored
>> research in the area of survivable networks.  We have all come to know
>> and love one of these networks as the ARPA net.  Granted, it has

> Brian has some valid points, but the "ARPA net" may not be the best of
> examples. First, it no longer exists. It was decommissioned over a
> year ago.  But since other networks had been put in place to carry all
> of its traffic, almost no one realized it had vanished.

Yes, I knew that.  I just thought that since most people know it as
the 'arpa' net that this would make the most sense to the most people.
But thanks.

> But the real problem is that there are exactly TWO primary network
> commection points for the ENTIRE Internet! FIX East just off of the
> UMD campus and FIX West at Nasa Ames in Mt. View, Calif.  Often only
> one of these critical tie points has been available and they are
> almost always badly congested. Routing does not effectively handle
> them and when both are down (and it has happened more than once)
> large parts of the net become disconnected.

Well, the real issue, is that the Internet is built arount protocols
that are designed for lossy, unreliable link level interfaces.  The
fact that there *are* some critical points in the Internet, is a
result of the fact that *it* does not need to be reliable.  However,
the military deployments of networks based on these protocols are
*very* reliable.  All this reliability is, more or less, free when you
add enough links.  The routing and transport protocols are already
designed with this reliability in mind.

> So who is ignoring what here? The real problem is that these things
> are expensive and difficult to maintain. And having more of them makes
> handling traffic much harder. I don't know anything about SS7 either,
> but I do know that packet routing is still not well understood
> (witness the current disputes over the use of distance-vector and
> link-state routing algorithms) and simply adding more interconnect
> points to a network does not always improve reliability.

This is just plain *not true*.  There are many papers that rigorously
analyze the various routing pardigms.  In fact, link state is one of
the first routing algorithms that *does* have significant theoretical
study behind it.


Brian Cuthie    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 02:32 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Service Outages Across the Nation


Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]> quotes from:
The (Newark, NJ) {Star-Ledger}, Wednesday, 3 Jul 91, p. 59

>    Phone system experts have suggested that a virus might explain why
> the failures have been occurring within days of each other and at the
> same time of day. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is looking into
> whether the failures were deliberately caused.

Oh, that is a hot one! Are the FBI software engineering people going
to analyze the source code for the SS7 implementations for
functionality and intent, then disassemble the binaries and compare
them with the sources to check for corruption, both intentional and
unintentional?

Some of us may look pretty stupid, but none of us is dumb enough to
believe that anyone at the FBI would know an STP if it bit them in the
butt. Conducting such an investigation is a little more involved than
checking for jimmy marks on the doors and windows.

Or maybe they will just seize everything in sight as they do in most
of their other computer-related investigations.

Give me a break.


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

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 9:21:59 CDT
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: American Consumer Protection


> Another point: does any legitimate business ever have one address for
> the people offering services, another address that bills you, and a
> third address (usually in Beverly Hills, CA :-) that actually provides
> the services?  If so, I don't know why they would.  From experience,
> that is a Bad Sign.

Actually a *lot* of firms, including some quite small ones, do this.
In some cases, it is a large firm having several centers across the
country, with each center having responsibility for one of the common
functions of the whole company (like billing) in addition to their
unique local functions.

In other cases, it may be a small company contracting out functions
that can more cheaply be handled by a special-purpose vendor handling
multiple companies' business in volume.  A common example of this is
subscription and mailing-label maintenance services for magazines.
Resubscription and billing for magazines may also commonly be handled
by a contractor.

Rebates is another *very* common example; both for separate
contractors and for a single location handling it for an entire
nation-wide large company.

My local utility companies also tend to have multiple addresses, but
they are at least all here in town (although I could see SouthWestern
Bell using a single bill-return/-processing center for the entire
multi-state region, or at least for the whole state of Missouri. They
don't, though).


Cheers,

Rich

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

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Poor Abused Phreakers
Date: 5 Jul 91 15:41:45 GMT
Reply-To: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ


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

> .... Maybe they could
> set an example by asking our permition to disclose credit information
> to others. When they do that, I'll ask them if they mind if I
> write/distribute a file about how their ATM machines work.

They do.  Read the fine print on a credit application.  By signing the
application, you authorize the potential creditor to investigate your
income and credit history and to share information with credit
agencies.  If you don't like that, don't apply for credit.  (This is
not a defense of abuses and shoddy workmanship in the credit bureau
industry, but that is a different issue).

> As a member of the scientific community I feel that the lunatic fringe
> is where the revolutionary new discoveries/inventions/ inovations are
> created, NOT in the main stream university setting.  Main stream
> science is great for backing up current knowledge and finding details
> of current theories. Unless someone has called you a fool or a
> criminal when you propose a new idea, you have not contributed
> anything to the direction of science.

As a fellow member of the scientific community, I think you've gone
way out on a limb.  Yes, a lot of great discoveries come from great
minds breaking through the barriers of main stream thinking, but they
have usually not been called criminals.  For "criminal" the only one
that comes to mind right off the bat is Galileo.  As for "fool", that
is a term that academics of all fields throw at each other all the
time.  Sometimes it's even deserved.  :^) By the "being called a fool"
criterion, there are few of us who don't meet your standards.

Relativity (Einstein), wave optics (Fresnel), and statistical
mechanics (Boltzmann) are three examples of breaking out of the
mainstream.  Einstein (while have been called backward in school)
didn't meet a hell of a lot of derision for his theory.  Indeed, he
became a folk hero.  Fresnel was called a fool and worse by the
reigning prince of the French scientific elite (Poisson) but outlived
Poisson and thus saw his work taken more seriously.  Boltzmann was
greeted with such derision that he committed suicide and was only
embraces posthumously.

A rather mixed record all in all, but none of it has anything to do
with phreaking and cracking.  These three scientists conducted their
work with rather high and conventional standards of probity and ethics.


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: Fri, 5 Jul 91 00:52 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Emergencies and Selfishness


Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]> writes:

> But we're not; I have yet to hear anyone even
> claim that they've been pestered repeatedly in this way.  If someone
> is being pestered, the laws I've seen quoted are drafted with just the
> right balance of penalties.

Ok, Mr. Arbiter of Selfishness, consider this such a claim. Some years
ago, I started noticing an increase in the number of failed UUCP
connections to my Internet mail host. Lots of dead-end calls to my
modem and even when in mid-converstation, the data connection would
suddenly die.

Not long after these observations, a phone man appeared at my door. He
had a trouble report for one of my lines that had been turned in by
someone I had never heard of. It seems that some idiot (maybe your Aunt
Ethel?) had been trying to reach someone at one of my modem numbers.
When she called, she got a strange noise (imagine that). She tried
calling in the wee hours and got nothing but busy signals. So she had
the operator interrupt the call. By the time the operator had actually
come on the line, the data connection had been ruined and the modems
had disconnected. When the stupid woman then called, she got the same
strange noise again. So she called repair service.

Fortunately, repair service has become much more sophisticated and
recognizes the sound of modems.

> The '70's was supposed to be the "me decade".  Well, here we are in
> the '90's.  Is this we have come to?  A demand that the sanctity of
> our phone conversations -- or, perish the thought, our dialup
> computer connections -- is so great that they mustn't be interrupted
> for ANYTHING?

I do not consider the interrupt from some buffoon who cannot even get
the number right to be worth interrupting even a casual nap. Operator
interrupts are very highly abused and I would be willing to bet that
only a very small percentage of them could be construed as REALLY
necessary.

> Perhaps when your building is on fire, you wish to be left undisturbed
> to finish your reading of TELECOM ...

TELECOM is delivered to me over unattended modem connections in the
middle of the night. Kindly explain how interrupting those data
connections with an operator barging in would serve any purpose
whatsoever.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Payne)
Subject: Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1991 15:56:35 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> msa3b![e-mail]
(Kevin P. Kleinfelter) writes:

> Recently, several ham radio operators were fined by the Federal
> Communications Commission, based upon the content of messages
> forwarded through their packet-radio computer network.  The messages
> solicited calls to a 900 number, and the FCC forbids commercially
> related messages.  (I believe that the fines were rescinded in most
> cases.)  The FCC DOES believe that the operator of a network node is
> responsible for its retransmissions, if that node uses amateur radio
> for its communication link.  How this affects non-radio nodes is not
> clear; it may be considered a precedent.

    I don't think you can really compare.  Ham radio has a whole
slew of restrictions peculiar to ham radio: non-commercial,
iternational third- party traffic restrictions, etc.

    I think the issue boils down to this: what makes one immume to
liability for messages carried on one's telephone/e-mail/message
system?  AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc clearly seem to be immume (or else the
phone company would get sued everytime there was a robbery plotted
over the phone).  BBS operators seem to be liable: several recent
cases demonstrate this.  What about the middle ground: MCI Mai and
CompuServe?  What's their status?  Does it have something to do with
the fact that the phone companies operate under tariff?


Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI        UUCP:  ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne
                          INTERNET:  [e-mail]

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

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Way I Built and Operated an AOS
Date: 5 Jul 91 15:10:56 GMT
Reply-To: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Nick Sayer) writes:

> [e-mail] (Mark R. Jenkins 619-458-2794) writes:

>> After some pauses, I got an operator which I "assumed" was AT&T and
>> gave her my AT&T credit card number and completed the call.

> I wonder if a solution to the problem of fakers is to ask "Is this
> American Telegraph and Telephone?" If they answer 'yes' then either
> they are AT&T, or they're lying, n'est pa? Does this work?

It you actually have the opportunity to dial the call yourself, AT&T
operator services are now electronically branded.  You will hear a bit
of music and a prerecorded "AT&T" *before* the bong inviting you to
dial your card number or "O" for Operator.  This may not help if the
hotel operator, COCOT operator, or AOS connects you directly to an
AT&T Operator.  The above procedure *might* help in that case, but of
course lying by AOS operators is not unheard of.


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: 3 Jul 91 12:02:00 EDT
From: Charles (C.A.)Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Kind of Exchange Am I On?


Re the query of <[e-mail]> in Digest #512:

Without the NPA, it's hard to be sure what sort of switch serves you,
but if you're under Bell Canada's wing, then it's very likely an NT
switch. BC is effectively a captive customer for NT CO equipment
(80-85% of BC's CO switches are NT's). Since most of the switches are
now DMS-series, it's likely one of those, though there are still a few
NT-40s waiting to be scrapped. Assume a DMS-100 if you're living in
the Toronto metro area.


Charles Hoequist   [e-mail]   BNR Inc.   PO Box 13478
Research Triangle Park NC 27709-3478, USA       919-991-8642

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

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 21:03:05 -0500
From: "Dispater @ Club ESP" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Against Telemarketers


[e-mail] (Cris Pedregal-Martin) writes:

> And one more gadget (or service) to buy

Hey, I'd help do it for free and put the list in 2600, TAP, or Phrack
Classic (no association with Cherry Phrack, Diet Phrack, Phrack Lite
or Phrack Inc.)

BTW: Craig Niedorf has nothing to do with Phrack Classic. In fact he
was thinking that Phrack #31 was going to be the last issue. (long
before the SS gave him a visit).  PC is edited by a critter called
Crimson Death.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #519
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11012;
          5 Jul 91 22:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11536;
          5 Jul 91 20:38 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac27071;
          5 Jul 91 19:28 CDT
Date:     Fri, 5 Jul 91 19:11:36 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #520
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 5 Jul 91 19:11:21 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 520

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Alcor Email (ECPA) Case Settled [Keith Henson]
    Telesat's Anik E-2 Satellite Salvaged [Nigel Allen]
    ISDN BRI to RS232, RS422, Ethernet Connectivity Options [Casey Leedom]
    Modem Line Problems [Eric Dittman]
    The Future of the UK Phone System [Scott McIntyre]
    Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266 [Jim Smithson]
    Re: MCI Operator Assisted Rates [Andy Sherman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Alcor Email (ECPA) Case Settled
Date: Fri,  5 Jul 91 00:10:45 PDT


The long running Alcor/email case against the County and City of
Riverside, CA was settled out of court in April of this year.  The
announcement was delayed until all parties had signed off, and the
check (for $30k) had cleared the bank :-).

The Alcor Life Extension Foundation (a non-profit cryonics organization
 -- [e-mail]) ran a BBS for members and prospective
members from early 1987 through January 12, 1988.  On that day, the
BBS computer was removed under a warrant to take the computer (but no
mention of any contained email) in connection with the investigation
into the death of 83-year-old Dora Kent.  (Mrs. Kent was placed into
cryonic suspension by Alcor in December of 1987.  During and following
the investigation, Alcor staff members were publicly accused by county
officials of murder, theft, and building code violations.  No charges
were ever filed and the investigation was officially closed three
years later.)

In December, 1988 Keith Henson filed a civil suit to force an
investigation of the apparent violations of the Electronic
Communication Privacy Act by the FBI, but the case was dismissed by
the now convicted Judge Aguilar.

In early 1990, just before the statute of limitations ran out, Henson
and 14 others (of the roughly 50 people who had email on the system)
filed a civil action against a number of officials and the County and
City of Riverside, CA under Section 2707 of the Electronic Communication
Privacy Act.

Some time after the case was filed, the Electronic Frontier Foundation
came into existence in response to law enforcement abuses involving a
wide spectrum of the online community.  EFF considered this case an
important one, and helped the plaintiffs in the case by locating pro
bono legal help.  While the case was being transferred, the County and
City offered a settlement which was close to the maximum damages which
could have been obtained at trial.  Although no precedent was set
because the case did not go to trial, considerable legal research has
been done, and one judgment issued in response to the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.  The legal filings and the responses they generated
from the law firm representing the County/City and officials are
available by email from [e-mail] or (with delay) from
[e-mail].  (They are also posted on Portal.)

The Plaintiffs were represented by Christopher Ashworth of Garfield,
Tepper, Ashworth and Epstein in Los Angeles (408-277-1981).  A summary
of the settlement agreement is attached.


SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

    This agreement is made and entered into in Riverside, California,
this _____ day of ______ by and between [long list of defendants and
plaintiffs]

I.

FACTUAL RECITALS

    1.  This Agreement is executed with reference to the following facts
for purpose of this Agreement only.

    2.  On January 12, 1998, some of the Defendants, pursuant to a search
warrant, entered into the premises of Alcor Life Extension Foundation in
Riverside, California.

    3.  Upon entry into the property, some of the Defendants seized various
items, including electronic media containing E-mail owned by the
plaintiffs.

    4.  On or about January 11, 1990, plaintiffs commenced civil action No.
SAC 90-021js in the United States District Court, Santa Ana ("the Action"),
against the defendants for injuries and damages allegedly suffered as a
result of the defendants' seizure of plaintiff's E-mail.

    5   It is now the desire and intention of plaintiffs, on the one part,
and defendants on the other part, to settle, compromise, and resolve all
the differences, disagreements, and disputes, which exist and may exist,
including those which are the subject matter of, referred to, related to,
or mentioned in the Action.  Pursuant to this desire, and in consideration
of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows.

II  CONSIDERATION

    6.  Upon the execution of this Agreement, defendants County of
Riverside shall pay to plaintiffs, by check, the total sum of Thirty
Thousand Dollars ($30,000), inclusive of attorney fees and cost.

    7.  [The rest of this is boilerplate, except that they wanted
confidentiality of the agreement, to which we would not agree.]

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

Date: Thu, 04 Jul 91 09:36:30 PDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telesat's Anik E-2 Satellite Salvaged


Telesat Canada has unstuck the antenna on its Anik E-2 satellite. The
satellite would have been useless if the antenna couldn't be deployed.

Here is a July 4 story from the Canadian Press news agency:

Sky-high rescue: $300-million satellite spins to life

OTTAWA (CP) -- The Anik E-2 satellite isn't space junk after all.

Telesat Canada technicians were jubilant yesterday after they finally
succeeded in a three-month effort to dislodge a stuck antenna on the
$300-million satellite.

"There are champagne corks popping all over the place," said company
spokesman Gilles Le Breton.

Anik E-2, Canada's 10th satellite -- the biggest and most expensive to
date -- is designed to carry most TV signals across Canada.

The technicians gave the three-ton satellite a fast spin to shake
free the antenna, which had been stuck.

They hadn't dared to spin it fast before for fear of damaging the
hi-tech hardware.

But gentler maneuvres had failed, and insurance underwriters approved
the risky salvage effort.

Although the technicians still aren't sure, they think the arm was
snagged on a protective foil known as a thermal blanket.

Le Breton said five to seven weeks of further manoeuvres and tests
will be needed before Anik E-2 goes to work, delivering TV programs to
millions of Canadian homes.

Most Canadian TV networks now rely on an older satelite, Anik D-1,
which will run out of power by the end of the year.

Telesat, which is owned by Canada's federal government and the
country's major telecommunications carriers, would have lost $60
million if the satellite had failed to work. Insurers would have had
to pay $240 million.

Losing the Anik E-2 would also have been a blow to the prestige of
Telesat, which put the world's first commercial communications
satellite into orbit 20 years ago.

The E-2 was blasted into orbit on April 4 from Kouru, French Guiana,
aboard a European-built Ariane rocket. The satellite is capable of
carrying 56 television channels and has an expected service life of 14
years.


 Origin: Echo Beach, Toronto (1:250/438)
 Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
 INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: Casey Leedom <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN BRI to RS232, RS422, Ethernet Connectivity Options
Date: 5 Jul 91 20:34:31 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory


  Two problems regarding using an ISDN (Integrated Services Digital
network) BRI (Basic Rate Interface) for data transport:

1. Allowing widely used serial devices cheap access to the ISDN BRI.
This would allow, say, Macintoshes, PCs, terminals, workstations, etc.
to use RS232, RS422, etc. to use an ISDN line for ``dial up''
applications.

A device that implemented this functionality would function in much
the same way as current analog line modems.  In fact, I wouldn't be
the least bit surprised if such a device offered an ``AT'' command
set.  Obvious features would be ISDN synchronous ``B'' channel to
standard RS232/RS422/etc. asynchronous bridging with buffering and
flow control, V.42 and V.42bis for error control and compression, etc.

2. Allowing ``direct connect'' between ISDN and Ethernet via something
like a terminal server with various network transport protocols like
TCP/IP, DECNET, etc. to allow connection to network hosts and
facilities.

Our laboratory is currently getting ready to investigate a product
from Gandalf that does this.  My only experience with their products
was nearly ten years ago, so I'm interested in all opinions about
their product line today.

Note that I am *NOT* interested in special hardware that plugs into
Macintoshes, PCs, workstations, etc. to allow them direct access to
the ISDN BRI.  These devices are just too expensive right now and
aren't available for enough hardware to make it interesting.  I'm
looking for something cheap like an ISDN ``modem'' that can be taken
home and allow people to ``dial in'' and then something on the other
end that can allow people to access the network via standard protocols
(although in our my case I'm only interested in TCP/IP there are
others who need DECNET/LAT and even AppleTalk.)

Please send all responses directly to me.  I will summarize all
responses back to these groups in a couple of weeks.

Also, ***PLEASE*** INDICATE ANY INFORMATION THAT SHOULD ***NOT*** BE
INCLUDED IN SUCH A SUMMARY.  I accidentally included information on a
non-announced product in one summary because the respondent didn't
tell me not to include that information even after I'd asked to be
told what shouldn't be included.  I guess it was in too small a type.

And, just to make sure that doesn't scare you off from sending such
information to me, I'll note that the laboratory has some 12,000
employees, has its own ISDN phone system and is actively looking for
ways to provide ISDN connectivity to its employees in their homes
throughout the Bay Area.  I.e. we're a ***BIG*** potential market.  If
you wish, we will sign non-disclosure agreements, but remember, we're
looking for cheap ways of providing connectivity because we're talking
about so many installations.  I.e. forget about sending me information
on absurdly expensive ISDN ``modems.'' Sorry to be such a hard-***
about this, but I want everyone to know the ground rules right from
the start.

Thanks for your attention and thanks in advance for your input!!!


Casey

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

From: Eric Dittman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modem Line Problems
Date: 5 Jul 91 17:41:05 CDT
Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility


Last night I was downloading some files.  About 5.5 hours into the
download (big files at 2400 bps) carrier was lost.  I tried to call
back but got a NO CARRIER message.  This puzzled me, so I connected
my phone from the other line to my modem line.  There was no dial-
tone.  I moved the phone back, and it worked.  I then moved the phone
back to the modem line and started listening as I plugged and unplugged
the phone, pressed keys, etc (as this was 3:00 AM and I was sleepy, I
never thought of calling the modem line from the voice line!) and I
could hear a slight change in the "silence".

I called the 24-hour repair line and reported the problem.  At 7:30 AM
I got a call on the modem line (I had left a phone connected there)
asking if I was still having problems.  I took the number of the
repair person and was able to call them back.  They said they had no
idea what the problem was, but I know the problem didn't fix itself,
since I tried at 4:00 and 5:00 and still had no dialtone.

I had earlier checked and both lines are on the same switch (a 1AESS).
The local company is SWB.  Has anyone else seen this happen?  I'm
assuming that the switch dropped the line since the call was too long,
but if this is the case, this is a new modification as I've had eight and
ten hour calls before.


Eric Dittman Texas Instruments - Component
Test Facility [e-mail]

Disclaimer:  I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test
             Facility.  I don't even speak for myself.

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

From: Scott McIntyre <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Future of the UK Phone System
Date: 5 Jul 91 09:22:20 GMT
Organization: ?uestion Consulting


After having talked with a Mercury bloke for a few hours last week I
find myself wondering about the future of the UK phone system, or if
there is one.

He says that most of the lines are ISDN-able, and that they have lots
of digital exchanges in London.  Here in Exeter they are still using
what seems like manual operators (joke).  No doutbt they are using
physical switches.

What I would like to know is if anyone out there knows anything about
the UK phone system, I've written to BT asking but only got a nice
little prospectus about how wonderful they are and what the are doing
in very broad language.

In case you didn't already know, phone prices here are ASTRONOMICAL
compared to anywhere in the the States or Canada. There is no such
thing as a free local call; all calls are timed, and the rates change
three times a day.

Thanks,


[e-mail]        Scott A. McIntyre
[e-mail]        Cornwall House
[e-mail]        St. Germans Road
[e-mail]            Exeter, Devon, UK

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

From: Jim Smithson <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 15:22:49 MET DST
Subject: Re: Similarities Between East German Phones and S.266


In an article in comp.dcom.telecom I posted a followup to:

Mr. Gilmore:

> The FBI *wants* phone system designers to start thinking about
> interception -- in particular, they want interception to be easier.
> Just like the East German secret police.

Then I replied:

> You are way out of line drawing any comparisons between the STASI and
> the FBI!  I'm as much a civil libertarian as anyone, but I want the
> cops to catch the crooks anyway they can.

Some gentlepersons were quick to point out my errant use of the word
"anyway".  It's good to see we have people on the net who are always
vigilant against tyrants.

Of course I in no way condone violations of privacy by the police.  I
was just trying to be brief in my statement. (I should've know better)
By "anyway" I of course meant any moral, constitutional and legal way.

I think that once a wire tap order is LAWFULLY obtained, then the law
enforcement agency and tax payers(I still pay some taxes in the USA)
have a right to expect that it can be efficiently implemented.  Of
course surveillence should not be a major design criteria for the
network, but it should be a consideration.

As for comparisons between the FBI and STASI(or any East Block
agency), I still contend that few comparisons can be drawn.  The worst
victims of the of the FBI often live to tell the tale loudly and
publicly. Those in the East Block don't live or have their minds
chemically altered.

My wife defected from Romania in 1981 because she couldn't put up with
the harrasment by the Securitate who wanted to make sure that she as a
teacher was teaching her students the "correct" things. I haven't
heard complaints like that too often about American cops.

Followups to misc.legal please, but I really have no more time for this.


James Smithson,    Bern, Switzerland
I am not a lawyer. My employer doesn't even know I have opinions.

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

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Operator Assisted Rates
Date: 5 Jul 91 19:59:01 GMT
Reply-To: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Sean Williams) writes:

> Why wouldn't 10222+0+10D [ka-bong] accept your MCI Card?  Because it
> isn't programmed to.  Using this method accesses a shared telco
> database which contains card numbers issued by Bell Operating
> Companies and other independent telcos.  It doesn't contain
> information about your MCI Card, and therefore won't accept it.

It should be noted that 10288 supports both LEC card numbers in the
shared database and AT&T's own card numbers.  Class tells.


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!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #520
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02982;
          6 Jul 91 8:27 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22187; 6 Jul 91 7:24 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24078;
          6 Jul 91 1:51 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24175;
          6 Jul 91 0:40 CDT
Date:     Fri, 5 Jul 91 23:48:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #521
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 5 Jul 91 23:48:28 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 521

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Harold Warp's Pioneer Village [TELECOM Moderator]
    LATA and Leesburg [Greg Monti, NPR via John R. Covert]
    Phrack Magazine [Craig Neidorf]
    How do we Find Out About ISDN For Our Philadelphia Office? [Graham Toal]
    Caller ID Tech Details in Radio Electronics [Andrew Payne]
    Communicating Between the Internet and Other Networks [Dave Marthouse]
    Re: Do You Know of any Programs That Can Call a Beeper [Joe Stong]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 22:49:01 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Harold Warp's Pioneer Village


I received a letter and photo a few weeks ago from Ronald Bean, a
TELECOM Digest reader in Madison, Wisconsin. <[e-mail]>. He
enclosed a photo of an old piece of telecom gear on display in a
little museum called "Harold Warp's Pioneer Village", which is located
12 miles south of I-80 in Minden, Nebraska.

Harold Warp was a Chicago plastics tycoon (originally from Minden)
who, in the late 1940's or early 1950's started collecting various
bits orf technology that 'normal' people were throwing away, to quote
from Ron's letter to me.

This exhibit is a lot like the Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. The
collection includes horsedrawn wagons, stage coaches, about 350 cars,
quite a few antique tractors and other farm equipment, and all kinds
of household appliances and commercial equipment from the first half
of this century, or before.

The collection includes a large glass case of telecom equipment,
including lots of old telephones, several early lineman's handsets,
and a piece of step-by-step switching apparatus. Ron noted in his
letter to me that a nearby sign identified the step-by-step switches
as a portable demonstrator. It seems a Mr. Fred Delabarre of Boston
carried this around to local telcos throughout the country from 1895
to 1901, to demonstrate the then-new technology. It is a wooden box
about four feet square and eight to ten inches thick, with a glass
front and a dozen steppers inside, in two rows of six.  When Warp
aquired it in the middle 1950's, it had been carefully wrapped in
newspapers from the early 1900's.  Ron thinks this is probably one of
the oldest pieces of of automatic switching equipment in existance.

The picture he sent me of this gear has other things in the background
including what appears to be an operator's PABX console from about
1950, (or some sort of intercom/signalling system console), an antique
phone hanging on the wall, and an outdoor sign which frquently was
seen on the front of a store or restaurant with the large blue bell,
the words 'public station' above the bell, and the words 'local and
long distance telephone' inscribed on the bell itself.  That sign must
itself date from about 1900 or earlier, since 'newer' versions of the
same sign I have seen elsewhere include the phrase "American Telephone
and Telegraph Company and Associated Companies" in smaller print also
on the bell logo.

Ron Bean concluded his letter to me by mentioning the Motel-6 in
Coralville, Iowa -- a litle town near Iowa City -- which has a genuine
Western Electric pay telephone booth, with a wooden door, and a modern
US West payphone inside. The booth is inside the motel.

For those too young to remember, or who have never seen one, payphone
booths being extremely rare these days, a payphone booth was about two
or three feet wide, and the same distance deep. They were about 6.5
feet high.  They were made of wood, with a hinged wooden door on the
front and glass panels to see inside the booth (is it occupied?) or
out. Some older styles had doors on the front without windows, but a
person going inside could latch the door and this caused a little sign
on the door knob to change from 'vacant' to 'occupied', much like a
door on a bathroom stall ... but payphone booths were not that large.
All the 'newer' (i.e. from about 1920 onward?) had doors that folded
open like an accordion.

Inside the booth, a small seat made it possible to sit while using the
phone. An incadescent overheadc light bulb came on when the door was
closed, as did a small overhead fan. A sign mounted on the wall gave
instructions for using the phone. Outside the booth. usually mounted
on one of the side walls was a stand, complete with small reading lamp
and a supply of telephone directories.  And of course, the metal sign
which said it was an American Telephone and Telegraph Company Public
Pay Station ... One in the Walgreen's Drug Store had been there a long
time. How long? Soooo long, the phone inside the booth identified it
as a product of the "Gray Paystation Company".  It had a separate
piece which you held up to your ear to listen while you leaned forward
and spoke into a mouthpiece built into the main unit.

Payphone booths began appearing without seats or fans in them about
1960 or so; then the wooden booths were discontinued and booths made
from all glass started showing up. By around 1970 those were
discontinued and the little 'privacy panels' (sometimes with the logo
'Hear Here' on them) were mounted on the wall with the phone inside
them.  Within a few years, we just had phones hanging on the wall,
period.  My assumption is the booth in the Motel-6 in Coralville must
be at leawt 40 years old, and probably older.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bean, for your nice letter and the photo. If
any of our readers pass through Minden, Nebraska or Coralville, Iowa
they will no doubt stop to see these old artifacts from the olden and
golden days of telephony.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 18:40:36 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  05-Jul-1991 2142" <[e-mail]>
Subject: LATA and Leesburg


[Moderator's Note: This was forwarded by John Covert to the Digest. PAT]

 From:  Greg Monti, National Public Radio, Washington, DC, 202 822-2633
 Date:  5 July 1991
 Re:  Intersate/Intrastate, InterLATA/IntraLATA

Changes made to the Modified Final Judgment made since divestiture in
1984 have resulted in some ambiguities in how calls are handled.  Some
can now be handled by both LECs and by competitive LD carriers at
varying rates!

Example: the LATA boundary that divides New York City from northern
New Jersey.  In some cases, like the NY/NJ one, a special exception to
the LATA boundary, called a "special privilege corridor service
exception (or something similar)" was allowed.  The "corridor" only
works when calling between New York City and six specific New Jersey
counties.  This allowed the local phone companies at both ends to
handle interstate toll calls across the LATA boundary.

Local or in-LATA calls are routed to the LEC as a default.  I believe
that, at least now, however, ANY call which crosses a state line can
be dialed (unless blocked by a sleazy COCOT) through one or more
competitive long distance carriers.  Yes, even local calls.  Yes, even
intra-LATA calls.  This is why Washingtonians could make local,
intersate calls during the Bell Atlantic outage by prefixing them with
10222 or other LD company codes.  They could not make local calls
within their own state by this method because, by and large, state
regulators don't allow competitive LD companies to handle in-state
local or toll calls which they feel are the protected market of the
LECs they regulate.

Local, in-state calls which cross a LATA boundary also default to the
LEC.  I've discovered, however, that these can also be dialed around
by using 10XXX.

Leesburg, Virginia, is a town of maybe 20,000 located 40 miles west of
Washington.  It's in the Culpeper LATA, not the Washington LATA, so
toll calls to and from it from the Washington area were carried on
competitive LD companies.  Since divestiture, and probably before,
Leesburg has been a local call from some rate areas in the extreme
west edge of the Washington LATA (places like Dulles Airport, Herndon,
Reston, Sterling Park, Chantilly and Arcola).

As the Washington area has boomed, Leesburg is starting to be
considered a suburb.  In other words, the Washington "community of
interest" is getting larger. Should the Washington LATA grow with it?
It might seem logical to make Leesburg a local or message unit call
from some or all of the northern Virginia suburbs.

Rather than moving the LATA boundary to accomplish this, Leesburg was
simply made an extended-area (message unit) call from northern
Virginia.  The change occurred on 29 June 1991.  Since it's still in a
different LATA, it can still be legally dialed on a competitive LD
carrier.  The LEC, however, is the new (and cheaper) default.

Leesburg numbers are 703-729, 771 and 777.  From a genuine C&P pay
phone in the northern Virginia Metro area, dialing ...

771-XXXX gets you C&P's "this call requires a 25-cent deposit before
dialing" intercept recording, indicating that it's now a local call
(message units from home or business, an untimed 25 cents from pay
phones).

703-771-XXXX gets exactly the same C&P recording.

1-703-771-XXXX gets exactly the same C&P recording.

10288-771-XXXX gets you an AT&T coin recording, stating, "two dollars
and twenty cents for the first minute."

10288-703-771-XXXX  gets you the same AT&T recording.

10288-1-703-771-XXXX  gets you the same AT&T recording.

(There is no 1 + 7 digit dialing in 703, so I couldn't try that.)

I'm sure other 10XXX's would work from home or business phones or with
0+.  The only 1+ carrier available from pay phones other than C&P is
AT&T.  I'm sure this meets with the approval of the 'canonical
dialing' crowd.  Not only can you use more than one company, you can
dial it three different ways per company!  While C&P was at it, they
allowed 10 digit dialing for extended area calls to Prince William
County. Previously only 7 digits or 1+10 digits were allowed.

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

Date: Fri, 05 Jul 91 21:58:31 CDT
From: Craig Neidorf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phrack Magazine


I have very little to do with Phrack at the current time and the
foreseeable future.  The last issue of Phrack that I produced was
issue 30 in late December of 1989.  Since that time, there has been a
Phrack 31 released in the Summer of 1990 and what is known as Phrack
Classic 32 released in November 1990.  Both of these releases were
performed by third parties.

I have been told that an issue 33 is to be expected very shortly, but
I have not seen it.  I believe that back issues of Phrack are
available through most of the CuD archives and hardcopies are
available (for a price) from a company called The Onion Press (6818 W.
State Street, Suite 116, Milwaukee, WI 53213).  I receive absolutely
no compensation or royalties from OP's business ventures (in case you
were wondering).

Any questions?


Craig Neidorf (C483307 @ UMCVMB.MISSOURI.EDU)

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

Date: Fri Jul 5 20:05:35 GMT 1991
From: [e-mail]
Subject: How do we Find Out About ISDN For Our Philadelphia Office?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Graham Toal)
Organization: 'UNIX Anarchy, Edinburgh University'


Hello folks; we are a small publishing house based in London with an
office in Philadelphia.  We've decided to go to ISDN instead of 9600bd
modem to ship many of our typesetting files each day.

Finding out about ISDN and suitable equipment in Britain for our end
was difficult but not impossible.

However our Philidelphia office is having *real* problems finding out
how to get an ISDN line in.  Most of the folks they've managed to talk
to so far don't really understand the questions, and refer them to PSS
services etc.

Does anyone reading this in Philadelphia *already* have an ISDN line?
We'd love to hear how you did it.

Also, recommendations for hardware/software would be welcome too: we
both run Novell networks on Ethernet (brain-dead packet style, but
hoping to upgrade).  We have oodles of PC's which can be used as
bridges etc.  Our main requirement is simple file-transfer, but a
network bridge would be kinda nice too, especially if it were one of
those smart systems which only dialled the other site when there are
packets to send.

This is a pretty wide request.  Just about *any* info on ISDN/
networking/PCs/ftp/internet connection/etc would be welcome.  Our
options are still wide open.  We haven't bought any kit yet!

(We're looking at UK's forthcoming Internet connection too.
Information on how to connect to the Internet from Philadelphia might
be useful.)

Many thanks to anyone who can spare time to answer.  Much appreciated.
(Replies by mail if you could, please.  Our news service is flakey.)


Graham Toal <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Payne)
Subject: Caller ID Tech Details in Radio Electronics
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1991 23:50:50 GMT


    Next time you are in the supermarket, grab this month's
(August, 1991) {Radio Electronics}.  It has got a couple pages in the
"Hardware Hacker" column on how the Caller ID information is delivered
to your house.  The information includes telco references and where to
get them, format of the caller ID data frames, and some details on a
Caller ID chip: SC11211N.

    If you are interested in Caller ID, this information alone is
worth the issue price.


Andrew C. Payne, N8KEI        UUCP:  ...!cornell!batcomputer!payne
                          INTERNET:  [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Marthouse <overlf![e-mail]>
Subject: Communicating Between the Internet and Other Networks
Date: 6 Jul 91 00:38:03 GMT
Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc.  Fords, NJ


I would like to know how one can send messages from the internet to
other networks; ie, Compuserve, MCI Mail, fFdonet, and others. I would
in addition like to know how users on the other networks can send mail
to users on the internet.

Any other information would be appreciated.


Dave Marthouse     Internet: [e-mail]
[e-mail]  Fidonet: dave marthouse 1:107/323
Amateur Packet Radio ax25: n2aam @ w2emu-4.#cnj.nj.usa.na


[Moderator's Note: Several months ago we printed an article which
discussed this in great deal. Perhaps it is time to run it again if
someone wants to review it, update it and send it in.  In the examples
you give, the solutions are easy: [e-mail];
mailbox [e-mail] (eg. [e-mail]); and
[e-mail]. For Fido, we say [e-mail]'.
Getting back is a little more difficult. We will save that for the
article which I'm sure someone will send in.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 18:54:49 -0800
From: Joe Stong <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Do You Know of any Programs That Can Call a Beeper?


Simple "call a pager, present number" script.

Put a hayes compatible modem with command mode enabled on a serial
port on your machine.  Change the permissions appropriately so you can
get to it, read/write.  Make sure the port is NOT enabled for login.
Any hayes compatible modem, 300 baud or better should work, as long as
it honors the ';' command in the dial string.  (I've seen some that
don't).

Acquire the port's filename, like /dev/tty99.  Replace /dev/tty99 below
with the real filename.

Bourne Shell script, for a BSD (presumably SUNOS) system.  Pretty
dumb, doesn't look for modem responses.  If "echo -n" doesn't work at
a bourne shell prompt to present a message without a trailing newline,
then try removing the ' -n' and putting a \c inside the quotes.

Note that the ^M's should be replaced with a literal carriage return
char.  Control-V carriage return, in vi.

Note also the semicolon at the end of the number, prevents the modem
from attempting a connection, but leaves the line off hook.

           -----cut here------------------------------------
 :
 # page pager_phone_number callback_number
 PAGER=$1; export PAGER
 CALLBACK=$2; export CALLBACK
 (
 stty 300 raw -echo
 echo -n 'AT^M'            # get the modem in sync
 echo -n "ATDT$PAGER;^M"        # dial the pager number
 sleep 7  # choose a reasonable interval for the pager company to always answer
 echo -n "ATD$CALLBACK;^M"  # the pager company may want a trailing #
    on the no.
 sleep 5    # wait long enough for it to believe that you want it done.
 echo -n 'ATH^M'            # hang up YOUR phone line.
 ) </dev/tty99 >&0
   --------cut here------------------------------------

Not tested, no guarantees, but, it's cheap.  I've done other things
like this before that work fine.  I think I'm glad I don't own a
pager. :-)


Joe Stong   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #521
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04088;
          7 Jul 91 5:56 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11036;
          6 Jul 91 23:01 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03235;
          6 Jul 91 21:53 CDT
Date:     Sat, 6 Jul 91 21:21:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #522
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 6 Jul 91 21:20:54 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 522

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    DSC Identifies Problems in Software [Sean Williams]
    Telphone Outages, Rsally Out(R)ages [Dave Niebuhr]
    Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or What Were These Guys Thinking?) [R K Oberman]
    Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [Mike Riddle]
    Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [Marshall Barry]
    FidoCon '91 - International BBS Sysop's Conference [Marshall Barry]
    Re: Communicating Between the Internet and Other Networks [Jeff Wasilko]
    Thanks For Info on Answering Machines [Dave Niebuhr]
    More Use of Maryland Help Line [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 06:23 GMT
From: Sean Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: DSC Identifies Problems in Software


DALLAS (AP) -- A small telephone equipment maker said Friday that a
recent spate of phone system breakdowns around the country was caused
by glitches in its computer software.

Three telephone companies helped diagnose the problem that cut
connections to ten million customers in the past two weeks, DSC
Communications Corp. of Plano, Texas, said in a statement.  The
problem shut down phone switching systems in Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Washington and Pittsburgh. The last outage hit Pittsburgh
on Tuesday.  DSC likened the problem to a power line surge that caused
network congestion, with calls backing up until the entire system
shuts down.

The companies recreated the problem in a laboratory experiment and
designed changes for the software that controls sophisticated
telephone switching equipment. Repairs were under way, the company
said.

Technicians from DSC, Pacific Bell, Bell Atlantic and the Bellcore
research lab worked together to diagnose the problem, the company
said. DSC designed and installed switching networks for Bell Atlantic
and Pacific Bell.

Pacific Bell called the repairs a stopgap measure, and said it could
be weeks before DSC pinpoints the source of the problem. "They haven't
found the reason or the root cause of the problem," said Craig Watts,
a Pacific Bell spokesman. "What they've discovered is a way to help
the network handle the problem until they've found the cause."

Ed Stanley, a spokesman for the Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. in
Washington, said the company was satisfied with DSC's efforts.  "We
are very encouraged by the interim software solution by DSC," said
John Seazholtz, a Bell Atlantic vice president in Arlington, Va.  "We
recognize, however, that there is still a lot of work ahead to identify
and cure the root cause or causes of these service disruptions,"
Seazholtz said in a statement.

A software change was being installed in the Bell Atlantic and Pacific
Bell systems to eliminate the problem, according to the statement.
"This provides protection much like a fuse on a power line," the
company said.  A company spokesman could not immediately be reached
for further comment.  DSC's headquarters was closed for the holiday
Friday.

The company released its statement about the change after the stock
market closed Friday. The company's stock closed unchanged at $6.25 in
over-the-counter trading, but well off its 52-week high of $13.75.

Some experts who follow the company had speculated the problems with
DSC's equipment resulted from rushing it to market without adequate
testing.  The DSC product, called a signal transfer point, is at the
heart of a phone company's ability to route calls and monitor the
quality and conditions of its network.

DSC started as a six-person company in 1981. It now employs about
4,000 people, including 3,000 in the Dallas area. The company earned
$20.1 million on revenue of $519.3 million last year.


Sean E. Williams               |  [e-mail]
Spectrum Telecommunications    |  Have a good day!
PO Box 227                     |  <<no disclaimer needed>>
Duncanon, PA 17020-0227        |  voicemail [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1991 14:23:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telphone Outages, Really Out(R)ages


There have been at least 17 messages recently devoted to telephone
outages in various places, mostly on the east coast.  Why not really
call them what they are for the multitude of businesses and
individuals: OutRages.

Based on the limited information concerning the cause of the failures
that I have, it seems that equipment supplied by DSC of Plano, Texas
was involved in most, if not all, of them and the equipment is used (I
think) in CLASS service.

I'm not a businessman, but if I put myself in their shoes and depended
on telecommunications for a major portion of my business, I'd be
outraged at what happened.


Dave Niebuhr   Brookhaven National Laboratory   Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: C&P Telephone Outage (or: What Were *These* Guys Thinking?)
Date: 6 Jul 91 19:55:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, umbc3!umbc3.umbc.edu!brian@
uunet.uu.net (Brian Cuthie) writes:

> This is just plain *not true*.  There are many papers that rigorously
> analyze the various routing pardigms.  In fact, link state is one of
> the first routing algorithms that *does* have significant theoretical
> study behind it.

There is a wide gap between "significant theoretical study" and "well
understood". Sit in for a discussion between those favoring IS-IS,
OSPF, and IGRP, and you will hear lots of disputes over how "real"
networks will respond to various types of failures, how reliably and
quickly they will converge, and whether a given technique is truly
free from pathological conditions. And I am not talking about little
"water cooler" meetings, but IETF and other meetings with actual
protocol designers and implementors who wrote those papers.

I will agree that, over all, the Internet is very robust. There have
been very few major failures. And, in general, high degrees of
interconnectivity can help. But for a case study of when it did not
help (and often made things far worse), check out the effects on
several networks, especially SPAN and HEPnet, of the big telephone
fire of a couple of years ago near Chicago.


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: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions
Organization: Nebraska Inns of Court
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1991 12:16:31 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew
Payne) writes:

> I think the issue boils down to this: what makes one immume to
> liability for messages carried on one's telephone/e-mail/message
> system?  AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc clearly seem to be immume (or else the
> phone company would get sued everytime there was a robbery plotted
> over the phone).  BBS operators seem to be liable: several recent
> cases demonstrate this.  What about the middle ground: MCI Mai and
> CompuServe?  What's their status?  Does it have something to do with
> the fact that the phone companies operate under tariff?

I think it's still unclear about BBSes.  Most of the recent cases
never got to court.  They were settled or charges were dropped.
Perhaps as a result of the Steve Jackson Games civil action we may get
a ruling on some of this, but even there the issue is a little
different.

The traditional telephone and telegraph companies are regulated common
carriers, with filed tariffs, and have an obligation generally to
accept and transport anything submitted that complies with the
tariffs.  They also generally have an associated immunity.

As you note, ham radio involves a slew of restrictions (some of them
antediluviation and probably inappropriate today as well) that makes
ham a poor comparison.

The middle ground, which would seem to include BBSes, Compuserve, MCI
Mail, etc., are "enhanced service providers," which are essentially
unregulated.  This is a murky area of the law with no real precedents.
Rather than go astray from the telecom topic, I suggest you subscribe
to alt.society.cu-digest or send email to [e-mail].  The
Computer Underground Digest was spawned off of TELECOM Digest to
handle this type of discussion, and in fact has had some interesting
articles in the last few months.

            <<<< 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

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

From: Marshall Barry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions
Reply-To: Marshall Barry <isis![e-mail]>
Organization: Supplied on a "Need to Know" Basis
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 19:08:59 GMT


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

> I can't speak for the FidoNet sysop (and he wouldn't have to be a
> Fidonet sysop to have this on his mind) but I am reminded of Tom
> Tcimpidis' trouble with the telco that served his community in Florida
> (Southern Bell?).  His BBS had a fraudulently-obtained credit card
> number left in a message.  The message and card number expired, and
> then he was held liable for having the card number (at one time) on
> his machine.  Seized hardware, possible illegal entry by telco
> officials, but no charges.  He sued his phone company, won in court,
> and got his equipment back in bad shape.

    First, Being a friend of Tom's I feel I should make a couple
of corrections.  Tom lived (and continues to do so) in Los Angeles,
CA.  I was moderately involved in the case, and the details are a bit
more complex than Bob has implied.

    However, one of the more interesting aspects of the case was
that the NAME of his BBS (MOG-URs) was used as a "reason" for picking
on him.  Since the Mog-Ur is a mythical "underground" beastie,
OBVIOUSLY, Tom's system had to be a phreaker haven ... right?  Well,
not quite.

    Also, the Calling Card number which was found on Tom's system
was also available on any number of other systems in the LA area --
including the UCLA public access system.  Of this, PA Bell (as opposed
to MA Bell) was quite aware.

    Tom became a cause -- and, in the long run, the case was
dropped -- with prejudice (i.e. it could not be refiled) -- but, this
was NOT a win for him, or for anyone else!

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

From: Marshall Barry <[e-mail]>
Subject: FidoCon '91 - International BBS Sysop's Conference
Reply-To: Marshall Barry <isis![e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 19:08:59 GMT


                The 1991 International BBSing and
              Electronic Communications Conference
                          (FidoCon '91)

       Don't miss the biggest SYSOP gathering in history!

At this historic gathering (August 16-18, 1991) you will hear:

 - Fred Clark and David Terry describe the future of PCBoard!
 - Andrew Milner describe the future of Remote Access!
 - Jim Harrer and Rick Hemming describe Wildcat! Release 3.0!
 - Phil Becker demonstrate TBBS Release 2.2!
 - Tom Jennings tell how he started the largest BBS net in the
   world!
 - Adam Hudson tell why he wrote QuickBBS!
 - Bob Hartman and Vince Perriello explain why you can't buy
   BinkleyTerm!
 - Tim Pozar tell you how to link your BBS to Internet!

If listening to the author of your favorite BBS software isn't enough,
you can also hear:

 - Mitch Kapor (founder of Lotus Development) and John Perry
   Barlow explain why they founded the Electronic Frontier
   Foundation.
 - Steve Jackson (of Steve Jackson Games) tell you why he is glad
   they did!
 - Helen and Mort Sternheim define K12NET and its benefits to
   education.
 - Dave Hughes - presents NAPLPS and NREN
 - Jack Rickard and Phil Becker tell you how to make your BBS pay
   for itself!
 - John McAffe explain how to detect and cure computer viruses.
 - Sysops of the largest commercial BBS systems in the world
   explain how they made it happen and keep it working!

This is only a portion of what will happen at FidoCon '91 -- a three
day blowout in Colorado -- with more BBS SysOps of more types of BBS
software all gathered in one place than ever before.

The key people in every aspect of BBS development, application, and
legal implications will be there to share their knowledge with you!
Plus SysOps and Users like you gathered to celebrate their sport!

Call [Voice] [phone] 9AM to 9PM MDT or [Data] [phone]
24Hrs, 3/12/2400 baud for information or to register to attend.

        Participating Vendors (as of 6/25/91)

        Boardwatch Magazine
        XRS {Offline reader}
        Clarke Development Company, Inc. {PC Board}
        CDB Systems {Hardware}
        Mustang Software {Wildcat! BBS}
        Exactus Corporation {TDBS programs}
        Online Communications {FrontDoor}
        U.S. Robotics
        The Forbin Project {QModem}
        Searchlight Software {Searchlight BBS}
        CompuCom Modems
        Galacticomm {The Major BBS}


        Hospitality Suites

        FidoCon '91 Convention Hospitality Suite (23.5 hrs a day)
        eSoft Hospitality Suite
        Bit Bucket Software

        Notables

        The list is growing so fast we cannot keep up with it...
        PLEASE Call for Current Information.


 <[e-mail]> is also <[e-mail]>
   "If you're going to (mis)quote me, at least SPELL my NAME correctly!"
           Data: [phone] +&+ [phone] 3/12/2400 baud
            Snail Mail: P.O. Box 486, Louisville, CO  80027-0486

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

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Communicating Between the Internet and Other Networks
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 11:38:42 EDT


Dave Marthouse asked:

> I would like to know how one can send messages from the internet to
> other networks; ie, Compuserve, MCI Mail, fFdonet, and others. I would
> in addition like to know how users on the other networks can send mail
> to users on the internet.

The authoritative answer can be found in the Usenet newsgroup
news.newusers.questions and also in comp.mail.misc. It lists To/From
directions for nearly every system. Look for an article with the
Subject Inter-Network Mail Guide.

For more info, you could contact [e-mail] (John Chew).


Jeff

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1991 11:27:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Thanks for Info on Answering Machines


Thanks to all who responded to my request for information concerning a
combination telephone/answering machine the placed the date/day/time
on incoming messages.

There were many makes and models mentioned, both with pros and cons.
Now, I have to make the decision as to which one I'll buy keeping in
mind the excellent presentations.

Thanks again;


Dave Niebuhr    Brookhaven National Laboratory   Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You are welcome. Never underestimate the
willingness of Usenetters to share their knowledge and ideas with
others. This is a very powerful network.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 12:02:47 EDT
From: Carl Moore <[e-mail]>
Subject: More Use of Maryland Help Line


800-477-4704, when given the prefix 817, claims it is an invalid menu
input!  Same helpline also provided these extra N0X/N1X prefixes going
into the 410 area:

404,806,813 (with 813 to have some local service into shrunken 301)

in addition to the following N0X/N1X (going into 410) found by me on a
standup poster yesterday (July 5) listing all the prefixes going into
410:    208,213,307,313,316,319,515,516,602,605,612,613,712,719,906

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #522
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04530;
          7 Jul 91 6:04 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09742;
          7 Jul 91 0:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11036;
          6 Jul 91 23:01 CDT
Date:     Sat, 6 Jul 91 22:44:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #523
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 6 Jul 91 22:43:48 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 523

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Boston DMX? PLUS: Philly Too?! [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Cellular Tracking (was New Boston/Conn. DMX) [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Emergency Calls [Sharon Crichton]
    Re: Modem Line Problems [John Higdon]
    Administrivia: A Few Days Off Line [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6-JUL-1991 06:18:53.84
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Boston DMX? PLUS: Philly Too?!


And now, Chapter II of the continuing saga of the "psuedo-DMX" to
Boston, with a twist at the end! (It's long - sorry ... I needed
SOMETHING to keep your attention! :) )

A few days ago I posted about how Metro Mobile/CT customers were able
to use call-fowarding, and have their callers get busy signals if they
are on the phone, etc., while in the Cell One Boston system. However,
if someone called me (directly, in Connecticut, NOT via the Boston
roam port), the phone would be "audited" (it would click a bit, as it
always does before it rings), but would NOT ring. The call would just
"die" in the Boston system, and my callers would hear a short ring
followed by a re-order.

Anyhow, I called Metro Mobile/CT, and spoke with Mike "The Roam
Coordinator".  Mike said that the Rhode Island system (part of Metro
Mobile's Northeast system, which is DMXed to the CT system) just got a
new switch. The new switch, unlike the old one, was passing paging and
forwarding info along to the Boston system. Boston had already been
DMXed to Rhode Island, so when the new switch came in, it acted as a
"gateway" between the CT system and the Boston system, allowing pages
and forwarding info to go back and forth.

However, although this is more or less the "framework" for a DMX,
there are no physical trunks for the voice channels between Boston and
CT. The new RI switch provided *only* a data channel for the paging
and forwarding info, but not a voice channel. So, what happens is that
if you are from CT, and roam into Boston, you get "audited" (or
queried) in Boston, Boston says "Yup, he's in our system, send up the
call", but Metro Mobile/CT CAN'T send up the call, since there are no
trunks to do this on!

Thus, the call "dies". It can't get all the way to Boston, since there
are no voice trunks, but the DMX/data channel/control system thinks
that I am in Boston, and thus does not pay attention to my "no answer
transfer" (*71) instructions since according the the data channel,
there has been no final disposition to the call while in Boston. IE, I
can either answer the call, in which case *71/no-answer-transfer is
not necessary, or if I fail to answer after "x" rings, then *71 kicks
in.

In this case, since Boston doesn't send back info as to the final
disposition of the call, Metro Mobile/CT can't know what to do next,
and thus the call just terminates in Boston. This also explains why
when I turn my phone OFF in Boston, everything else works fine. Since
the phone can't be "audited"/queried while it is off, the Boston
system says "Hmm..he's not here...", and the call is never sent up to
Boston, so it can't get stuck there. Thus, if you turn your phone off
in Boston, callers will get the standard "Mobile you have called in
unavailable" message, or your *71/no-answer-transfer will work just
fine.

In order to avoid this, use *72, ie, unconditional call forwarding.
Since call-forwarding (*71, *72, and *73, but NOT *74) works in Boston
now, when you are sure you are in the Boston system, just issue a *72
to whatever number you desire (your voicemail for example), and the
call won't even attempt to go to Boston. In my opinion this is a
pretty clumsy way to deal with the situation, but it will work.  If
you don't want to pay Metro the $2 for *72 call-forwarding, the only
other alternative is to turn off your phone while in Boston.

Metro Mobile/CT said that they realize that this is a problem, and
that they are planning a DMX to Boston. Mike stated "We just haven't
sat down and talked to them about it..." Well, it would seem that with
part of the system already in place (the data channel), and the
problems that this causes some customers (ie, ME!), they may want to
start talking pretty soon!

Note that Boston customers should have the same problems when they
roam into the Connecticut or Western Mass systems, and can use exactly
the same solutions. As I noted earlier, I'd be very interested to hear
from any Cell One/Boston people about their experiences with this.
Cell One/ Boston customers can now also get calls via the CT roam
ports while in their home (Boston) system by forwarding no-answer-
transfer to themselves.

Since Cell One / Boston also has a "free off-peak airtime" plan, Cell
One/Boston customers may even be able to forward their car calls to
some local number, and have callers in CT and Western Mass call
toll-free!  (There is a bit more to it than just that, but that will
have to wait for another post, if there is any interest. I am quite
curious as to the legalities involved here ... would this not be a
de-facto LD connection?  I don't see any legal problems, since
cross-LATA paging and call-forwarding is allowed presently, but am I
missing something? It's not MTS or anything..)

If all this sounds familiar to you, well, you are an attentive reader!
About a year ago I posted something VERY similar to this, dealing with
GTE/San Francisco and calls which seemed to "die" or terminate in a
re-order when I roamed outside of the GTE area, mainly to Sacramento.

This was in August, 1990, and the pattern was essentially the same.
If I roamed into Sacramento, callers would get a re-order, and not get
my GTE Voicemail, or get forwarded to any *71 number. If I turned my
phone off, everything would work fine. If I called my GTE/SF number, I
would see the phone dim and hear it click, indicating that a call was
about to come through, but it would never ring. Etc, etc, etc.

Well, GTE finally told me in September that what caused this was their
new "Interactive Roaming" system, which is now activated by dialing
*28.  Although the signalling system was in place, the voice channels
(ie: trunks) were not, and the call could't be passed along to the
Pac*Tel/Sac system.  I asked "Oh, so is this a DMX set-up that you are
implementing state-wide?", and GTE said "A DMX, what's that?". So I
figured it was something else, and left it at that.

Howeover, with this almost IDENTICAL experience with Metro Mobile and
Cell One/Boston, I began to wonder if in actuality the "Interactive
Roaming" system in CA is simply a DMX between all the "B" systems
there.  Applying "my" DMX test, I called my 415-710-xxxx number in San
Francisco. At the same time I called the Sacramento roam port
(916-539-7626).

While my 415-710 number was trying to locate me (during the "clicks"
-- you must do this during the clicks), I entered my 415-710 number
into the Sacramento port, wouldn't you know it, it was busy! I then
tried this with all the other CA "B" systems, same thing!  And, of
course, when I called a roam port and my 415-710 number was not "busy"
(ie, being called by me), all the other roam ports just rang and
eventually said "Your mobile is not available".

And get this: When I activated FMR (Follow Me Roaming) outside of the
CA/Nevada system, calls to the roam ports all resulted in a re-order.
Apparently, the CA roam ports will not "process" call-forwarding like
the "A" ports back East. (FMR is basically call-forwarding as far as
your home switch is concerned). Finally, the only port that did not
return a busy or re-order was the Las Vegas 702-370 port.  Although I
have never been in that system (only Reno, which "works" like the rest
of the CA ports), I hear it also works with the CA-Interactive/*28
system. Is this so? If the answer is "yes", I wonder why it responds
differently when compared to the Reno and other CA ports...?

Ok, so that's all straightened out, right? The new switch in Rhode
Island is passing "data" back and forth between Boston and CT, which
causes problems similar to what CA-based systems had before THEY added
some voice channels. Simple, eh? :)

That's what I thought! However, you may recall that friend of mine,
Scott, who called me through the Boston port and started all this?
Well, his brother called me through the Philadelphia roam port
(215-350-7626), and wouldn't you know it, it is doing EXACTLY THE SAME
THING THAT BOSTON IS DOING!!!

That's right, Metro Mobile CT and RI customers who roam into Philly
will be able to use call-forwarding and all, but people calling them
directly (NOT through the Philly roam port) will not get anything but
a re-order! (unless the phone is turned "off").

But Philly has no "intermediate" switch which can cause this! Why is
this happening in Philly as well, when there are TWO systems between
Philly and Connecticut: the New York system and the Cell One/South
Jersey system. (NY is DMXed to CT, Cell One/South Jersey is DMXed to
Philly and NY. But this has been the case for a while, yet this stuff
with the Philly "DMX" is very recent.)  Moreover, this "pre-DMX"
doesn't work is South Jersey, ie, Cell One/South Jersey totally
ignores any call-forwarding requests, etc, and this system is BETWEEN
CT and Philly!

Moreover, Philly, like the Boston, will "pay attention" to any call
forwarding you have previously set. Thus, Philly callers can reach a
land phone (via cellphone call-forwarding) free of charge to them,
just by using the Philly roam port.

Thus one last question:

If all this is a result of a lack of "voice" trunks, how does
call-forwarding work? I mean, I dial 215-350-7626, enter a Metro
Mobile number, and get some land number. How does this work?  If
Metrophone/Phil actually dialing out the "forward to" number, thus not
needing any special "voice" trunks to connect with Mertro Mobile/CT?

In any event, all this means is that "Mike the Roam Coordinator" will
have some more questions on Monday! :) I dunno why all these systems
are suddenly acting, well, "connected" ... perhaps Nationlink is
finally coming to the East coast? I *think* it works like FMR, but
maybe it is more ... errr ... "interactive", thus requiring greater
connectivity?

For those of you not asleep by now, I'll post any further information
should Metro Mobile provide it. "Enjoy" the new features in Philly!


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

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 23:58 EDT
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Tracking (was New Boston/Conn. DMX)
Organization: Hallock Engineering and Sales  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


[ most of long and interesting cellular discussion deleted ]

>> I took the phone indoors, and saw what was happening. When someone
>> called me directly (no roam ports), the call would seem to come to
>> Boston, my phone would "click" as it always does before it starts
>> ringing, (letting the system know it is active?), yet not ring.

> This is fascinating: your phone "clicks" but doesn't ring?  There is
> an "audit" order in the data stream sent from the land to the mobile
> station.

Several phones cause the audio amp for the speaker in the handset base
to click softly when the phone transmits.  I suspect its a spike from
the power supply picked up by the audio amp IC when the power supply
load increases suddenly during transmit.  The phone may be receiving a
poll, but local switch software may be inhibiting the ring ...

My sources at Mobilnet tell me that roamer problems in multi-switch
networks have been a problem on incoming calls.  The Motorola EMX's
they use will search all the machines in a local net, but often
management does not want this to happen ... even though incoming calls
for local mobiles do function this way.  Seems as though setting up
the software to restrict the polling for incoming roamer calls to
operate on the local switch only is not very straightforward and has
caused confusion.

I have seen several phones that have a diagnostic mode that gives very
interesting info during operation.  Info like channel number, mode,
transmit power, etc.  as I recall.  I have a Novatel and Panasonic
that will do this.  The nicest I ever say was a high end Motorola
unit, now discontinued, that was in use by some Mobilnet personnel
(6000XL?) ... the mode in that set was made for cellco use and was
actually quite useful.


Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 [e-mail] [e-mail]
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you]

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

From: Sharon Crichton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Emergency Calls
Date: 6 Jul 91 17:15:56 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH


Since the Moderator is trying to close out some threads, I thought I'd
post this little tidbit on the subject of emergency calls and operator
break-ins.

I just received my Ohio Bell bill this week and guess what I found on
one of the many sheets inside: An offer to help you break-in to a call
for only $1.60! AND no mention of it having to be an emergency
situation.  Here's the text straight from my bill (except that it's in
ALL CAPS on the bill):

        (miscellaneous information begins the page)

    ****** Information About Local Calling From Ohio Bell ******

    Do you need to talk to someone, and the line is busy? For $1.60
    per call, you can ask the Ohio Bell operator to interrupt a busy
    line. The operator will inform the called party that someone is
    trying to reach them. The called party will then have the
    option to hang up, freeing the line for you to make your call to
    them.

    (more information on the page)

Well, at least they say it's an "option" to decide whether to give up
the line. But no mention of emergency situations or of consequences to
be paid if the person you're calling thinks it's an emergency and
gives up the line and you're just some sleazy telemarketer who wants
to sell time share condos.


Sharon Crichton                          CE-SAS
[e-mail]            Mead Data Central
[e-mail]                     P.O. Box 933
uunet!meaddata!sharonc                   Dayton, OH 45401

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

Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 21:12 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Modem Line Problems


Eric Dittman <[e-mail]> writes:

> I had earlier checked and both lines are on the same switch (a 1AESS).
> The local company is SWB.  Has anyone else seen this happen?  I'm
> assuming that the switch dropped the line since the call was too long,
> but if this is the case, this is a new modification as I've had eight and
> ten hour calls before.

There is no reason to suspect that "the call was too long". In all of
my telephonery experience, I have only encountered one situation where
the CO timed a call for the purpose of overtime disconnection.

In 1966, there was the Lee Telephone Company in Martinsville,
Virginia.  The outfit was your typical small-town, under-facilitied,
excuse for telephone service. Just outside of town, eight-plus party
lines were the norm. I have no idea what horrors were to be found in
the COs, but the instruments (remember when telco supplied those and
you were to use no others?) were all AE. On two party lines, spotter
springs told the CO who to bill. But I digress.

The nearby town of Collinsville (also "served" by Lee) was a local
call. In the telephone directory was a notice that declared, in
essence, "Due to limited telephone company facilities, calls between
Martinsville and Collinsville must be limited to five minutes. At the
end of three minutes you will hear a warning tone. At the end of five
minutes, you will be cut off." And you certainly were. Teenagers had
very sore dialing fingers.


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

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

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 91 22:33:21 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: A Few Days Off Line


The next *regularly scheduled* issue of the Digest will be over the
weekend of July 13-14.  If some last minute stuff arrives, I will put
out an issue July 7.  Any urgent news items for the net will go out in
an interim issue during the week ahead if necessary.  Let's begin with
all new topics next week, okay?


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #523
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21684;
          10 Jul 91 1:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21994;
          9 Jul 91 23:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13331;
          9 Jul 91 22:33 CDT
Date:     Tue, 9 Jul 91 22:01:15 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #524
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 9 Jul 91 22:00:45 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 524

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    DSC and Phone Outages [Wall Street Journal via Charlie Mingo]
    Keith Spicer Returns as CRTC Chairman [Nigel Allen]
    My Own Phone Booth!! [Larry Rachman]
    Operational Definitions [Dr. M.Q. Dracks]
    CLID Chipset Information Needed [Doctor Math]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Date: 09 Jul 91 00:37:12
Subject: DSC and Phone Outages


Excerpted: July 8, 1991 {Wall Street Journal}, at B2

DSC FACES CHALLENGE DUE TO PHONE GLITCH

     DSC COMMUNICATIONS Corp. is known for making telephone equipment
that lets people communicate better. Now the company's future may
hinge on how well it communicates with its customers and investors.

     The Plano, Texas, maker of telephone switching and signalling
equipment last week became the focus of an intense investigation into
a series of interruptions of local phone service in areas served by
BELL ATLANTIC Corp.  and PACIFIC TELESIS Group. In each case the
problems involved signalling eqiopment and software made by DSC. On
Friday, DSC, Bell Atlantic and Pacific Telesis Group said in a joint
statement they had duplicated the crisis in a laboratory and DSC had
developed a software change, which has been installed, to prevent the
problem from recurring.

     "What we found was the cause of the avalanche," said John W.
Seaholtz, Bell Atlantic's vice-president for technology and
information services. Mr. Seaholz said a variety of relatively minor
events, including a malfunctioning circuit board and a computer clock
that was out of sync, resulted in a malfunction of a DSC Signal
Transfer Point or STP, a computer that routes calls swiftly through
the complex telehone network.

 -- Avalanche of Messages

     Instead of sending a few messages indicating trouble, the
computer sent an avalanche of messages that jammed the telephone
network, disrupting phone service. Since the software fix was
installed, Mr. Seaholz said, the DSC computers still overreacted to
"maintenance events" but they didn't shut down and the problem didn't
spread.

     The companies today will begin a national test on the signalling
system to determine the root cause of the service disruptions. "These
things are very complex," Mr. Seaholz said, "You have multiple
processors and multiple offices." The tests will try to determine what
happens when the signalling system must cope with both heavy telephone
traffic and a maintenance problem such as a faulty circuit board.
DSC's new software as well as older versions will be tested.

     Still, DSC isn't taking any responsibility for the troubles that
have the telecommunications industry in an uproar. The joint ststement
Friday avoided any mention of who is to blame for the system
malfunction. Questions to Bell Atlantic about DSC's part in the
outages or the investigation were referred to DSC. DSC officials
didn't return phone calls.

     Whether or not the failures are eventually laid at DSC's door,
the company has much to lost if it hasn't handled the crisis deftly.
Even if the problem tur    ns out to be with industry standards, as DSC
has hinted, rather than with its equipment or software, analysts say
customers might be reluctant to buy the signalling system, which
accounted for about 12% of its 1990 sales. The publicity alone "could
plague them for a long time," said Eric Zimits, analyst with Rauscher
Pierce Refsnes Inc. in Dallas.  And if the failure is blamed on DSC's
equipment, it could also affect sales of the company's other products.

     Wednesday, DSC told analysts in a conference call that it had
dispatched 200 technicians to investigate the problem and had created
seven internal task forces to root out possible problems. The move was
widely seen as an attempt to temper investor fears that a glitch in
its equipment or software may have caused the Baltimore/Washington
area, Los Angeles and Pittsburgh to lose local phone service for
several hours in recent days. San Fransisco twice lost service, but
just for a few minutes, because it was closely monitoring its eqipment
and rerouted traffic around the faulty computer.

     But until the cause of the outages was proven, the company made
it clear that it was unwilling to take the rap. DSC, angered that Bell
Atlantic officials indicated that DSC was at fault, insisted on
issuing a joint news release that telephone companies and all their
suppliers were working together to resolve the problem.

     In Washington, losing its service for most of June 26 came as a
shock to the system. The Federal Communications Commission scheduled
an unusual closed-door meeting for tomorrow to consider "possible
investigatory or enforcement action." And on Capitol Hill, the House
Government Operations Committee scheduled a hearing Wednesday to
investigate the network breakdowns.

     When phone service is "disrupted on such a large scale and in so
many different places, it raises some pretty serious questions," said
Rep. Bob Wise (D., W.Va.), whose district was affected by the June 26
phone outage.  "We just want to get to the bottom of this as quickly
as possible and see what can be done to prevent these situations from
reoccurring."

     At the heart of the probe, clearly, are DSC's computers and
software which make telephone equipment more intelligent. By one
estimate, these products were expected to ring up sales gains of 35% a
year for the next few years; DSC recorded about $60 million in 1990
sales of signalling systems and recently installed its 100th system,
making it one of the nations' largest makers of such equipment.

     Five of the seven Baby Bells have purchased DSC's equipment and
software to use Signalling System 7, the generic name for the latest
signalling system, which is also made by AMERICAN TELEPHONE &
TELEGRAPH Co.  and others. The system speeds dialling by beginning to
route calls through the network even as the caller dials the phone
number, instead of waiting until the caller is finished dialling. The
systems also allow telephone companies to offer service that identify
the caller and trace calls.

     Analysts said they can't estimate what kind of impact the current
troubles may have on DSC's results, but the stock market apparantly is
concerned. While DSC's stock was unchanged Friday in over-the-counter
trading, it fell $.50 from Tuesday and $1 from Monday.

 -- The Digital Switch Saga

    The switching mystery marks another setback for the 15-year-old
company, a onetime high-flyer that has had more than its share of
troubles. Founded in 1976 as Digital Switch Corp. to develop new
technology for long distance companies, the company took six years to
roll out its first product. In those early years, the company relied
on a couple of customers and earnings were erratic. In 1985, DSC was
forced to restate a year and a half of financial results because it
booked sales that customers said they didn't have to honor. The
company signed a consent agreement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in 1989 that required it to restate 1984-85 results.  Last
year, it settled a related class-action lawsuit for $30 million.

    [Discussion of past financial results omitted.]

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 91 02:31:49 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Keith Spicer Returns as CRTC Chairman


Keith Spicer, former chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission, has been reappointed to that position.
He replaces David Colville, a former Nova Scotia government
telecommunications policy official, who remains a member of the
Commission.

{Playback} magazine, a trade newspaper for the broadcasting and
production industries, reported that broadcasters are unhappy with
Spicer's return.  It quoted the president of the Canadian Assoication
of Broadcasters, Michael McCabe, as calling Spicer's approach to CRTC
matters "totally unpredictable". McCabe said broadcasters were happy
with David Colville.  "David brought an orderly and knowledgeable
approach to the work of the commission."

Spicer had been serving as chairman of the Citizen's Forum, a
committee which asked ordinary Canadians about their thoughts on
Canada's constitution and future. While his reappointment took place
July 1st, {Playback} said he is not expected to return to work at the
CRTC before Labour Day.

I am not sure what the telecommunications industry thinks of Spicer
and Colville, nor what the various consumer and user groups that
regularly intervene in telecommunications matters before the CRTC
think of either individual. However, participants in
telecommunications proceedings are less likely to want to offend the
CRTC or individual commissioners by using terms like "totally
unpredictable".

In other Canadian telecommunications regulatory news, the CRTC
hearings into long distance competition ended Friday, July 5. Lawyers
for the various parties will be submitting final written argument over
the next month or two, and then the CRTC will spent months and months
thinking about its decision. Don't expect a decision before 1992.
There may well be a split decision, which is relatively uncommon with
the CRTC.


Nigel Allen   UUCP: utzoo!pnet91!ndallen    INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: 07 Jul 91 17:25:14 EDT
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: My Own Phone Booth!!


Recent comments by our esteemed Moderator describing phone booths have
prompted me to tell my story, and post a question.

A month or two ago, my wife found an ad in the local Pennysaver for a
'Phone booth and directory stand'. I investigated and, indeed, found
one of the classic wood and glass booths for sale at the Northport
Sweet Shoppe.  Northport (NY) is one of those towns that wants to keep
that 1950's image and, through a combination of community support and
zoning restrictions, has more or less managed to do so. The Sweet
Shoppe looks essentially like it must have 50 years ago, but the owner
had decided to get rid of the booth because '...the kids hang out by
it all night, and anyway, I need room for some more tables'.

Anyway, the booth is more or less as our Moderator described. It must
weigh close to 200 lbs (three of us had a hard time lifting it). It
bears a label proclaiming 'Manufactured for Western Electric by the
Drexel Furniture Company', and shows a manufacturing date of 6-62
(probably one of the last).  Sadly, the phone was missing, but the old
'Subscriber Set' (ringer and network) was still installed under the
shelf. The termination for the incoming phone line is located above
the fan grill in the ceiling, accessable by removing two screws
(Ahhh.. for the days when we could all be that trusting.) The fan
works, but just barely (also as I rember such things). Also included
was an art deco-ish TELEPHONE sign, made of space-age flourescent
plexiglas.

What puzzles me about this find is that the owner alluded to the fact
that the booth was owned by him, but the phone was installed/
maintained by the phone company. Can anyone out there confirm or
refute this? The phone now resides on one of those wall shelf units,
and the booth was in storage when I found it.

What I'd really like to get ahold of is one of those booths with the
curved glass sliding door. I rember seeing one at a rest stop on the
New Jersey Turnpike, probably in the mid '60s.


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX     [e-mail]   FAX: [phone]

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

From: "Dr. M.Q. Dracks" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 91 16:57:08 EDT
Organization: Enigma Research Global
Subject: Operational Definitions


    Since recently, and no doubt again in the future, there has
been much talk about "hackers", or what actually constitutes one, I
present a "standard definition list" of terms; operational
definitions, that is.  I suggest them and other jargon words for
better understanding of the concepts in play here and increased
accuracy.

HACKER- This word embodies a concept that exists in almost every
field, be it of the sciences or not. The word itself is the
jargon-word of computerists.  Essentially, this term applies to
someone, who by way of computers, is innovative, creative, dedicated,
and experimentive. Someone who is interested in WHY a system works,
and perhaps how to go beyond it, or modify/use it for newer ideas.
This does *not* mean someone who wishes to use their talent or ability
for questionable purposes. Some Hackers do use their skills that way,
many do not. Like in any field ...

HARDCORE HACKER- A very dedicated, specific Hacker. Not necessarily
someone who is obsessed, but definitely an individual who goes beyond
"enjoying their work".  It is their center in Life.

BREAKER- These are the people who use computer knowledge or skills for
questionable purposes. Those who would break into your computer
system. *Not all Breakers are Hackers!* A novice computist could be
following a list of instructions, just as a regular computist could be
using their experience questionably.  However, a Hacker who goes too
far in curiosity and doesn't heed common sense or caution also falls
into this catagory.

(CRACKER)- This term is being used by some to differentiate from
Hacker and Breaker. I would recommend against its use, since it is
similar to the word "Crackist" [listed below], which has been in use
for awhile ... really a matter of preference, but ...

CRACKIST- Essentially, the pre-cursor of "Hacker", but more specific.
This term refered to Hackers of not computer SYSTEMS, but software
copy-protections schemes: only. CRACKISTS have been around since at
least 1980, and the issue of software protection peaked around the
same time as the "Computer Age", the peak years of 1985. Again, not
all Crackists are Breakers. Now, those Crackists who were also
Distributors [of copies of copy-protected programs], or non-Crackist
Distributors, could perhaps be questioned.

Crackists are Hackers. They would want to understand how disk formats
worked, protection schemes as well, and would crack/break/unprotect/
deprotect their own personal copies of programs [allowed by law, e.g.
to back up one's copy].

PIRATE- Those who "pirate" wares [computer SOFTware. Distributors.
Takers.  These are the folks, along with Breakers, who for whatever
their reasons, are what create issues of computer software/ system
security].

PHREAKERS- The word comes from the concept of "free call". A 'freaker'
was someone [a Hacker] who would discover something neat [like a
backdoor] in the phone system. Most of the original Phreakers were
mostly interested in how to manipulate the phone system, such as to
make free phone [fone] calls ... Breakers. Lots of "boxes" in a rainbow
series [i.e. the infamous Blue box] were created.

"Freaker" is not used at all. The word is Phreaker. FonePhreak is out
of use. Today, Phreaker refers to anyone who is interested in the
workings of telephone systems and communication. It is a specific
term, like Crackist.  If you USE that knowledge you are phreakING. Not
all Phreakers are Hackers, and some of course are Breakers.

Hence, some terms. Again, I suggest them as to "standardize" at least
the reference to certain concepts, as relating to the computer field.
It is a rough [rushed] draft, of course, but I do think it gets some
good terms.


Dr. M. Dracks

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

From: Doctor Math <nstar!syscon!viking![e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 91 15:32:33 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department
Subject: CLID Chipset Information Needed


Someone posted the manufacturer and chip numbers for a chipset that
would decode CLID information.  I wrote it down at the time, but the
information has been filed in a "messy desk" type of filing system,
and now appears to have wandered off on its own.  If someone could
drop me a pointer to the aforementioned company, it would be much
appreciated. Thanks.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #524
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25620;
          10 Jul 91 2:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22567;
          10 Jul 91 0:51 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21994;
          9 Jul 91 23:43 CDT
Date:     Tue, 9 Jul 91 22:38:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #525
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 9 Jul 91 22:38:30 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 525

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Do Passive Repeater Antennas Work For Handheld Phones? [Stephen Fleming]
    Cost of Providing Services vs. Actual Charge [Arun Kandappan]
    Telemarketing: Fight Back! [Dave Barrett]
    AIN Product Information Needed [John Adams]
    How To Start Up Your Personal 900 Number [Patton M. Turner]
    Ethernet/T1 Gear Wanted [Joe Van Andel]
    What is an OPX? [Tad Cook]
    We Need Your Voice! [Yeshwant K. Muthusamy via Tad Cook]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Do Passive Repeater Antennas Work For Handheld Phones?
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 05:58:21 PDT


I own one.  Cost me $45.  As far as I can tell, the main benefits are
the neat aesthetics of having a cellular antenna on my car :-)

Dead spots are still dead spots, stretches with static are still
stretches with static, and the received signal strength indicated by
my handheld is unchanged.

On the other hand, I know people who swear by these things and say
they are absolutely wonderful.  (That's why I bought one.)

So -- try it, but get a money-back guarantee.  [I didn't.  :-( ]


Stephen Fleming          [e-mail]
CI$:   76354,3176        BIX:   srfleming

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

From: [e-mail] (Arun Kandappan)
Subject: Cost of Providing Services vs. Actual Charge
Organization: Concurrent Computer Corporation, Tinton Falls, NJ
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1991 16:09:16 GMT


    NJ Bell still charges $.99 for a month of Touch-Tone.
Interestingly enough, one of their leaflets says that one can use
Touch-Tone for other purposes (eg. accessing the bank accounts), but
you will have to dial pulse.  Does it really cost them $.99 to provide
this service? Why not bundle it as part of the basic service?

    The next item is the Call Waiting charge. It is $4.50/month.
My basic charge is $18.xx. Is it really that expensive to provide Call
Waiting or is it just because of a monopoly ?

    Are these charges similar around the nation ?


arun

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 91 19:32:07 mdt
From: Dave Barrett <asgard![e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketing: Fight Back!


Are you tired of receiving unsolicited "junk" telephone calls?  Bob
Bulmash was.  He has become the telemarketer's worst nightmare by
forming an organization to fight back.

His group, Private Citizen Inc., instructs its members how to get as
much information as possible out of junk callers.  Then the
organization sends out an "offer" to each of the telemarketing
companies:

"I am unwilling to allow your free use of my time and telephone ... I
will accept junk calls for a $100 fee, due within 30 days of such use
 ... Your junk call will constitute your agreement to the reasonableness
of my fee."

Members report that junk calls drop by up to 80%.  For the remaining
few calls, many have had pay up the $100.  When they don't, frequently
they lose in small claims court.  One judge ruled against Plan-O-Soft
Water Conditioning Company saying "I was called twice during yesterday's
football game by people like you."

Although Mr. Bulmash's organization is run out of his home in his
spare time, it has created a well-known presence in the telemarketing
industry.  "Everyone in the industry knows Bob Bulmash," sighs Kenneth
Griffen, past head of the American Telemarketing Association.  The
backlash from the 70% of people who consider junk calls an "invasion
of privacy" has attracted attention of lawmakers as well.

The House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, chaired by
Edward Markey, is already considering a bill, HR 1304.  This bill
would establish a national "NO JUNK CALL LIST" and require telephone
companies to inform their customers ways to get their names off of
telemarketing lists, but would exempt non-profit, or "survey" junk
calls though.  The bill also includes provisions for rapid disconnect
of auto-dial recorded message players (ADRMPs) or prevent them from
dialing randomly or sequentially.

As for FAX calls, HR 1304 would require FAX advertisements to specify
the date and time, identify the firm calling, and include a telephone
number.  Automatic dialers would be banned from calling pagers and
cellular phones.

HR 1304 unanimously passed the House Subcommittee on May 9, 1991, but
the bill still has a long way to go.  A similar bill, HR 1304, was
passed by the house but was defeated last year in the Senate.

Clearly there is a lot at stake. Eugene Kordahl, president of National
Telemarketing Inc. says the bill could "do serious harm to the
telemarketing companies" because he claims the database would cost at
least $2.5 million.  In the last decade, the industry has grown from
one billion dollars to an estimated $60 billion.  A large coalition is
being put together by The Direct Marketing Association which has
already proudly announced that it raised over $250,000 in less than
three months to fight restrictive telemarketing legislation.

To find out more contact:     Private Citizen, Inc.
                    Box 233
                    Naperville, Illinois 60566
                    [phone]

Forms for joining Private Citizen are available by sending e-mail to
me.  I will post them if demand warrants.


Dave Barrett     ([e-mail])

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

From: john adams <[e-mail]>
Date:  9 Jul 1991   7:59 EDT
Subject: AIN Product Information Needed


Dear Pat:

As a new netter, I feel the telecom followers may be able to help me
with information I am seeking with reference to various vendors
network products (STP's, SCP's, SSP's, etc) that support the Advanced
Intelligent Network (AIN).  Concurrent with the current flap about DSC
and the errant STP's around the country, we are attempting to compile
as much publicly available technical (pseudo-marketing) information
about AIN and IN network elements as possible.  Upon collecting this
information, I will post the inventory (annotated where appropriate)
to this newsgroup.  I realize that there are many consultants willing
and able to do this for us for a fee, but I'd rather deal directly
with knowledgeable representatives of the equipment vendors.

The purpose of all of this, as you may have guessed, is to supply
condensations of this information to our clients, the Local Exchange
Carriers (LEC's) and their operating entities to assist them in their
business.  If this info is currently in some other Bellcore person's
hands, please pass their name along to me (There are more than 8,000
people here, most of whom I don't know :-). Thanks in advance for your
help.


Jack (John) Adams        | Bellcore New Jersey / RRC 4A-253
[phone] {Voice}        | [phone] {Facsimile}
[e-mail]    | [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 91 15:26:08 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to Start Up Your Personal 900 Number


I found the following notice on a bulletin board in the Electrical
Engineering building:

[Begin Quoted Text]
                           PHONE AMERICA (TM)
            Todays Fastest Growing HI-TECH Income Opportunity
     THE MONEY MAKING MACHINE of the Exploding "1-900 Phone Industry"

                    A GROUND FLOOR OPPORTUNITY TO EARN
                         $5000 AND MORE PER MONTH

By going into Partnership with the world's largest public utility; the phone
company:

           Now you can be part of the NATION"S MOST PROFITABLE AND
                   FREQUENTALY CALLED 900 PHONE PROGRAM.

 Phone America's (TM) FCC Approved "800/900 Business Opportunity Showcase"
                       (1-900-446-7499 Ext.________)

[The ext #, 1056, is rubber stamped in the block - Pat]

    You can begin _CA$HING_IN_IMMEDIATELY_-NO INVESTMENT to get started
             (see other side for getting your 900 number)

=Phone America (TM) is part of a Million Dollar MCI 800/900 Audiotext         =
=Facilities Managment Center and has been featured on CNN.  Phone America (TM)=
=strictly complies with all FCC rules, regulations, and requirements. This    =
=national program is _unlike_ any other 900 PROGRAM or INCOME OPPORTUNITY     =
=you've ever seen!  When calls are placed to your specially issued 900 #      =

=               YOU RECIEVE $12.69 FOR EVERY CALL RECEIVED!!                  =
=   THIS NATIONAL 900 LINE OFFERS YOU_UNLIMITED_EARNING_POTENTIAL!!!          =
=                                                                             =
=        13 CALLS A DAY EARNS YOU AN INCREDIBLE $5,000 PER MONTH!             =
=            JUST 8 CALLS PER DAY EARNS YOU $3000.00 PER MONTH                =
=                 YOU RECIEVE A MONTHLY 900 REVENUE CHECK                     =
=  72 HOURS FROM THE TIME MCI REMITS YOUR 900 PROCEDES TO PHONE AMERICA (TM)  =

                                BEST OF ALL
*  NO SELLING INVOLVED                   *  NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY
*  NO INVESTIMENT REQUIRED               *  NO EQUIPIMENT NEEDED
*  NO INVENTORY TO PURCHASE              *  NO BILLING OR COLLECTION HASSLES
*  WORK 3-5 HOURS PER WEEK               *  NO LICENSE NEEDED

Phone America's (TM) MCI Audiotext Facilities Center, a state ot the
art 800/900 Voice Fiber Optics Network, automaticaly processes and
computes all calls made to your 900 program.  PHONE AMERICA (TM)
provides you witha weekly "call detail report" so you can keep track
of your 900 profits.

*              HOW CALLERS BENEFIT WHEN THEY CALL YOUR                       *
*   PHONE AMERICA (TM) "800/900 BUSSINESS OPORTUNITY SHOWCASE" 900 LINE      *
* People who dial your Phone America (TM) 900 number benefit in many ways    *
* They too can take advantage of the same opportunity to make money promoting*
* and advertising the PHONE AMERICA (TM) "800/900 Business Opportunity       *
* Showcase" 900 line.  When they call they'll be issued a Phone America (TM) *
* 900 number.  IN ADDITION, they'll Discover how they can Capitalize from a  *
* variety of "direct response marketing opportunities" such as T.V. Marketing*
* (selling products on T.V. like the Abdominizer, EZ Glider, MASE 2000, Books*
* & Videos $ The Contour Chair using toll free 800 operators and VISA/MC     *
* order processing) ... profit from 800 and 900 Phone Programs of their own  *
* (sports, financial, entertainment, and news applications) ... access to    *
* Cable T.V. Advertising produced and aired for $24 per spot in major markets*
* (ESPN, CNN, TBS, Discovery Channel, HBO, USA Network)...                   *

[end quoted text]

The flyer goes on to say they will sell you mailing lists, and flyers
such as this one.  The 900 number with extension number is printed
twice on the back, a long with a small notice that $24.95 will appear
on your next phone bill.  The back has FAQ's one of which is:

[begin quoted text]

Q.  How do I get paid?
A.  As a Phone America (TM) 900 proprietor you earn $12.69 for EVERY CALL
    placed to your 900 number.  MCI 900 guarantees all BILLING, COLLECTIONS,
    AND PAYMENTS.  You receive a monthly  900 revenue check 72 hours from the
    time MCI remits 900 proceedes to Phone America (TM).  There are no limits
    on the number of calls your 900 system  can receive.  You are responsable
    for filling your own taxes.

[end quoted text]

They also will send you an "Application for FREE MCI 800 Business Line".

Comments?

Patton Turner         KB4GRZ          [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Yes, I have a comment. This is one of the rottenest
scams yet! You've all heard of chain letters, I assume ... send a
dollar to each name on the list, add your name at the bottom, etc...
well this is almost the same thing on the phone. Pay for a 900 call to
learn how to convince other people to make 900 calls who in turn will
try to convince others to call, etc.  It makes great sense for the
folks at the head of the list.  :)  Bad news!  Don't waste money!  PAT]

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

From: Joe Van Andel <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethernet/T1 Gear Wanted
Date: 7 Jul 91 20:24:17 GMT
Reply-To: Joe Van Andel <[e-mail]>
Organization: Atmospheric Technology Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO


Help!

We are in desperate need of 3Com IB/3 or IB/3000 Ethernet bridges for
a short term (6 weeks ) scientific project.  Anyone who has gear that
we could rent, please contact me.  If anyone knows of a rental company
that specializes in comm gear, please let me know.  We are also
interested in Verilink Connect T1 DSUs Anyone who has sucessfully
attached CSU/DSUs from different manufacturers, please contact me as
well.

Please contact Joe VanAndel or Mike Siedelberg (call collect).

407 255 1702 or 407 255 1866.

Thanks very much.


    Joseph VanAndel          Internet:[e-mail]
    NCAR  Mail Stop MAR
    P.O Box 3000        Fax:     [phone]
    Boulder, CO 80307-3000    Voice:     303-497-2071

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

Subject: What is an OPX?
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 14:11:47 PDT
From: [e-mail]


[e-mail] asks:

> What exactly IS an "off-premises extension" anyway?  I have a phone
> system that claims to support them (with an add-in card) but the
> manuals fail to give any idea what one is.

An OPX (Off Premises Extension) from a key system or PBX is simply a
case where you have one of your telephones located some distance away
from the PBX.  It could be in the next building, down the block, or
around the world.

The way this is usually done is to do a conversion to a standard two
wire connection with an adaptor from the key system or PBX
manufacturer, (if it is not already two wire) and then hook that to a
device that boosts the ringing and the DC signalling to drive the off
premise loop, which is just a dry cable pair.  Proctor (206-881-7000
in Redmond, WA) makes the 46222 OPX/Long Loop Adaptor which can do
this, and it is registered on the output side for connection to a
telco provided OL13C circuit, if you cannot provide your own cable to
the OPX location.  (An OL13 is just a dry cable pair, or telco
arranged facilities over a longer distance that LOOKS electrically
like a short cable pair).



Tad Cook      Seattle, WA     Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]   MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad   or, [e-mail]
or, [e-mail]   or, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Yeshwant K Muthusamy)
Subject: We Need Your Voice!
Date: 28 Jun 91 03:20:37 GMT
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR


[Moderator's Note: This was forwarded to the Digest by Tad Cook.  PAT]


                      WE NEED YOUR VOICE!!
                              at
                 The Center for Spoken Language
                   Oregon Graduate Institute


If you are a NATIVE speaker of one of the following languages:

(American or British) English           Korean
Farsi                        Mandarin Chinese
French                    Spanish
German                    Tamil
Japanese                Vietnamese

We need your help in building a multi-language database of speech
recorded over the TELEPHONE. This database is to be used for my PhD
thesis research on automatic language identification.

Within the Portland metropolitan area:

PLEASE CALL 690-1012

For non-Portlanders, we have set up a TOLL-FREE line that is open
round-the-clock:

PLEASE CALL 1-800-441-1077

You will need a touch-tone phone for this call. A pre-recorded message
in your native language will guide you through a recording session.
Please respond to the prompts in your native language only.  The
entire call will take about five minutes. The speech that you provide
will be used for research purposes only.

If you have any questions or comments, or would like more information
about this project, call Yeshwant Muthusamy at [phone].

Please pass on this message to others at your site who do not have net
access.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!


Yeshwant Muthusamy             Internet: [e-mail]
Center for Spoken Language     UUCP:  ...!ogicse!yeshwant
Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology
19600 NW Von Neumann Drive     Beaverton, OR 97006-1999

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #525
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29276;
          10 Jul 91 3:44 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26120;
          10 Jul 91 1:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22567;
          10 Jul 91 0:43 CDT
Date:     Tue, 9 Jul 91 23:39:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #526
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 9 Jul 91 23:39:05 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 526

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Where're the Fancy Phones? [J. Brad Hicks]
    Why Hotels Use AOS's [Jim Allard]
    "Intercept" Anti-Theft System (was Cellular Phone Jamming) [Gary Segal]
    NY Switch Change, and More DMX [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Wanted - Telephone Conversation Recording Equipment [Mark Nakamura)
    Phone Directory Wanted For Paris, France [Stephen Ward]
    Where is the PC Dialog Company? [Brian Crawford]
    ISDN Boards With OS/2 Drivers Wanted [Christopher Boaro]
    Re: Exchange Upgrades in Australia [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Telephone Outages, Really Out(R)ages [David E. Bernholdt]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 91 03:00 GMT
From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where're the Fancy Phones?


I put a little time the other day into thinking about some of the
spinoffs that are possible given Caller ID.  So far as I know, none of
the features that I thought of are available in current phones.  Why
not?

   OK, one of them probably is, partially.  I would certainly hope
that by now somebody's created an answering machine that not only
audibly date/time stamps the message, but also includes the caller's
phone number.  But can we go one step further?

   (A) I want a combination phone/answering machine that instead of
having a "messages waiting" light, spits out a standard adding machine
tape.  For each recorded call, print out the CLID, the date, the time,
and ... a two-digit number, reused when it hits 99. Then I don't want
a stupid "Play" and "Fast Forward" interface, I want two buttons:
"Play Msg #" and "Erase Msgs."  When I get home, I'll rip off the
tape, skim it for any messages I care about, play those back, and then
clear the memory.  (It doesn't have to store one hundred messages; 20
sounds about right to me.)

   (B) Can I get an answering machine that lets me program in separate
messages based on the caller's phone number?  I needed this one the
other night; I was stuck waiting for someone to get home and call me
so I could tell them where we were going dancing.  Needless to say, I
don't want to tell the whole world that I'm out of the apartment.  Why
couldn't I program in one message for the world, and one message for
phone number 314-###-####?

   (C) Can I get a phone that can be programmed to take special action
based on the caller's phone number?  Say, up to 50 numbers that it
simply will not answer, and up to 50 numbers that get routed straight
to the answering machine?  (The very first thing I'd do: program it so
that blocked CLID isn't even answered.)

   (D) If I can have option "C", can I save my programs and load
different ones for different occasions?  Add a 2" diskette drive, or,
Eris forbid, even an old-fashioned tape drive writing to microcassette
tapes.

   (E) Now let's try something really fancy.  How about a phone with a
SCSI port for an external CD-ROM drive ... and a CD-ROM with the major
phone directories sorted by number, updates available on request for
standard CD-ROM prices. Even with existing technology, then my phone
ought to be able to display name and address right up there with the
phone number for any listed number in any major city by no later than
the second ring.  Why not? According the courts, the data is free to
anybody with an OCR scanner!

   How much would you pay for this phone?  Well, for a phone from a
reputable U.S. or Japanese manufacturer, with options A & B, I'd
cheerfully pay $150 street price (1991 US dollars plus sales tax);
above that, I'd really have to think about it.  Add option C and I'll
add another $40.  Give me options A through D and I'll pay as much as
$225 to *maybe* $250 street price.  That's a lot of money for a home
phone, but I really like the idea of getting to decide for whom the
bell tolls, and who just gets recorded ... and the latter, with what
prompts from me.

   With existing technology, cost of programming, and so forth, I do
not forsee that even a year from now I'll be willing to pay what it
would cost for all of the above, options A through E.  Add in option E
and you're probably looking at a street price of AT LEAST $800, and I
will not pay that for a home phone. But CD-ROM drives are coming down,
aren't they?  And somebody's going to want to generate that database
for other things, aren't they?

   Well?  Where can I buy these things?

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

Date: 8 Jul 91 11:25:42 EDT (Mon)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Why Hotels Use AOS's


Some recent postings regarding hotels who dare to use an AOS company,
"bottom feeders", made me think it time to explain their reasoning.
In my life before telecommunications I was associated with a large,
privately owned "economy" hotel chain (who shall remain nameless).  In
fact this AOS is a spin-off of that chain.  We began our life serving
only their hotels.  The biggest reason for this was because the sleaze
factor of the then existing AOS's was horrendous.

I won't go into how we operate, since I did so at some length in a
previous posting (All Aos's Aren't Scum).

Hotels are in general small profit percentage operations whose focus
(in addition to guest satisfaction) to maintain existence is tightly
directed at the bottom line on a daily basis.  Anything that can be
done to add directly to that bottom line is carefully evaluated.
Guest satisfaction must be the number one priority.

Historically, hotels have taken it in the shorts to provide their
guests with phone service.  Pre-divestiture, big momma was not paying
commissions, local service was extremely expensive, and it was
impossible to recoup the cost of PBX equipment.  Those of you who
suggest the room rates should be increased to absorb the costs of
phones are not part of the mainstream.  The vast majority of guests
are opposed to "hidden" charges and prefer to see exactly what they
are paying for itemized on their bill.

Charging for local calls (our chain doesn't) has indeed become
"industry standard", and is a simple attempt at making one of the
elements in the hotel self-supporting.  I also can't figure out why
the more expensive hotels charge for local service when the "budgets"
generally don't.  Probably supply and demand ... if you can get it,
take it.

Finally, I wonder how many of you would not do the same if you were
the owner of the hotel in question.  Profit is profit, and if you can
improve it without adversely affecting guest satisfaction, I have no
doubt you'd be at the front of the line.  Remember, 95% of our guests
have no problem with our AOS, and generally the loudest complainers
tend to be AT&T employees, and/or people who just can't seem to stand
change (some of whom are TELECOM Digest readers).


The Bottom Feeder (Jim [e-mail]).
My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.  They are my
own, for whatever they're worth.


[Moderator's Note: Why do some hotel chains seem to feel that
*everything* in the place has to be a profit center? Why don't they
also charge to ride the elevator and put those little twenty-five cent
coin locks on the stall doors of their public toilets? There was a
time (and there are still a few around) when hotel managers admitted
very frankly, "the switchboard does not make money, but we have to
have it as a courtesy to our guests". And I am talking about a time
when the boards were usually manual cordboard operations with a large
payroll to staff them.  Yet they managed to get by passing along
exactly what telco charged them for calls -- no more, no less.  And
you are wrong about commissions: AT&T paid commissions, and reported
'time and charges' back to the hotel switchboard promptly after each
call for billing purposes. Frequently several such reports were sent
at once every few minutes by teletype from Bell to the hotel.  PAT]

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

From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: "Intercept" Anti-Theft System (was Cellular Phone Jamming)
Date: 25 Jun 91 18:15:14 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


Dave Rubin <[e-mail]> writes:

> The reason I ask is that a new automobile anti-theft system, called
> "Intercept" has recently been introduced.  This system uses a cellular
> phone to alert a central station as to the whereabouts of the stolen
> automobile, and the station can also send a signal to the car to turn
> off its engine.

[e-mail] (John Parsons) writes:

>> turn off its engine.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> And suppose this results in an accident?  I'll bet the lawyers are
> drooling over this one!

The "Intercept" anti-theft system combines a Loran-C reciever with a
cellular telephone and an auto alarm.  When the alarm is triggered,
the phone dials a central monitoring station and transmists its
location as reported by the Loran-C reciever.  From this information,
the central station operator calls the police department in the area.
The operator stays on the line with the police until the search has
ended, during which time vehicle postion reports are given to the
police.  If the car is in a safe location to stop the engine, the
engine; thus the lawyers can stop drooling.

I think the system has one central station for the entire country.  If
you use the service, you have to pay a monthly service charge which is
about $20.  From the pictures I saw of the system, it appears that
they have a farely sophisticated database of street maps, so they can
tell the police which street the stolen car is on.  Also, they may
also call you first to ask if your car has really been stolen.

I read about this system in one of the many magazines dedicated to
auto sound and alarms (I don't remember which one).  If more detail is
needed, I can dig up the article and post sections.


Gary Segal                Motorola Inc.                     The opinios
Computer Engineer         Cellular Infrastructure Division  expressed above
[e-mail]  1501 W. Shure Drive               are mine, not
 ..uunet!motcid!segal     Arlington Heights, IL 60004       Motorola's.

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

Date: 7-JUL-1991 04:52:57.05
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: NY Switch Change, and More DMX


A couple of quick(er) notes:

(1) The New York/NJ (Metro One) switch cutover is now scheduled for
July 12th, at 11:59PM. (Friday)

Metro Mobile/CT, Metro One/NY-NJ and Cell One/South Jersey customers
may be affected, typically by slower response times from the switch,
as well as by somewhat different signalling tones, all of which are
supposed to be temporay.

Metro One stated that they are going to have Customer Service open
24-hours a day during the changeover period, and they can be reached
for free at either 611 from your mobile or at 800-242-7327 landline.

(2) Re: My "Chapter II" post on the Metro Mobile "DMX": The Cell One/
Wilmington system (302-740-7626) will RING my phone (not just audit
it) if one calls my mobile number directly. Call-forwarding, etc, will
NOT work. No idea what is going on here...There are *3* systems
between Connecticut and Wilmington where it WON'T ring, so what is so
special about Wilmington?

I'm making a chart of all of this to send to Metro Mobile (they like
charts!:)) I'll send it to the Digest if it is short enough.


Happy roaming (?),

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Nakamura)
Subject: Wanted - Telephone Conversation Recording Equipment
Organization: School of Education, U.C. Berkeley
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1991 01:19:20 GMT


I'm looking for an elegant, over-the-counter piece of equipment to
record my phone conversations.  (I deal with a number of clients
placing securities orders, and it's a necessary means of protection in
the industry.)

I know that there are inexpensive microphones that attach directly to
the back of the telephone handset up at the receiver speaker end.  How
well do these work (for picking up both parties)??  They seem
cumbersome and indirect.

Are there any standard configurations for splitting the phone line -
having one fork go to the phone as usual and having the other fork go
to a tape recorder??  That is, are there any standard -- I think this
is right -- RJ-11 to microphone jack converters??

I'm looking for a total setup cost (excluding the tape recorder
itself) of no more than $50 -- and preferably much less.

Any other useful comments??

Thanks in advance,


Mark Nakamura
[e-mail]
415-601-8355


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

Date: Mon, 8 Jul 91 20:33:14 CDT
From: Stephen Ward <[e-mail]>
Organization: pro-party BBS, Corpus Christi, TCX (+[[phone]]
Subject: Phone Directory Wanted For Paris, France


Does anyone out there happen to know how I might get a phonebook for
the city of Paris, France from the French telephone company? I have no
idea.  Would they mail it to me? Is it free? Any help appreciated.
Thanks.


ProLine:  sward@pro-party     Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: crash!pro-party!sward   ARPA: crash!pro-party![e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 8 Jul 91 17:13:18 -0700
From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where is the PC Dialog Company?


Could some please, direct by email, send the address for the PC Dialog
company?  Thanks.


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

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

From: Christopher Boaro <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Boards With OS/2 Drivers Wanted
Organization: SCS/Compute, Inc.
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 91 17:39:42 GMT


Does anyone know of any ISDN boards that include OS/2 drivers?

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Exchange Upgrades in Australia
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1991 00:12:01 GMT


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

> do you wanna bet that this will not be in the new directories now that
> TouchTone is free?

Touchtone was never an extra charge in OZ. It just didn't exist at
that exchange before. Telecom Australia has its problems (like they're
massively behind the times) but apparently charging for "Touch Tone"
never occurred to them.


Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  Taronga Park BBS  [phone]/n/8/1
 Taronga Park.    'U`       "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"

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

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <bernhold@red8>
Subject: Re: Telephone Outages, Really Out(R)ages
Date: 8 Jul 91 00:46:43 GMT
Organization: Quantum Theory Project, Univ. of Florida


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave
Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093) writes:

> I'm not a businessman, but if I put myself in their shoes and depended
> on telecommunications for a major portion of my business, I'd be
> outraged at what happened.

I've been wondering about this too.  Not only the recent problems with
switching systems, but also fiber cuts, etc.

Is there any sort of "insurance" (or assurance) provided by the
service providers against outages of this sort?  In other words, is
there some mechanism (in the tarriffs or elsewhere) for individuals/
businesses effected by the outage to recoup their losses?

Alternatively, are the service providers protected from such claims?
This is my personal guess -- it would mean the telco can't lose.  If
so, how is this justified?  One can certainly argue that its really
someone else's fault in most cases. But (for example) if I send a
parcel with an overnight delivery service and it doesn't arrive in the
appropriate time, I get a refund -- even if the delay was due to
someone else's car running into the delivery truck.

Can we expect to see any legal action in the aftermath?  Can we expect
to start seeing insurance policies covering businesses against loss of
telecom facilities? (1/2 :-)


David Bernholdt            [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project        [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611        904/392 6365

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #526
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00257;
          10 Jul 91 4:05 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26120;
          10 Jul 91 2:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac22567;
          10 Jul 91 0:51 CDT
Date:     Wed, 10 Jul 91 0:29:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #527
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 10 Jul 91 00:29:04 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 527

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The Future of the UK Phone System [John Pettitt]
    Re: Ring Busy Problem [Bud Couch]
    Re: I Cannot Access MCI ... Any Help? [Michael Ho]
    Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card? [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Real ISDN [Oliver Jones]
    Re: Information Wanted About 800 Information [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Bell Labs: Shakeout Follows Breakup [James Cummings]
    Re: California Videotex [Peter da Silva]
    Re: 900 Start-up Information Please [Joe Stein]
    Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...) [Jon Sreekanth]
    Re: How to Phix an AT&T Phone [Bob Hale]
    What and Where is NICNET? [Connie Bobroff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The Future of the UK Phone System
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 91 8:22:25 BST
From: [e-mail]


> After having talked with a Mercury bloke for a few hours last week I
> find myself wondering about the future of the UK phone system, or if
> there is one.

> He says that most of the lines are ISDN-able, and that they have lots
> of digital exchanges in London.  Here in Exeter they are still using
> what seems like manual operators (joke).  No doutbt they are using
> physical switches.

> What I would like to know is if anyone out there knows anything about
> the UK phone system, I've written to BT asking but only got a nice
> little prospectus about how wonderful they are and what the are doing
> in very broad language.

The future of the UK telephone system is largly in the hands of OFTEL
(UK equivilent of FCC).  They get to award the licences for new long
distance and local carriers now that it has been decided to break the
BT / Mercury duoploly.

BT (who seems to be in charge of the numbering plan) are putting in
digital switches at a high rate.  As part of this they are changing
the numbering plan to a more rational format.

For those who have not met the UK phone system it used to be (and
still is in some places) that area codes could be up to six digits and
local numbers as few as three.  This is changing, the new standard
seems to be a ten digit number in one of two formats.

0X1 YYYYYYY  for big cities (london gets 071 and 081)
0XXX YYYYYY  for the rest.

BT tells me that all digital switches are ISDN capable and 80% of the
people will be on a digital switch by 1995. (Digital in BT's case
means `System X' or an Ericsson switch which I can't remember the name
of right now).  Mercury, I am told, have some DMS 100's.

Outside the areas where 80% of the people live: well your guess is a
good as mine as to when you will get a digital switch.  When you do
get one quality of service gets better fast. For example, BT delivered
our 64K internet connection to the University of Kent (84Kms by air)
in eight working days!  More importantly we have not had a line fault
on any of our 30 plus lines since the new switch was installed. (I'm
tempting fate here :-).

BT seems to be using a high speed signalling system (SS7 ?) as calls
now ring before you can get your finger off the tone button for the
last digit.  Mercury is a lot slower in connecting calls (15 seconds
to a digital switch and as much as 30 to some of the older clockwork
ones), however Mercury gives (free) a bill broken down by call (where
to, how long, what time and how much) and by extension (our PBX passes
an extension number to Mercury).

> In case you didn't already know, phone prices here are
> ASTRONOMICAL compared to anywhere in the the States or Canada.
> There is no such thing as a free local call; all calls are timed,
> and the rates change three times a day.

This too is getting better -- BT has had their prices pegged below the
rate of inflation and the European Community has just announced an
investigation of international phone changes.  The up side is that we
don't have AOS (yet) and the COCOT has yet to put in a major
appearance (I have seen some but not many).


John Pettitt, Specialix International, London (well close anyway).
Email: [e-mail] Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
Disclaimer: Me, say that ?  Never, it's a forged posting !

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ring Busy Problem
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 04:26:18 GMT


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

> 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.

> 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)?

The system runs a pre-ringing continuity test to be assured that there
is really a ringing load on the line. I don't know why, maybe they
want to save power :-). This test checks for an impedence of 40 kohms
or less at 20 Hz. With the values you quoted, your nominal impedence
is 39.16 kohms.  With the usual Radio Shack component tolerances, it's
quite feasible that you are above the 40 k limit, and the CO says,
"nobody there" and quits.

Go up to a .33 uF cap ( and make sure that the voltage rating is above
200 V) -a mylar film type would be fine, and that should at least
eliminate that as a potential problem source.


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

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

From: "Tiny Bubbles..." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Cannot Access MCI ... Any Help?
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1991 21:02:56 GMT


[e-mail] (Peter J Dotzauer) writes:

> Is there anything else I can do? Does Ohio State University or U.S.
> Sprint violate any rights that I have?

I don't think so.  I've pursued this at UNL and the problem is, equal
access is not guaranteed unless you're under a Baby Bell.  Even if
"Ohio Bell" (I don't know who the carrier is) is under US West
(/Ameritech/NYNEX), the rule is that Ohio Bell isn't supplying your
dial tone -- Ohio State U. is.  Ohio State isn't a Baby Bell.

The only difference between your situation and that at the majority of
campuses across the nation is that Ohio State has contracted with
Sprint, while most others have done so with AT&T.


Michael Ho,  University of Nebraska    Internet: <on vacation>
Disclaimer:  Views expressed within are purely personal and should not be
         applied to any university agency.

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New PIN for my AT&T Card?
Date: 6 Jun 91 20:48:59 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (William F
Thompson) writes:

> 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   "   "  " "  "      "    "

If this is the international number on my card it is only 19 digits
891253 83y xxx xxxx x xx.

> Abbreviated 17 digit dialing:
> 288 XXXXXX XXXX PINN
> 253 XXXXXX XXXX PINN

> Hyperdialed 14 digit dialing:
> XXXXXX XXXX PINN

Why both the 253 and the 288? The 10253 code belongs to Litel. I tried some
experiments with my new card to non-working numbers:

the 891253 838 0xx xxx xxxx xxxx
    891288 838 0xx xxx xxxx xxxx
       253 838 0xx xxx xxxx xxxx
       288 838 0xx xxx xxxx xxxx
           838 0xx xxx xxxx xxxx

All work ... but the internationl number does not work as expected.
Why couldn't they use the PIN from the US version instead of the x xx
at the end of the international version?

The 89253, 89288, 253, 288 prefixed to the old calling card numbers
will not work.

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

> [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.

Universal Card Services does the actual billing for universal calling
card numbers. The number is still varified with the Bell Companies.
Bell sends a tape to Universal Card Services. The customer's bill is
created from this tape along with the tape they get from Universal
Bank.


Bill

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

From: "Oliver Jones [x396]" <pictel!pictel.uucp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Real ISDN
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1991 13:02:25 GMT


> Now that ISDN is supposedly being tariffed in some places, I'm
> interested in hearing about experience with residential service
> including rates.  Are there any such users following this discussion
> group?

I've heard a rumor that New England Telephone is planning to offer
ISDN soon in areas served by 5ESS equipment.

(They held tariff hearings in June, and some of you may have read
Mitch Kapor's summary of his testimony here.)

I also hear a rumor that they're planning a $150 installation charge
and a $40 monthly service charge.  This may change, especially if they
listen to Mitch.


Ollie Jones                  PictureTel Corporation
email:  uunet!pictel!oj      1 Corporation Way
tel:   [phone]x396   Peabody, MA 01960
video: [phone]&9939  fax: [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 7 Jul 91 19:02:17 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Wanted About 800 Information
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


> [Moderator's Note: When I first subscribed to 800 service from
> Telecom* USA, they asked if I wanted to be listed in the database.
> The price quoted was $12 *per month*, which they said was the same
> amount they were charged by Southwestern Bell (the telco which
> operates 800-555-1212). They simply passed along what they were
> charged, anbd said they did not activity promote listings.   PAT]

I got the same story from Cable & Wireless when I signed up for my 800
service: $12/month for the listing.  They indicated that I could have
the listing any way I wanted it.  I don't know if you get a discount
if you want to be listed in more than one way.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (James Cummings)
Subject: Re: Bell Labs: Shakeout Follows Breakup
Date: 4 Jul 91 03:07:44 GMT
Organization: RedRock Development


    Similar funding is now done via Bellcore.  The BOC's version
of Bell Labs.  The type of research done at Bellcore is different than
in he hey-days of Bell Labs, but there is still the hope that
eventually the attitudes will become adjusted.

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: California Videotex
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1991 00:08:59 GMT

[e-mail] (Ken Jongsma) writes:

> Making people buy a totally incompatable Minitel terminal and
> then expecting them to pay $9.95 a month for Prodidy style graphics
> doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Two companies have tried this in Houston. US Videotel and Southwestern
Bell (under the name SourceLine). Southwestern Hell dropped out ...
they couldn't make a go of it, and while USV is still running stalls
in the malls they have (according to one of the information providers
for them) serious problems.


Peter da Silva  Taronga Park BBS  [phone]/n/8/1  Taronga Park.

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

From: Joe Stein <sequent!techbook.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Start-up Information Please
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 91 01:05:05 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: I doubt there is any one single directory of all
> the 900 numbers available.   PAT]

Actually, if you call 1-900-555-1212 (a toll free call -- Yes, Georgia,
they do exist for 1-900 numbers!) you can get 95% of them (or less,
probably! :-)


joe


[Moderator's Note: Well that recording (900-555-1212) is ridiculous!
Have you listened to it lately? It lasts several minutes, and you have
to listen to it all. There is no menu selection; no way to skip to the
part you want, etc.  God help the last dozen or so people listed!
Maybe some callers have the patience to wait that long listening.  PAT]

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Easy Fax to ASCII? (And Back Again, And...)
Organization: The World
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1991 21:08:16 GMT


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

> For example, I notice that H-P is selling a "FaxJet" which sits
> between your compute and your LaserJet printer.  This machine sells
> for around $1400 and handles document feeding for multiple-page

> But if you think you could also use this gadget as a scanner for your
> PC, you're mistaken!  (At least according to the manual I perused.)

> HP could have REALLY set the market on its ear with a combined
> fax/scanner unit.  Oh well.  (While we're at it, we should be able to
> receive faxes directly into PC graphics files too.)

{PC Magazine}, July 91, page 512, has a little ad from a company
called Compex Intl for a Fax/scanner/printer/copier. It looks like a
small, low end fax machine, and presumably has an RS232. It's going
for $495, from 1-800-626-8112. I suspect someone mentioned this unit
before, either in this or some other newsgroup. The ad copy says
"Includes ET PC link software, send, receive, scan, print, schedule
files to/from PC. Works under Windows, also works as standalone fax".

I have no commercial interest in the product/company. IMO, it seems
that since the big companies are stubbornly refusing to provide RS232
on their low end machines, various clones such as this will emerge.


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

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

From: Bob Hale <btree![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How to Phix an AT&T Phone
Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 91 16:41:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gil
Kloepfer Jr.) writes:

> I'm sure that the following information will be of use to some pholks
> out there ...

> I've seen three AT&T phones damaged by lightning with an interesting
> problem: it sometimes will ring/sometimes won't ring, and when it
> doesn't ring, it causes a problem which makes the calling party hear a
> ring, then busy when they try to call you.

[ description of bridge rectifier being the problem deleted ]

> It's a shame that the MOVs that are
> supposed to prevent this condition don't seem to do their job ...

The rise time of the voltage spike from a lightning discharge is very
rapid, usually faster than a MOV can respond to.  One trick that may
help is to tie a loose knot in the phone cord; this adds enough
inductance in the common mode path to slow the rise time to where
protective devices may function.  BTW, this same technique of tying a
loose knot in the cord can be used on power cords and may help protect
other electronics such as cordless phone base units.


Bob Hale       ...!ucsd!btree!hale
619-535-3234   ...!btree![e-mail]

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

From: Connie Bobroff <[e-mail]>
Subject: What and Where is NICNET?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1991 02:06:01 GMT


I am looking for info on NICNET (what/where is it?) interconnections
to other networks like the Internet, etc.).  Can anyone out there
steer me in the right direction?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #527
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02694;
          10 Jul 91 4:56 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18820;
          10 Jul 91 3:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac26120;
          10 Jul 91 2:03 CDT
Date:     Wed, 10 Jul 91 1:21:00 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #528
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 10 Jul 91 01:20:53 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 528

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: This Latest Series of Digests [TELECOM Moderator]
    STP's vs the Internet (was C&P Telephone Outage [Ralph W. Hyre]
    Sysop Liability (was CompuServe Responds) [Brad Hicks]
    Re: CompuServe Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [Bud Couch]
    Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [Brett G. Person]
    What's an 'Emergency'? [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60 [David Svoboda]
    Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In) [Tom Gray]
    Re: Power-Surge Myth [Wayne D. Correia]
    Re: COCOTS: Is There Any Improvement? [Roger B.A. Klorese]
    Re: Wanted - Telephone Conversation Recording Equipment [Gabe M. Wiener]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 0:36:04 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: This Latest Series of Digests


The several issues of the Digest sent out to you Tuesday overnight and
Wednesday morning was intended to clear the queue of stuff which had
built up during my hiatus this week.  More issues will be coming out
over the next weekend, following a couple more days rest for me.

May I again request that you hold your articles until the weekend!

PAT

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

From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Subject: STP's vs the Internet (was C&P Telephone Outage)
Date: 8 Jul 91 13:49:48 GMT
Reply-To: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


Disclaimer: I know nothing about the architecture of the RBOC SS7
networks.  My impression of the news reports is that they were using
another STP vendor.

As a longtime/former ARPAnet/Internet denizen (now stuck in a UUCP
Mail-only backwater), I can attest to the apparent reliability of
that network.

There were early failures, however -- like the time a malfunctioning
Xerox PUP node trashed the pre-TCP ARPAnet.  (I believe the node in
question was a Dover laserprinter that configured itself to either
capture or respond to all packets.)  Another time, a cable cut
isolated New England from the rest of the network, even though
'diverse' links were specified.  (They were routed through the same
cable at one point.)

STPs and SS7 are claimed to be the first applications of packet-
switching technology in the telephone network, but they don't even
remotely resemble the Internet.  So general comparisons are difficult
to make.  The applications (including ISDN) all seem to be firmly
entrenched in circuit-switching concepts.  (This is natural, since the
folks who designed the rest of the telephone network think in terms of
circuit-switching.)

I have the impression that the C&P outage could have been prevented by
using two different vendors (and vendor software releases).  This is
another way to ensure 'diversity' (multiple, redundant facilities), so
that failure of a single vendor to adequately test will (hopefully) be
covered by the 'backup' vendor's equipment.

As for oversight of the RBOC's, the state public utilities comissions
SHOULD have the technical acumen to understand what diversity
requirements should be for a 'reasonable' telephone network.  If they
don't, then it is your RESPONSIBILITY as a telecom citizen reader to
either help inform them, or get them de-elected/de-appointed if they
don't care.

I think John Higdon will have plenty to keep him busy, even after his
CO is upgraded to an electronic, SS7-capable one.


Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. (N3FGW)
E-mail:  att!cinoss1!rhyre  Phone: [phone]

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

Date: 08 Jul 91 11:22:04 EDT
From: "76012,300 Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sysop Liability (was CompuServe Responds to Policy)


In TELECOM Digest vol 11 #519, [e-mail] (Andrew
Payne) writes:

> I think the issue boils down to this: what makes one immume to
> liability for messages carried on one's telephone/e-mail/message
> system?

That's an easy question.  The magic words are "common carrier" status.

But the list of qualifications for and restrictions on that status are
so long and complicated that there is no meaningful way for an
individual BBS sysop or a small Internet node to qualify.  While
Compu$erve and B/i/g/B/r/o/t/h/e/r/ Prodigy could qualify, they don't
want to ... among other things, it would impair their ability to
restrict traffic that they want out for "commercial" reasons.

Nor, really, is the common carrier law well-designed for one-to-many
messaging, which is why Pat's new favorite scapegoat, the EFF, is
trying so hard to get UseNet newsgroups, FidoNet echomail conferences,
BBS public message areas, and Internet mail-lists (like this one)
treated legally as =published materials=.

But even that wouldn't solve the question of whether or not unattended
distribution was legally safe, would it?  Unless somehow the same law
or ruling made it clear that only the AUTHOR of a publication was
liable for its content.  After all, when a celebrity sues the National
Inquisitor for libel, they don't also sue every grocery store in
America for selling the issue.  (Are you listing, Mike Godwin?)

MCI Mail, SprintMail, and AT&T Mail are protected by a seperate set of
rules, the ECPA, which I mentioned in my last post on this topic.  But
note that those services are only providing one-to-one mail.  (More or
less.)

But we are wandering REALLY far afield from telecom-related topics.
Maybe it's about time to start winding this thread down, Pat?


[Moderator's Note: Yes, we really should end this thread, along with
the 'emergency calls' thread. I went away for a couple days and came
back to find tons of stuff on that thread in the queue despite my
earlier plea.  I'll be gone a couple more days and will toss out any I
find in the queue when I return. Fair warning!   PAT]

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1991 18:44:08 GMT
Subject: Re: Compuserve Responds to Policy and Operations Questions


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

>    I don't think you can really compare.  Ham radio has a whole
> slew of restrictions peculiar to ham radio: non-commercial,
> iternational third- party traffic restrictions, etc.

>    I think the issue boils down to this: what makes one immume to
> liability for messages carried on one's telephone/e-mail/message
> system?  AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc clearly seem to be immume (or else the
> phone company would get sued everytime there was a robbery plotted
> over the phone).  BBS operators seem to be liable: several recent
> cases demonstrate this.  What about the middle ground: MCI Mai and
> CompuServe?  What's their status?  Does it have something to do with
> the fact that the phone companies operate under tariff?

My cynical mind operates a bit more directly. It looks to me more like
_size_ of the operation controls the amount of hassle directed toward
that operation. Large companies can afford the lawyers and lobbyists.
Small fry cannot, so they are easy pickings for some government
investigator looking for a few more notches on his gun, come review
time.

MCI Mail and Compuserve are safe, but hams and individual hobby BBS
operators have reason to worry.


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

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

From: Brett G Person  <plains![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60
Date: 7 Jul 91 21:42:41 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND


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

> Perhaps the point to be made here is that Ohio Bell is apparently
> pushing the "operator interrupt" situation for what are clearly not
> *emergency* situations!  It's merely an extended form of "call
> waiting", and apparently one that can not be disabled.

This makes absolutely *NO* sense to me.  If my line is busy, then it's
busy,and whoever it is can wait till I'm done before they talk to me.
Now, if it's my brother-in-law, or father telling me that my sister is
about to have her baby, then I want to talk to them, and I suppose
that that really is an emergency.

I would think that people would get pretty sick of being interrupted
for non-emergency reasons, and I'm supriseed at Ohio Bell's decision
to implement this policy.  I would also think that the operators would
get sick of the kind of problems this policy is going to cause.

The one time I got a non-emergency 'emergency' phone call I let the
guy who did it to me know that I was prepared to file a complaint.  It
was a business call for my father, who wasn't home at the time.
Important ... maybe.  An emergency, NO!

I'm glad I don't live in Ohio.


Brett G. Person   North Dakota State University
uunet!plains!person | [e-mail] | [e-mail]

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Date: 03 Jul 91 13:56:23
Subject: What's an 'Emergency'?


In the TELECOM Digest, [e-mail] (Bruce Albrecht) writes:

> Perhaps this is stretching the problems of our legal system and
> medical malpractice too far, but as next of kin, you may need to be
> notified of an automobile accident and give permission to perform the
> necessary medical treatment, for example, on minors.

    Doctors usually do not require permission to provide 'necessary'
medical treatment in an 'emergency.'  They don't need parents' consent
before operating on minors, nor do they need adults' consent when the
patient is physically unable to give it.

   Sometimes it seems that non-lawyers are prepared to believe the most
irrational stories they may have heard about the legal system.

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

From: David Svoboda <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Operator Busy Break-in Now Costs $1.60
Date: 25 Jun 91 16:23:42 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


 From article <[e-mail]>, by admiral![e-mail].
net (Doug Fields):

> If someone wants to interrupt, they'd better be ready to answer any
> question I might ask.

> [Moderator's Note: ... And if  someone plays games and abuses you in
> this way, you are perfectly within your rights to tear them apart
> when you answer their call. It has happened to me, and that is
> exactly what I do.  PAT]

Well, it seems to me that it is not always possible to "tear them
apart" properly over a phone line.  How does one press charges in this
case?  Does the operator have a record of who originated the emergency
call?

And for that matter, would this be a way to circumvent Caller*ID?
What would a CLID box show in this case?


Dave Svoboda, with many questions, ...uunet!motcid!svoboda


[Moderator's Note: I think an interesting question might be what does
a Caller-ID box show when a call arrives via call-waiting?  I've heard
Caller ID does not function in that case, and I wonder if you were to
*NOT* flash over, but instead disconnect the first call and let the
second call then 'ring through' if the Caller ID data would then get
sent between the first and second ring **of the rings you heard** --
or is it too late at that point?   PAT]

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Emergency Calls (was Operator Busy Break-In)
Date: 3 Jul 91 13:22:22 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

> Greg Andrews <[e-mail]> writes:

>> I'm not saying that I would be called upon to respond to a
>> fire or automobile accident, but that the need to contact me regarding
>> the imminence of death to my immediate family DOES constitute an
>> emergency.

> Maybe to YOU. I have no spouse. I have no children. No one needs to
> reach me on an emergency basis EXCEPT for my clients. But I have made
> provisions for this with many lines, pagers, cellular phones, etc., ad

It is possible to have a class of service set up to bar busy access by
the operator. It is possible to have access codes to bar busy access
on a per call basis. Thus data calls need never be interrupted by an
operator. If the operating company serving you does not provide these
services, then that is the problem not the essential and useful
service of emergency notification.

Incidentally, loop testers will check the line for use in a manner
similar to emergency access. Should we now ban loop testing because of
data calls?


Tom Gray

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

From: "wayne d. correia" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Power-Surge Myth
Date: 8 Jul 91 22:11:15 GMT
Organization: apple computer, inc. - mac system software engineering


> [Moderator's Note: A janitor I once knew whose duties included
> changing burned out 15/25 watt light bulbs in emergency exit signs
> said he found a way to make them last for *years*:  The electic lines
> were 110 volts, but he used 40 watt *220 volt* bulbs. He got about the
> same amount of illumination as he would from a 25 watt bulb at 110
> volts; the bulb emitted a softer glow, never got hot and never burned
> out.   PAT]

It is common in big business and industry to install 130 volt bulbs
for use in 110-120 volt systems. The 130 volt bulbs end up only
operating at ~90-95% of their rating. It isn't widely known that there
_are_ 130 volt bulbs for consumer use, though.  You won't find them in
the local grocery store but you will find them at industrial/wholesale
lighting outlets.

I picked up this little tidbit from {Teleconnect Magazine} a few years
ago.

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

From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOTS: Is There Any Improvement?
Date: 9 Jul 91 19:39:47 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, California


In article <[e-mail]> frankston!Bob_Frankston@
world.std.com writes:

> The other was assigned to an outfit called IMR.  I tried calling their
> number (800-227-1010) for more info but only got a recording.  What
> makes this one interesting is that it was competing as being cheaper
> that NET for LD calls.  The deal was .25/minute for anywhere in the US
> vs $2.04 for NET.  This is a bit suspicious since NET doesn't place
> the LD calls and the rates look rather inflated (even for operator
> assisted).

(They have the phones in the Natick eastbound rest stop/Burger King on
the Mass Pike now too.)

Check their rates again; it's $.25/minute *after* the first one.


ROGER B.A. KLORESE     MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
MS 6-05    930 DeGuigne Dr.   Sunnyvale, CA  94088  [phone]
[e-mail]  {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!rogerk

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

From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wanted - Telephone Conversation Recording Equipment
Reply-To: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1991 05:25:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
edu (Mark Nakamura) writes:

> I'm looking for an elegant, over-the-counter piece of equipment to
> record my phone conversations.  (I deal with a number of clients
> placing securities orders, and it's a necessary means of protection in
> the industry.)

You can get a little gizmo that connects between the wall and your
phone for about $20 from Radio Shack, maybe even less.  A cheap
cassette recorder with a remote pause jack will do you well.  Then,
whenever you pick up the phone, the unit will go into record.  It'll
pause when you hang up.


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


[Moderator's Note: Gabe Wiener's .signature is one of the few I usually
allow to remain. When you read it, you'll understand why.  Poor old
Western Union ... they just keep hanging on for dear life, don't they?
I wonder how often they've cursed the writer of that memo?

PLEASE! no more 'emergency call' or 'compuserve policy' messages.
Digest publication will resume sometime over the weekend when I get
time.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #528
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26195;
          11 Jul 91 19:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05704;
          11 Jul 91 2:28 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17049;
          11 Jul 91 1:20 CDT
Date:     Thu, 11 Jul 91 0:25:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #529
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 11 Jul 91 00:25:03 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 529

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Ameritech Mobile Automates 'Follow Me Roaming' [TELECOM Moderator]
    Caller ID and Call Waiting [Jamie Mason]
    No Caller ID Given For Calls Waiting [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Power-Surge Myth [Dean Carpenter]
    Re: What/Where is NIC Network [Ramesh Gondi]
    Re: ISDN Boards With OS/2 Drivers Wanted [Marvin Sirbu]
    Re: Telesat's Anik E-2 Satellite Salvaged [Gord Deinstadt]
    Re: Cost of Providing Services vs. Actual Charge [Dave Niebuhr]
    Re: Phone Book for Paris, France [Charlie Mingo]
    Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker' [Doug Fields]
    Re: Telemarketing: Fight Back! [Brian Matthews]
    "Give Me a Line" Scam [Barton F. Bruce]
    Introduction Wanted to Telecom Researchers [Prof. Gary K. Poock]
    Another Outage? [Justin Leavens]
    Northern Telecom SM-1 Switch Parts Needed [Richard C. Pitt]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 23:36:03 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ameritech Mobile Automates Follow Me Roaming


Ameritech Mobile, the "B" cellular carrier here in the Chicago area
has announced that effective July 12, 1991, 'Follow Me Roaming' will
be completely automatic in the Chicago, Milwaukee and Madison, WI
service areas.

Chicago cell phone users roaming north into either Madison or
Milwaukee, WI will no longer need to use *18/*19 to turn on/off the
'follow me' feature, and likewise, cellular users from those cities
north of us will no longer need to specifically activate 'follow me'
when traveling in the Chicago service area.

The Chicago CSA extends from the Wisconsin state line on the north;
Fox Lake and Antioch, IL in the northwest; Aurora in the west; Morris,
and Joliet, IL to the southwest; Beecher, IL in the south; and almost
to Michigan City, IN in the east.

The addition of the Milwaukee and Madison CSA's will give us another
100 miles to the north of automatic coverage.

According to Ameritech's announcement, within this new expanded area
(in either direction of travel) calls will automatically be forwarded
by the long distance carrier of your choice, just as outgoing long
distance calls from our cell phones are now handled. That is,
Ameritech in Chicago will (on discovering you are in Milwaukee) hand
the call off to AT&T, Sprint or MCI (your choice). The long distance
carrier will give the call back to Ameritech in Milwaukee for
handling.

We will have to pay the long distance charge while roaming just as we
do now, but the *18 /*19 part will be automatic.  Ameritech said they
hope to expand 'automatic follow me' to all the cities they serve over
the next several months, which would incude many places in Ohio and
Indiana.

Under 'automatic follow me', call forwarding on busy/no answer to
voice mail will still operate correctly. If you are located in
Milwaukee, for example and your line is busy or does not answer after
three rings, the call will be transferred to voice mail as before.

'Regular' follow me service overrides transfer to voice mail, and
users will still have the option of using *18/*19 if desired in order
to force calls away from voice mail (and be given a busy signal or
no answer) if that is desired.

Ameritech answered objections from people who do NOT want to pay long
distance charges incurred under 'automatic follow me' by setting
things up so customer service can 'toggle a bit on your account' and
not provide the automatic service.

Of course, you have to pay the $4.95 per month they charge for follow
me service to begin with, or you won't get this new feature, and when
traveling outside the Ameritech service area, you'll still have to use
*18/*19 as always.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID and Call Waiting
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1991 08:34:54 -0400


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

> [Moderator's Note: I think an interesting question might be what does
> a Caller-ID box show when a call arrives via call-waiting?  I've heard
> Caller ID does not function in that case, and I wonder if you were to

    With call waiting, the number will not show on the screen
because the CO never had the opportunity to send your device the
packet with the CID information.  The switch *does have* the
information, however.  In Bell Canada territiory, anywyas, the 'Call
Return' feature includes the ability to remember *and recite* the last
number which called you.

  So if you want to find out after the fact the number which called
you, you can dial your good 'ol *69 after you hang up.  Or if you
would rather not answer until you know who it is, then *don't answer*
the call waiting.  Finish your conversation with the first caller,
then use *69 to find out who tried to call you, then call them back if
you wish.

> *NOT* flash over, but instead disconnect the first call and let the
> second call then 'ring through' if the Caller ID data would then get
> sent between the first and second ring **of the rings you heard** --
> or is it too late at that point?   PAT]

    Interesting question.  I would think it is too late at that
point.  But that's just a guess.  Anyone tried this?


Jamie

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 17:41:25 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: No Caller ID Given For Calls Waiting
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


> [Moderator's Note: I think an interesting question might be what does
> a Caller-ID box show when a call arrives via call-waiting?  I've heard
> Caller ID does not function in that case, and I wonder if you were to
> *NOT* flash over, but instead disconnect the first call and let the
> second call then 'ring through' if the Caller ID data would then get
> sent between the first and second ring **of the rings you heard** --
> or is it too late at that point?   PAT]

This case is specifically mentioned in the specs, and the number is
NOT delivered in this case.  No technical reason was given that I'm
aware of.  A revised spec has been issued that would allow delivery of
the (second) calling number at the time of the call waiting beep, but
it has not been implemented for public use to the best of my
knowledge.  I'm unsure as to whether the new spec requires different
subscriber equipment or not.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: Dean Carpenter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Power-Surge Myth
Organization: Areyes, Inc.
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1991 21:53:44 GMT


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

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

>> Perhaps what they are talking about is the cost of the bulb: the shock
>> of the rapid temperature change when it is turned on shortens its
>> life.

> Nope. It's pure myth! The lifetime of a light bulb is primarily
> influenced by the migration of tungsten atoms from the filament to the
> glass envelope (bulb).  That's what causes the gray discoloration of

  I seem to remember seeing some small bulbs that were a *solid* alloy
or compound or whatever of glass surrounding the filament.  It was an
alloy/compound in that it had to be special to resist fracturing, but
it could handle enough power to actually melt the filament, which
still conducted because the molten metal was trapped in its' channel
in the glass.  I don't recall if this was for a torch/flashlight or
what, but the bulbs were smallish.  I would venture a guess that these
would have a pretty good lifetime ?


Dean Carpenter    uunet!areyes!deano    [phone]
Areyes, Inc.    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 16:31:18 CDT
From: Ramesh Gondi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What/Where is NIC Network


NIC is a network in India (surprised!!). It is a nationwide satellite
based information network for decision support systems for government
departments.  Supports a few private newtorks.

If I am right NIC stands for National Informatics Center.


Ramesh     [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 23:59:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN Boards With OS/2 Drivers Wanted


The boards from both NCR and IBM have OS/2 drivers.


Marvin Sirbu   CMU

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

From: Gord Deinstadt  <cognos!geovision.gvc.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telesat's Anik E-2 Satellite Salvaged
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1991 16:05:05 -0400
Reply-To: cognos!geovision.gvc.com![e-mail]
Organization: GeoVision Corp., Ottawa, Ontario


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) quotes from a news
report re: Telesat Canada:

> Losing the Anik E-2 would also have been a blow to the prestige of
> Telesat, which put the world's first commercial communications
> satellite into orbit 20 years ago.

Fascinating.  And here I thought Intelsat put the first commercial
communications satellite into orbit - what - 26 years ago?  There was
even a song by a popular group commemorating it - "Telstar".

I believe Telesat Canada put up the first _domestic_ commercial comsat.


Gord Deinstadt    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1991 16:53:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cost of Providing Services vs. Actual Charge


New York Telephone charges either $2.21 or $2.11 (I haven't looked
lately).  I think Southwestern Bell (at least in Nebraska) charges
nothing.  The latter was posted some time ago and I don't remember the
exact details.


Dave Niebuhr   Brookhaven National Laboratory   Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Charlie Mingo <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Jul 91 14:21:54
Subject: Re: Phone Book for Paris, France


In the TELECOM Digest, Stephen Ward <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Does anyone out there happen to know how I might get a phonebook for
> the city of Paris, France from the French telephone company? I have no
> idea.  Would they mail it to me? Is it free? Any help appreciated.

   Aside from trying a big city library, the fastest way to find a
French phone number would be to use Minitel. (There are free Minitel
terminal emulators you can get for the Mac and MS_DOS computers.)

   After dialling a local phone number, you'll pay about 17-25
cents/minute to search a database of phone numbers maintained by the
French phone company (who also run Minitel). In fact, Minitel was
originally designed as an on-line telephone directory.

   Contact me for more details if you're interested in pursuing this.

   (I have no connection to Minitel, and I don't even use it that
often, having no need to look up French phone numbers.)

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

From: Doug Fields <admiral![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Please Explain the Terms 'Hacker' and 'Phreaker'
Organization: The Admiral's Unix System & The Grid BBS
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1991 22:36:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Ranjan Bagchi <bagchi@hastings.
eecs.umich.edu> writes:

>> even after you explain to them to use passwords like "x98cY2h*" and

> Ah, but you can.  This site, for instance, seems to have
> pushed a COPS-like program within 'passwd', so that passwords are
> checked versus a list of stupid passwords, and anything from this list
> is thrown out.

SCO's "passwd" does that too ... But say your login is "johndoe" then
you can fool it and make your password "doejohn" or "john-doe" or
something.  What is really needed is a person to assign passwords
once and for all.  Unfortunately that means that person has extereme
access, and that is unacceptable. Random passwords? Fine with me!


Doug Fields -- 100 Midwood Road, Greenwich, CT 06830 --- (FAX) [phone]
uucp: uunet!areyes!admiral!doug ------- Thank you areyes/mail and wizkid/news!
Internet: [e-mail] --------------- (Voice@Home) [phone]
BBS: (HST/V32) [phone]; (MNP6) -2967; (PEP/V32) -2873; (V32/V42) -0450

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Matthews)
Subject: Re: Telemarketing: Fight Back!
Date: 10 Jul 91 16:25:03 GMT
Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix [phone]


In article <[e-mail]> asgard!barrett@boulder.
colorado.edu (Dave Barrett) writes:

> Clearly there is a lot at stake. Eugene Kordahl, president of National
> Telemarketing Inc. says the bill could "do serious harm to the
> telemarketing companies" because he claims the database would cost at
> least $2.5 million.  In the last decade, the industry has grown from
> one billion dollars to an estimated $60 billion.

$2.5 million is .0042 percent (yes, a little over four thousandths of
one percent) of $60 billion.  Forgive me if I don't shed a tear at
this huge financial burden.


Brian L. Matthews    [e-mail]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Give Me a Line" Scam
Date: 10 Jul 91 04:33:00 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


A customer of mine (a hotel that is a member of a big chain), just got
a very suspicious call from a 'Larry Harrington' perporting to be an
AT&T test man tracking some silly problem.

He kept badgering the desk clerk trying to get her to connect his
incoming call though to an 'outside line' for 'testing'. Gee! I just
wonder what he wanted to try! :-)

Anyway, she was certainly not going to give him the connection, and
the matter is going to be explored further ... but I just wonder how
often such a scam is sucessfully pulled off?

He would not leave a call back number, obviously, but I wonder if
anyone has any really 'cute' ideas of what could have been done at the
hotel end to trap this guy. She strung him along for a while rather
than simply bruskly saying sorry and hanging up in hopes he might
volunteer something useful for identifying him, but no such luck. Any
ideas?

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 13:26:16 PDT
From: "Prof. Gary K. Poock" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Introduction Wanted to Telecom Researchers


Can any one offer advice?  Who would be some top people on the cutting
edge front line doing research on telecommunications for people with
disabilities, especially for non-speaking or speaking impaired
individuals.  Any top two or three names that come to mind would be
helpful.  Phone numbers on e-mail addresses wil be fine.


Thanks.

Gary

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

From: Justin Leavens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Outage?
Date: 11 Jul 91 00:16:28 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


I was trying to call Chicago this afternoon from here in LA and I
couldn't get through. Apparently an outage affecting the East coast,
Europe, Mexico, and other international calls.  Who's got the scoop on
this one?  Another STP failure?

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

Date: Wed Jul 10 17:52:58 1991
From: centavx![e-mail]
Subject: Northern Telecom SM-1 Switch Parts Needed
Reply-To: centavx![e-mail]
Organization: CEN-TA (David Ingram & Associates)


We have one of the above mentioned switches here, and need some phones
to go with it.

The phones look like Logic-10's, but have different guts.  We have
about two dozen here, and they are slowly dying for lack of service and
just plain over-use.

The boss claims (and I have no reason to doubt him) that this was the
first switch installed as an interconnect in B.C., and that shortly
after, the cables were cut by the local phone people as the war to
break the monopoly heated up.

It has served us well in the intervening years, and we loath to
replace it since it has some interesting features and is easy to use.

Anyone with anything that could be used with it can mail me at the above or
reach me at the numbers in the signature.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.


The CEN-TA Group - David Ingram & Associates - Real Estate - Tax - Computers
                   Richard C. Pitt   System Administrator
             Voice 604-980-0321    Fax [phone] or 604-987-9364

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #529
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28870;
          12 Jul 91 20:19 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09062;
          12 Jul 91 1:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13709;
          12 Jul 91 0:33 CDT
Date:     Thu, 11 Jul 91 23:54:58 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #530
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 11 Jul 91 23:54:36 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 530

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Book Review: 5ESS Switch Feature Handbook [Wes Morgan]
    Calls to 703-374-xxxx Fail From 415 via MCI [Max Rochlin]
    MCI Overcharges Tax [David Gast]
    Bulletin Boards Go Corporate [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    X.25 Protocol -- Help! [Richard Leon Kapusta]
    Ma Bell Didn't Have a Virus [Neil Shannon, VIRUS-L via Tom Coradeschi]
    Liability for Phone Outages [Justin Leavens]
    Calling Myself / Call Return [mission![e-mail]]
    Wanted: FAX / Voice Switch for West Germany [Joe Pruett]
    RJ11 <-> RJ45 [Chris Swanson]
    My New AT&T Call Me Card [Alan Toscano]
    Book Review: Cyberpunk -- Outlaws and Hackers [Jim Allard]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 15:47:50 GMT
From: Wes Morgan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: 5ESS Switch Feature Handbook


I just received my copy of Issue 6 of the "5ESS Switch Feature
Handbook" from AT&T.  This 430-page text documents every available
feature of the 5ESS, including some "coming soon" features.  For
example, here's a feature related to a recent TELECOM thread:

    Prevention of Service Requests by Induced Voltages
    (5E1) (20-13-0000)

    This feature prevents service request appearances
    caused by induced voltages on ground-start lines
    where induced voltages would cause the system to
    misinterpret saturation of a current sensitive
    device as a (off-hook) seizure.

The Handbook also cross-indexes features by software release level.
If you know the release used by your local CO, this makes a handy
guide to features on your particular switch.  It also cross-references
5ESS features to the equivalent 1AESS features.

Issue 6, the current revision, was made available in March, 1991.
Issue 7 is currently scheduled for release in the third quarter of
1991; you may want to wait, in order to get the most recent revision.

This document is available from AT&T's CIC at 1-800-432-6600.  Ask for
document number "AT&T 235-390-500"; the cost is $US 3.50.  In my
opinion, it's well worth the price.

I've appended the table of contents to this posting, for interested
parties.

Best,

Wes Morgan


    5ESS SWITCH FEATURE HANDBOOK

Part  1 - Introduction..........................................   1
Part  2 - Business and Residence Features.......................   5
Part  3 - Integrated Services Digital Network Features..........  55
Part  4 - Public Service Features...............................  97
Part  5 - Coin and Charge-A-Call Features....................... 101
Part  6 - Defense Switched Network Features..................... 105
Part  7 - Tandem Features....................................... 111
Part  8 - Interoffice Signaling and Control Features............ 133
Part  9 - Automatic Call Distribution/Management Information
      System Teleservices Features.......................... 149
Part 10 - Operator Services Position System Features............ 169
Part 11 - Operation, Administration, and Maintenance Features... 223
Part 12 - Advanced Communications Package Features.............. 279
Part 13 - Planned 5E7 Software Release Program Features......... 299
Part 14 - Feature Packages...................................... 317
Part  A - Abbreviations......................................... 383
Part  I - Index................................................. 395
Table A - Base Right-to-Use Features Packages Through 5E6....... 319
Table B - Maintenance, Administration, and Network Management
      (NM) Packages Through 5E6............................. 327
Table C - Business and Residence Custom Services (BRCS) Features
      and Packages Through 5E6.............................. 337
Table D - Defense Switched Network/Autovon Packages Through 5E6. 349
Table E - Integrated Services Digital Network Features and
      Packages Through 5E6.................................. 351
Table F - Automatic Call Distribution/Management Information
      System Feature Packages Through 5E6................... 359
Table G - Operator Service Position System Feature Packages
      Through 5E6........................................... 361
Table H - Other 5ESS Switch Features and Packages Through 5E6... 367
Table I - Inter-LATA Carrier Packages Through 5E6............... 371
Table J - Planned 5E7 Software Release Features................. 373
Table K - 5ESS Switch/1AESS Switch Feature Cross-References..... 375


[e-mail]    |Wes Morgan, not speaking for|     ....!ukma!ukecc!morgan
[e-mail]  |the University of Kentucky's|   morgan%engr.uky.edu@UKCC
[e-mail] |Engineering Computing Center| [e-mail]

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

From: Max Rochlin <gupta![e-mail]>
Subject: Calls to 703-374-xxxx Fail From 415 via MCI
Organization: Gupta Technologies Inc
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 18:27:36 GMT


I am attempting to call 703-374-xxxx via MCI.  Does anyone know if
there is a problem with MCI?  The intercept tape number is 44 865.
Calls to MCI customer service verify that they are having problems but
they can't say more than that.

Unfortunately, 10xxx prefixes are rejected by the office phone system.
Is there a 950-xxxx for AT&T?

Thanks,


  |     [e-mail]      |     Max J. Rochlin     |   [e-mail]   |


[Moderator's Note: There is no 950 or 800 number for the AT&T network.
The assumption is people should be able to route traffic over that
network using the FCC-approved 10288 routing.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 91 22:29:45 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Overcharges Tax


I checked over my MCI long distance bills the other day and I found
that I am being charged more than 3% federal tax and the state/local
tax has recently been over as well.  MCI is looking in to this
problem, but the woman did tell me that the tax should be 3% and she
agreed that I am being charged more than that.  John, do you know what
the proper charges are for the state of CA?  Lifeline, etc.

Other readers may want to check their bills as well.  Now if I only
had a tariff I could check to make sure that I am not being overcharged
on the calls as well.

No wonder one of the other phone companies tells us we don't save as
much as we think.  :-)


David Gast


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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 02:58 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bulletin Boards Go Corporate


Here's some news about computer BBS's showing how the general world is
waking up to PC communications, from {Information Week}, a magazine for
large mainframe computer managers, July 8, 1991:


                       "BULLETIN BOARDS GO CORPORATE

                            By Mary E. Thyfault


        "Bulletin boards - the computer hobbyist's on-line toy - are
finding their way into corporate America.

        "`What used to be consirered a hacker's tool actually has a
lot of useful business applications,' says Tom Hutchins, who manages
communications for the sales force at Seiko Intruments, a workstation
peripheral manufacturer in San Jose.  `They're becoming embedded in
corporate America,' adds Steve Caswell, an independent electronic-mail
analyst in Woodland Hills, Calif.

        "Since December, Seiko has been using the Wildcat bulletin
board system (BBS) software to interconnect its sales for and
corporate office.  `We're sending all the normal stuff that you send
in a (physical) mailbox,' including product information, sales
forecasts and intercompany memos to the bulletin board, says Hutchins.

        "Since 1987, Wildcat, licensed by Mustang Software, Inc. of
Bakersfield, Calif., has seen sales to corporate users rise from 16%
to 63% of total sales.  Companies are using it as an economic form of
E-mail -- primarily to broadcast announcemen:s -- rather than to send
personal messages.  The software costs $129 to $499, depending on the
number of modems attached.

        "Wildcat is one of the few bulletin board systems commercially
available.  There's a lot of bulletin board software in the public
domain, Hutchins says, but most isn't `trustworthy.'  `When I made the
proposal, the first thing that everybody asked was what about
hackers?" he recalls. But Hutchins and users such as the Internal
Revenue Service appear to trust the extensive safeguards in Wildcat.

        "Seiko currently runs four versionsof Wildcat on a dedicated
IBM 386 clone in headquarters, with four modems to connect the
30-member sales force, who dial in from the PCs or laptops.  The next
step is to put Wildcat on Seiko's local area network.

        "`We're going to do more and more with the board,' Hutchins
promises. It's going to become an automatic thing.'"

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

From: Richard Leon Kapusta <[e-mail]>
Subject: X.25 Protocol -- Help!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1991 20:12:30 GMT


Does anyone know where I can get X.25 libraries for the PC?  I'm
writing a terminal package for the New York Stock Exchange and it uses
the X.25 protocol.  Any information at all will be greatly appreciated!

Thanks a lot!


Rich    University of Illinois

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 17:00:04 EDT
From: Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ma Bell Didn't Have a Virus
Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ


Forwarded from VIRUS-L:

  Date: 10 Jul 91 22:40:45 +0000
  From: [e-mail] (Neil Shannon)
  Subject: Ma Bell Didn't Have a Virus

With all the news about possible virus infections affecting the
telephone systems I thought it was interesting to find a small article
tucked in the back of the {Oregonian} newspaper (Associated Press
story):

Quoted in part:

"An official of the company that made the software, DSC Communications
of Plano, Texas, told a congressional sub-committee that the outages
were caused by a software modification it made in April ... the company
modified the software at the request of Pacific Bell."

"The changes were made without subjecting them to the normally
exacting tests, which he (Frank Perpiglia, DSC senior vice president)
called 'an absolute mistake.'"

With all the loud voices that were screaming computer virus, this
seams like a very soft voice that said, 'oops, we were wrong'.  It's
another case of check your hardware and software BEFORE looking for
viruses.


Neil Shannon    [e-mail]

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

From: Justin Leavens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liability For Phone Outages
Date: 11 Jul 91 23:19:09 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


This is in response to a previous message that I seem to have lost now.

Does anyone know of any situations where a business was able to get
compensation for a phone outage affecting their business? Who would be
responsible in a case like that, the carrier or the manufacturer of
the faulty equipment?

Did any businesses ever file for compensation when the fire burned out
the switching office in the Chicago suburbs a couple of years ago?
That left several suburbs without service for days, crippling many
small businesses.


[Moderator's Note: Telco tariffs do not provide for compensation in
the event service is disrupted except for a pro-rated refund of fees
paid in advance, or a billing adjustment the next month, etc.  PAT]

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

From: mission![e-mail]
Subject: Calling Myself / Call Return
Date: Thu Jul 11 14:20:40 1991


I have GTE service in Orange County, CA, and when I call my own
number, I hear quiet beeping.  If I then hang up, the phone rings.  At
this point, someone else in the house can answer (I'll pick it up when
the ringing stops) and we have an intercom (the quiet beeping
continues, though).  I find this very useful, certainly much more so
than a busy signal.

Is there another reason for this feature?  Do any other operating
companies provide it?

Also, I have what they call the SmarterCall(tm) service package, which
includes call return, but only to the two exchanges on my switch.  Is
this because SS7 isn't in place between my switch and others, or
because I'm a GTE island surrounded by PacBell?

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

From: Joe Pruett <tessi![e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: FAX / Voice Switch for West Germany
Date: 11 Jul 91 17:01:09 GMT
Organization: Test Systems Strategies, Beaverton, Oregon


We would like to obtain one of those magic boxes that will switch
between fax, modem, voice, etc. and use it in West Germany.  We
haven't been able to find one there, and so were wondering if we can
use one from the U.S. successfully over there (aside from having the
Bundespost out to get us).

Any information you could e-mail me would be greatly appreciated.


nosun.west.sun.com!tessi!joey

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

From: Chris Swanson <[e-mail]>
Subject: RJ11 <-> RJ45
Organization: St. Olaf College / N.E.T. Ambulance
Date: 11 Jul 91 20:05:07


Greetings,

    I need to know how to wire an RJ45 (4 wire data jack) to RJ11
(wall jack) adapter.  Please e-mail any replies.  Thanks in advance.


Regards,

Chris Swanson, C.U. CS/Pre-med Student, 1502 N. 59 st., Omaha, NE  68104-4830
DDN: [CDS6]   INTERNET:  [e-mail]  UUCP: uunet!stolaf!swansonc
AT&T:        Work: (402)-449-4894       Home: (402)-551-7393 or (402)-551-0766

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Jul 11 21:41:31 CDT 1991
Subject: My New AT&T Call Me Card


I received my NEW generation AT&T Call Me Card in today's mail.  (The
Call Me Card, is AT&T's "restricted calling" card product.)  Much as
the old Call Me Card is to the old AT&T Card, the new Call Me Card, at
first glance, has similar differences from the new AT&T Calling Card.
Specifically, it has no international number, and says "Call Me" in
the upper-right corner (in place of "Calling Card").  And like the new
Calling Card, it has a CIID-type number (mine begins with 843-1)
unrelated to your phone number.  The instructions on the back have
appropriate differences from regular Calling Cards.

But, the new Call Me Card differs from its predecessor in these
significant ways:

In the near (?) future, it will no longer be restricted to a single
number.  You will be able to specify multiple specific numbers to
which calls may be placed and billed to the Card.  (Temporarily, the
card is only available with a single-number restriction.  I think this
is most likely an order entry system limitation, rather than a network
limitation.)  The card is also honored for intra-LATA calls (to the
specified destination numbers) by my local exchange carrier,
Southwestern Bell, and presumably by other LECs, as well.

On calls placed with the old Call Me Card, the '#' signal for sequence
calling was ignored by AT&T equipment.  With the new card, pressing
'#' returns the customary "You may dial another AT&T-handled call now"
message.  If you then dial a permitted number, you get a "Thank You."
Otherwise, you get Reorder Tone.


A Alan Toscano             Voice:  [phone]     AT&T Mail:  atoscano
<[e-mail]>     Telex (UT):   156232556     CIS:       73300,217

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

Subject: Book Review: Cyberpunk -- Outlaws and Hackers
Date: 11 Jul 91 14:32:48 EDT (Thu)
From: [e-mail]


Patrick:

I thought everyone might be interested in a book I recently read called
"Cyberpunk -- Outlaws and Hackers on the Computer Frontier" by Katie
Hafner and John Markoff.

It's a great read for people uninitiated in the "network" world and has
three basic stories:

1.  Extensive description of Kevin Matlick, et al.
2.  Pengo, the West German and friends who hacked and sold to the
    Soviets.
3.  Robert Morris' worm.

The background on each, their families and associations is excellent.
It appears to objectively describe each case.

I thought it would be interesting since undoubtedly many of your
readers have intimate knowledge of these incidents.

Published by Simon & Schuster $22.95.  I got it from the Small
Computer Book Club, but I assume it will be available in most book
stores.

I found it extremely educational.  You may find otherwise.


Jim Allard <[e-mail]> The Bottom Feeder

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #530
******************************






ISSUES 531 THROUGH 540, THEN AGAIN FROM 540 THROUGH 550 ARRIVED IN
VERY MIXED UP OUT OF ORDER SEQUENCE. BUT ALL ARE FILED HERE IF YOU LOOK
FOR THEM.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14390;
          14 Jul 91 1:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23030;
          13 Jul 91 21:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13653;
          13 Jul 91 20:05 CDT
Date:     Sat, 13 Jul 91 19:59:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #533
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Jul 91 19:59:14 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 533

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    OCC Code Update [Bill Huttig]
    Do-it-Yourself "Payphone" [Paul Schleck]
    TDD Modems [Peter da Silva]
    Serious RFI Problem [Jonathan Eunice]
    Miscellaneous Questions: COCOTS, Michigan Bell, LATAs [Jack Decker]
    Oregon State Telecom Policy [halcyon![e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: OCC Code Update
Date: 13 Jul 91 04:26:42 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


Here is a update to the OCC Codes. I am working on the 800 and 900
list.

001    MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom)
002    [ATC] AmeriCall LDC
003    RCI Corporation
007    Tel America
011    [Metromedia<>ITT] Metromedia Long Distance
012    Charter Corporation (Tri-J)
013    Access Services
021    Mercury
022    MCI Telecommunications
023    Texnet
024    Petricca Communications Systems
028    Texnet
030    Valu-Line of Wichita Falls
031    [ATC] {Telus} Teltec Saving Communications
033    US Sprint
036    Long Distance Savers
039    Electronic Office Centers of America (EO/Tech)
042    First Phone
044    Allnet Communication Services (LDX, Lexitel)
053    American Network (Starnet)
056    American Satellite
057    Long Distance Satellite
059    COMNET
060    Valu-Line of West Texas
063    COMNET
069    V/COM
070    National Telephone Exchange
080    AMTEL Systems
084    Long Distance Service (LDS)
085    WesTel
088    Satellite Business Systems (MCI)
089    Telephone Systems
090    WesTel
093    Rainbow Communications
095    Southwest Communications
096    Flex Communications
099    AmeriCall
122    RCA Global Communications
137    All America Cables and Radio (ITT)
142    First Phone
146    ARGO Communications
188    [MCI] Satellite Business Systems
201    PhoneNet
202    ExecuLines
203    Cypress Telecommunications (Cytel)
204    United Telephone Long Distance
206    United Telephone Long Distance
211    RCI
212    Call US
213    Long Distance Telephone Savers
214    Tyler Telecom
215    Star Tel of Abilene
217    Call US
219    Call USA
220    Western Union Telegraph
222    MCI Telecommunications (SBS)
223    Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX)
224    American Communications
227    ATH Communications (Call America)
229    Bay Communications
232    Superior Telecom
233    Delta Communications
234    [ACC Long Distence] AC Teleconnect (Alternative Communication)
237    Inter-Comm Telephone
239    Woof Communications (ACT)
241    American Long Lines
242    Choice Information Systems
244    Automated Communications
245    Taconic Long Distance Service
250    Dial-Net
252    Long Distance/USA
253    Litel Telecommunications
255    All-State Communications
256    American Sharecom
260    Advanced Communications Systems
263    Com Systems (Sun Dial Communications)
268    Compute-A-Call
276    CP National (American Network, Starnet)
282     [Action Telecom]
284    American Telenet
286    Clark Telecommunications
287    ATS Communications
288    AT&T Communications
298    Thriftline
302    Austin Bestline
303    MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom)
311    SaveNet (American Network, Starnet)
318    Long Distance Savers
321    [MCI] {Telecom*USA} Southland Systems
322    American Sharecom
324    First Communication
331    Texustel
333    US Sprint
336    Florida Digital Network
338    Midco Communications
339    Communication Cable Laying
343    Communication Cable Laying
345    AC Teleconnect (Alternative Communication)
350    Dial-Net
355    US Link
357    Manitowoc Long Distance Service
362    Electronic Office Centers of America (EO/Tech)
363    Tel-Toll (Econ-O-Dial of Bishop)
369    American Satellite
373    Econo-Line Waco
375    Wertern Union Telegraph
385    The Switchboard
393    Pioneer Telephone/Execulines of Florida
400    American Sharecom
404    MidAmerican LD (Republic Telecom)
412    Penn Telecom
428    Inter-Comm Telephone
432    Lightcall
435    Call-USA
436    Indiana Switch
440    Tex-Net
441    Escondido Telephone
442    First Phone
444    Allnet Communication Services (LDX, Lexitel)
455    Telecom Long Distance
456    ARGO Communications
462    American Network Services
464    Houston Network
465    Intelco
466    International Office Networks
469    GMW
472    Hal-Rad Communications
480    Chico Telecom (Call America)
488    [Metromedia<>ITT] United States Transmission Systems (ITT)
505    San Marcos Long Distance
515    Burlington Telephone
529    Southern Oregon Long Distance
532    Long Distance America
533    Long Distance Discount
536    Long Distance Management
550    Valu-Line of Alexandria
551    Pittsburg Communication Systems
552    First Phone
555    TeleSphere Networks
566    Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX)
567    Advanced Marketing Services (Dial Anywhere)
579    Lintel System (Lincoln Telephone LD)
590    Wisconsin Telecommunications Tech
599    Texas Long Distance Conroe
601    Discount Communications Services
606    Biz Tel Long Distance Telephone <ATC - reseller>
622    Metro America Communications
634    Econo-Line Midland
646    Contact America
652    [NJB]
654    Cincinnati Bell Long Distance
655    Ken-Tel Service
660    Tex-Net
666    Southwest Communications
675    Network Services
680    Midwest Telephone Service
682    Ashland Call America
684    Nacogdoches Telecommunications
687    NTS Communications
700    Tel-America
704    Inter-Exchange Communications
707    Telvue
709    Tel-America
717    Pass Word
726    Procom
727    Conroe-Comtel
732     [AT&T - private net]
735    Marinette-Menominee Lds
737    National Telecommunications
741    [ATC] ClayDesta
742    Phone America of Carolina
743    Peninsula Long Distance Service
747    Standard Informations Services
751    Touch One <ATC - reseller>
755    Sears Communication
757    Pace Long Distance Service
759    [USS] Telenet Communication (US Sprint)
760    American Satellite
766    Yavapai Telephone Exchange
771    [MCI] {Telecom*USA/SoutherNet/Southland} Telesystems
777    US Sprint
785    Olympia Telecom
786    Shared Use Network Service
787    Star Tel of Abilene
788    ASCI's Telepone Express Network
789    [ATC] Microtel
792    Southwest Communications
800    Satelco
801    MidAmerican LD (Republic)
824    [ATC] <Transcall ?>
827    TCS Network Services
833    Business Telecom
835     [MCI] {Telecom*USA/Teleconnect}
839    Cable & Wireless Communication (TDX)
847    VIP Connections
850    TK Communications
852    [MCI] {Telecom*USA/SouthernNet} Telecommunicatons Systems
859    Valu-Line of Longview
862    [ATC] {SouthTel}
866    Alascom
872    Telecommunications Services
874    Tri-Tel Communications
879    Thriftycall (Lintel Systems)
881    Coastal Telephone
882    Tuck Data Communications
883    TTI Midland-Odessa
884    TTI Midland-Odessa
885    The CommuniGroup
888    [MCI] Satellite Business Systems (MCI)
895    Texas on Line
897    Leslie Hammond (Phone America)
898    [MCI] Satellite Business Systems (MCI)
910    Montgomery Telamarketing Communication
915    Tele Tech
933    North American Communications
936    Rainbow Commuinications
937    Access Long Distance
938    Access Long Distance
951    Transamerica Telecommunications
955    United Communications
960    Access Plus
963    Tenex Communications
969    Dial-Net
985    America Calling
986    MCI Telecommunications (SBS)
987    ClayDesta Communications
988    Western Union Telegraph
991    Access Long Distance
999    [Metromedia<>ITT]

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

Date: 13 Jul 91 14:56:00 CDT
From: Paul Schleck <[e-mail]>
Subject: Do-it-Yourself "Payphone"


That old standby of cheap consumer electronics, Service Merchandise,
includes in their most recent catalogue a "Teleconcepts Payphone Jr.
Model 890546," stock# 890546MTM for $39.90.

While it probably isn't appropriate for use as an actualy public
paystation due to its lack of security features and proper legal
notices, it may prove servicable for those TELECOM Digest readers who
have inquired in the past about obtaining some sort of payphone to
keep their roommates and housemates honest when it comes to billing or
provide some sort of controllable phone service in a semi-public area.

Service Merchandise has stores in over a dozen metropolitan areas and
will take mail-orders.  For a catalogue and other information, their
phone number is [phone].

Disclaimer: I have no affilation with ServicMerchandise and even if I
did, they probably wouldn't pay me enough to be their advertising
lackey.


Paul W. Schleck  [e-mail]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: TDD Modems
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1991 19:59:06 GMT


Question: are there any 2400 baud modems that can be used for TDD as
well? We're looking to buy a new modem soon, and are finding the TDD
relay service less than convenient. Faster than 2400 would be OK, too,
if it's not too expensive.


Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  Taronga Park BBS  [phone]/n/8/1
 Taronga Park.    'U`       "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 91 16:05:24 -0400
From: Jonathan Eunice <[e-mail]>
Subject: Serious RFI Problem
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jonathan Eunice)
Organization: University of Pittsburgh Computer Science


I've just moved to a hill upon which a radio transmitter is located.
And while I didn't anticipate it, I guess it should come as no
surprise that I'm having a very serious problem of radio interference
with my telephone service, affecting both voice and data. I'm hoping
that some net.wisdom will help solve/limit the problem.

I can often hear a particular radio station very strongly over the
phone. Both our Panasonic two-line and AT&T one-line phones are
affected.  The silly "RFI filter" gizmos sold at Radio Shack, etc have
>nil< effect.  Our telephone company says, "Your lines are clean. It's
your phones that are picking up the radio." They suggest buying some
very old style telephones without much electronics in them; they say
these will be less susceptible to interference. Buying obsolete
equipment is, IMO, a poor solution. On the other hand, if there were
decent RFI-immune phones available, I will buy new equipment.

The problem also occurs on data (2400 bps) transmissions. It happens
with different intensitites on my Dove FAX/data and PCPI data-only
modems, but does happen on both. Sometimes 10cps of garbage characters
will stream out, though it is often only .05-4 cps of garbage.
Anything above .01 cps is very difficult to work with, IMO.

So, what can I do? New equipment perhaps, but which? Shielding or
filtering for the equipment? Blame the telco? Complain to/sue the
radio station?  Bomb the radio tower? Help!


Jonathan Eunice   [e-mail]    412-488-1368

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 91 00:16:00 EDT
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Miscellaneous Questions: COCOTS, Michigan Bell, LATAs


I have some unrelated questions that I would like to get answers to.
Please forgive me if some of these topics have been covered before,
but I have only been receiving this newsgroup for a month or two and
haven't seen any of these discussed.

1) COCOT question: A friend of mine frequently travels and has run
across many COCOT's that do not allow access to other carriers using
the 10XXX codes (or that have other quirks, such as you can dial 10288
 + 0 but not 10288 +0 + area code + number, or that recognize 10288 but
not other 10XXX codes, or that let you use the 10XXX codes but then
disable the tone pad so you can't key in a calling card number).  He
asked me if there is any place you can get a copy of the actual law
covering this aspect of COCOT's - in other words, what are they
supposed to legally allow, and what can you do if they're not in
compliance with the law?

2) Quirky ESS: I live in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan (906 area code,
632 and 635 exchanges).  Michigan Bell now offers custom ringing
service in most areas of the state (the service where you can have
multiple numbers on the same line with different ringing patterns),
but not in this exchange.  I know the switch is ESS but wonder why
it's not capable of providing this service (according to Michigan
Bell).  This switch is known to have other quirks (biggest one I've
noted is that calls to 950 (calling card access numbers) are allowed
from residence, business, and "coinless" public phones, but disallowed
from "real" Michigan Bell coin phones ... you reach a recording, but I
can't recall the exact wording of the recording offhand).

Mind you, this is in an exchange that was theoretically equal-access
capable back in '84 or '85, but that for some reason didn't really
make it fully available to other carriers until early 1990 (it's also
an exchange in which Michigan Bell was directly sending calls to Bell
Canada exchanges in the 705 Area Code until something like three years
after divestiture took place ... I knew immediately when they finally
started routing those calls via AT&T because my transmission quality
on voice and modem calls went to pieces ... sounded like the calls
(which had previously had local sound quality) were being routed via
China ... that finally ended when fiber optic cables arrived here in
'89).

3) LATA boundaries: The Michigan Public Service Commission has ordered
Michigan Bell and GTE (the two providers of toll service in Michigan)
to begin offering an optional Adjacent Exchange Toll Calling Plan
(this is new as of June 19.  Michigan Bell has 60 days and GTE has 90
days to implement it).  It will offer a block of calling to adjacent
exchanges for a fixed rate (30 minutes for $1.25/month, or two hours
for $5.00/month, with calls beyond those times discounted 30 percent.
Residence customers only may also purchase an unlimited time calling
set up within the LATA boundaries in the first place, but what I don't
understand is what gives the Federal government the right to restrict
INTRASTATE calls in this manner.

It would seem to me that the states should have the right to decide
whether phone companies can handle intrastate, inter-LATA calls.  What
I'm wondering is, is this something that only Judge Greene can change,
or could the federal government pass a law giving this right back to
the states?  Who should I write to in order to request that this right
be given back to the states (if it's Judge Greene, I would need an
address)? Or is this just something that can't be changed?  I hope not
because the LATA boundaries messed up some other good calling plans
for many folks, but this really hurts because it ruins a much-needed
calling plan for some folks who just happen to live next to a LATA
boundary.

Any comments on any of the above are much appreciated!


Jack Decker    [e-mail]
Via D'Bridge 1:232/10  07/10 19:43
Jack Decker, via 1:120/183 (Great Lakes Internet<->Fidonet Gateway)
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: {...}!uunet!mailrus!umich!wsu-cs!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

From: halcyon![e-mail]
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Subject: Oregon State Telecom Policy
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 09:24:21 PDT


The Oregon Legislature recently provided an interesting example of a
step toward development and implementation of "information policy" by
a state government.

SB1208, per the Senate Committee on Telecom & Consumer Affairs staff
summary, states an overall goal that all Oregonians should have
affordable access to an integrated private and public telecommunications
infrastructure that provides voice, data and image information
services. The measure sets forth goals for that infrastructure, for
education and for access both within state government and for the
people of the state. The measure outlines a structure for determining
the present state of infrastructure, education and access, and
for developing legislation to meet the identified goals.

There was testimony that state government should use its position as
the largest telecommunications customer in the state to leverage the
development of the public network.

Amendments give to the state Economic Development Department(EDD) the
job of researching and developing recommendations for a Strategic
Telecommunications Infrastructure Plan.  EDD's recommendations are to
be presented to the Committee on Trade and Economic Development by
June 30, 1992. That committee will in turn develop legislation for
1993 for implementing the Plan.


Peter Marshall

  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA
                           PEP, V.32, V.42

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #533
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16245;
          14 Jul 91 2:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19546;
          13 Jul 91 22:18 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23030;
          13 Jul 91 21:12 CDT
Date:     Sat, 13 Jul 91 21:00:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #534
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Jul 91 21:00:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 534

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Harold Warp's Pioneer Village [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Harold Warp's Pioneer Village [Mike Morris]
    Re: "Give Me a Line" Scam [Andy Sherman]
    Re: "Give Me a Line" Scam [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Exchange Upgrades in Australia [Brendan Jones]
    Re: Telemarketing: Fight Back! [Ronald Greenberg]
    Re: Country Direct Numbers [Susan J. Winston]
    Re: Another Outage? [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Why Hotels Use AOS's [Dave Close]
    Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [Rob Knauerhase]
    Re: "Intercept" Anti-Theft System [[e-mail]]
    Re: Automatic Follow Me Roaming [[e-mail]]
    Sprint Dropping Calls From 415 to SoCal [John L. Shelton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 06 Jul 91 21:43:44 CST
From: Jim Redelfs <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Harold Warp's Pioneer Village
Reply-To: ivgate!macnet![e-mail]
Organization: Macnet Omaha


Pat, the Telecom Moderator wrote:

> ... a TELECOM Digest reader ... enclosed a photo of an old piece of
> telecom gear on display in a little museum called "Harold Warp's
> Pioneer Village"

An excellent piece, Pat, but I wanted to suggest that to describe
Pioneer Village as "little" is quite inaccurate.

Pioneer Village is a large, sprawling private attraction that
encompases MANY acres of land.  No tourist trap, this place offers
something of interest to ANYONE that is fascinated by the trappings of
bygone times.

If you are travelling across Nebraska on Interstate 80, be sure to
allow a few hours to peruse one of the most unique and expansive
museums in the Midwest!


JR
Tabby 2.2
MacNetOmaha(402)289-2899 Proud member Omaha SuperNet (1:285/14)

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 15:31:16 PDT
From: Mike Morris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Harold Warp's Pioneer Village


There are still a few phone booths in Los Angeles -- and I was using
one a few days ago.  It still had it's manufacturers decal on it --
cracked but readable: Wavell Showcase and Fixture Co., Long Beach, CA.

I haven't had the time to see if they are still in business, or what
the current price is, but ...

Lastly, the Ambassador Hotel is being demolished and gutted.  My
father had an office nearby, and I still remember having lunch at the
Coconut Grove.  I also remember using the old phone booths there (with
three-slot WeCo rotary phones).  Maybe someone is salvaging them - I
hope so.


Mike Morris   WA6ILQ   PO Box 1130
Arcadia, CA. 91077     818-447-7052 evenings

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

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Give Me a Line" Scam
Date: 12 Jul 91 17:04:22 GMT
Reply-To: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ


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

|> A customer of mine (a hotel that is a member of a big chain), just got
|> a very suspicious call from a 'Larry Harrington' perporting to be an
|> AT&T test man tracking some silly problem.

I presume everyone understands that the likelihood of this person
being one of ours doesn't compare favorably with that of snow in
hell ...

|> Anyway, she was certainly not going to give him the connection, and
|> the matter is going to be explored further ... but I just wonder how
|> often such a scam is sucessfully pulled off?

|> He would not leave a call back number, obviously, but I wonder if
|> anyone has any really 'cute' ideas of what could have been done at the
|> hotel end to trap this guy. She strung him along for a while rather
|> than simply bruskly saying sorry and hanging up in hopes he might
|> volunteer something useful for identifying him, but no such luck. Any
|> ideas?

One would be to get somebody else (like the manager or another clerk)
to call the police and/or the telco to get a trace while the guy is on
the line.


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 J Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Give Me a Line" Scam
Date: 13 Jul 91 06:16:22 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.  Tokyo Japan


[e-mail] (Michael L. Starr) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Thanks for your input on this, but I surely hope
> you do not meet the same fate as our erstwhile correspondent Randy
> Borow, late of AT&T in Oak Brook, IL. *He* let his fingers do the
> walking through a company database at his disposal and we know what
> happened to him. Of course, unlike Randy who told us factual
> information about what *was*, you are giving us information about what
> is not! I guess that's okay.   PAT]

Pat, I wouldn't be surprised if the identity of AT&T employees is at
least semi-public information.  Here's how to find out.  Call up some
local AT&T office and tell them that "I met an AT&T employee at a
convention last year named Larry Harrington, but I've lost his
business card.  Is there any way you can get me his phone number?"
Dollars to Donuts you'll get it.  If that doesn't work, then say "Ok,
well, could you get a message to him asking him to call me?"  It's
very likely that you'll at least find out whether or not the guy has a
listing.

Ahh, the joys of social engineering (not that I, or any of the gentle
readers of c.d.t would ever indulge...)


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


[Moderator's Note: The question is not so much what information is
public and what is not (although that also counts) as it is whether or
not an AT&T employee is under some sort of employment contract to give
it out. A lot of what Borow said could be located elsewhere ... still
they axed him.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Exchange Upgrades in Australia
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 17:22:26 +1000
From: [e-mail]


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

> Telecom Australia has its problems (like they're massively behind the
> times) but apparently charging for "Touch Tone" never occurred to them.

That seems a little harsh.  If Telecom Australia is so behind the
times how come it was the first operator to publicly offer ISDN in the
world?  How come Australia has the highest penetration rate in the
world of both Basic Rate and Primary Rate ISDN customers?

How come Telecom Australia had the world's first networked Credit Card
payphone?  Whilst Americans read over their credit card numbers to an
operator, or send the number via DTMF, we here in Oz just swipe the
card and have the transaction done in a fraction of a second using
X.25.

How come Australia has the highest penetration of EFTPOS terminals in
the world?  Has the most advanced EFTPOS network?  Is going to adopt
GSM Digital Cellular rather than DAMPS?

Hate to disillusion you ... but the USA does not have the most advanced
phone system in the world.  Only the most chaotic.

Oh yes, and Telecom Australia never charges for Touch Tone access.


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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 10:16:05 -0400
From: Ronald Greenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketing: Fight Back!


> HR 1304 unanimously passed the House Subcommittee on May 9, 1991, but
> the bill still has a long way to go.  A similar bill, HR 1304, was
> passed by the house but was defeated last year in the Senate.

Hmm, can somebody come up with a list of who voted against it in the
Senate?  Or tell me how to get it; I live in DC.  Then what we really
need is a list of their home phone numbers!


Ronald I. Greenberg    (Ron)        [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Do you conduct business at home? No? Then why do
you think the legislators should do it?   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 12:03:14 EDT
From: Susan J Winston <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Country Direct Numbers
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Warren
Burstein) writes:

> In Israel (and in other countries, too, I have heard), there is a
> service called AT&T Direct.  It sounds like the other side of the
> other "... Direct" services.  You dial a local toll-free number
> (that's 177 over here) and are connected to an operator somewhere in
> the US (I haven't asked where, but accents differ).  You give them a
> US number (I never tried to call Alaska) and an ATT local (not
> international) card number or make it collect.

I happen to have a USADirect Service card in front of me.  You can
call the US directly from over 66 countries using a dial access code
(different for each country).  If you want one of these handy wallet
sized cards, you can call 1-800-874-4000 ext. 359, or from overseas
call collect at 412-553-7458 ext. 359.


Susan Winston

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another Outage?
Date: 12 Jul 91 17:39:56 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

> STPs are (at this time) only involved with local and near-toll
> traffic.  The IECs are not yet connected to the LECs via SS7.

Not totally true. Bell South and one of the other Bell's has a few SS7
links to MCI (or one of the other major IEC's). (I just read it
resently in {Network World} or {Comunication Week} or one of those
types of publications.)


Bill

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

From: Dave Close <shared![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Hotels Use AOS's
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 18:08:06 GMT
Organization: Shared Financial Systems


Several people have debated hotel AOS as a quality issue, which it
clearly is.  However, as I understand it, the principal reason budget
chains like Motel 6 do not charge for local calls is neither value nor
quality.  It is practicality.  They ask customers to pay for their
rooms *in advance*, in total, then do not provide any way to add
additional charges to the room bill.  No room service, etc.  What you
pay at night is the *total* cost, nothing extra possible.  It is
possible to leave at any time, at night or early in the morning, with
no need to check out.

With that scheme, Motel 6 found it impossible for years to offer
phones (and even charged extra for a TV).  With smarter key systems,
they now permit you to make calls, so long as you have some way to pay
for them without charging to your room.  Credit card, collect, etc.
Free local calls are basically offered because they can't block them
without disabling the phone completely.

To the extent that there is any question about the traveler's
expectations, note that they now include both the phone and a TV
standard.  Customers demanded it.


           Dave Close         Shared Financial Systems          Dallas
            [e-mail]       vmail [phone]
            uunet!shared!davec       fax [phone]
    My comments are my opinions and may not be shared by Shared.

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

From: Rob Knauerhase <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1991 21:41:30 GMT


In <[e-mail]> mission![e-mail] writes:

> I have GTE service in Orange County, CA, and when I call my own
> number, I hear quiet beeping.  If I then hang up, the phone rings.  At
> this point, someone else in the house can answer (I'll pick it up when
> the ringing stops) and we have an intercom (the quiet beeping
> continues, though).  I find this very useful, certainly much more so
> than a busy signal.

> Is there another reason for this feature?  Do any other operating
> companies provide it?

We used to be able to do something similar in our Ohio Bell exchange
(614-876 in Columbus) -- dialing 955-xxxx (where xxxx were the last
four digits of your phone number) would give an unbreakable dial tone.
From that, you flashed the hook which produced a hum tone (constant
tone) and then hung up.  In a second or two the phone would ring.
Answering it got you the same hum tone, but it was low enough that
people on extensions could speak to you.

Very handy if you're lazy.  Unfortunately, it went away with the
arrival of (I assume) a new switch (this one also sounds the "call
waiting" beep without an audible click to either party; the only way
for the second party to tell the first is receiving a call is that the
beep masks out the first party's speech for its duration.  Any idea
which switch this is?).

The other trick I've heard of along these lines was in GTE land in
small-town Indiana (219-563) where one could dial 415-563-xxxx (where
xxxx was _anyone's_ number) and it would ring that number, producing
loud static when it was answered.  No idea why -- anyone else have
clues?


Rob Knauerhase
[e-mail]     Intel Developer Tools Organization (for the summer)
[e-mail]        Univ. of Illinois, Dept. of CS, Gigabit Study Group

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

Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Saturday, 13 Jul 1991 17:16:46 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: "Intercept" Anti-Theft System


Does anyone have any experience or can tell us about the actual track
record of the "Intercept" anti-theft system in actual use? What is the
bottom line?

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 09:50:37 PDT
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automatic Follow Me Roaming

> me service to begin with, or you won't get this new feature, and when
> traveling outside the Ameritech service area, you'll still have to use
> *18/*19 as always.

I had Follow Me Roaming on my Cellular One/Chicago phone for about a
month.  I found it annoying to have to enter *31 to tell the system
where I was every day and every time I passed into a new system. It
was much easier giving people who needed to call me the roamer port
number.

I only tried roaming like this in Sacramento and the SF Bay area.  In
Sacramento, after entering *31 the system required me to enter my own
MID. I guess their switch isn't sophisticated enough to figure out who
I am and tell tell that to the forwarding server.  In SF, the FMR
didn't work at all.  The switch didn't recognize *31.  Cell One/SF had
no idea how to enable FMR either. Cell One/Chicago insisted that they
had an agreement with SF and that it should work.  I finally cancelled
the whole thing because it was such a pain in the neck to use when it
worked and because it didn't work where I roam most often.

A question still remains in my mind, however.  If I enter a foreign
system as a roamer, I can receive calls through the roam port because
the system knows I'm there. Why then doesn't this foreign system say
"aha! He's *really* here from Chicago.  Let's tell the Chicago system
that he's here so they can forward calls this way if he's got FMR."
They already contact my home system to verify there is a legitimate
place to bill calls.  They even (in most places) *charge* for this.


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

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 09:16:23 -0700
From: "John L. Shelton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Dropping Calls From 415 to SoCal


Approximatly 1/4 of our calls to southern California fail to go
through; usually there is no audible indication of a problem; our
callers just complain that "nothing happens" and give up after a
while.  Calls routed over AT&T (dialing 10288 + ) go through just
fine.

Sprint claims there's nothing wrong with their network, that it must
be a Pac Bell problem.

Are we getting the run-around?  Are there things I should (or could)
check on?


John Shelton

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #534
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21715;
          15 Jul 91 4:11 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02751; 12 Jul 91 14:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25776;
          12 Jul 91 2:49 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09062;
          12 Jul 91 1:40 CDT
Date:     Fri, 12 Jul 91 1:00:15 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #531
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 12 Jul 91 01:00:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 531

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why Hotels Use AOS's [Dennis Blyth]
    Re: How to Start Up Your Personal 900 Number [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: Telemarketing: Fight Back! [Weaver Hickerson]
    Re: Cost of Providing Services vs. Actual Charge [Doctor Math]
    Re: Operational Definitions [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: "Give Me a Line" Scam [Michael L. Starr]
    Re: Another Outage? [John Higdon]
    Re: Country Direct Numnbers [Warren Burstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dennis Blyth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Hotels Use AOS's
Date: 11 Jul 91 18:53:30 GMT
Reply-To: Dennis Blyth <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCR International - Europe Group, Dayton


[Previous post about customer satisfaction in hotels, AOS, free local
calls, blocked access to AT&T, putting coin boxes on toilets and hotel
elevators, etc.]

Jim, alias "the bottom feeder", from an AOS that started providing
service to an un-named hotel chain, claimed he knew a lot about what's
important / determinant(s) of customer satisfaction with hotel visits.
With his hotel and telecom industry background, I suspect he knows
more than most of us, but I question his 'customer perspective' and I
submit that you and I as frequent travelers have differing views of
what determines 'customer satisfaction' and 'quality'.

Most people think customer satisfaction and quality are related.
Quality happens when an organization meets or exceeds customer
expectations, so customer satisfaction is a function of *customer
expectations*.  With me so far?

BTW, AT&T, MCI, RBOCs, etc. spend a large sum measuring and tracking
customer satisfaction and expectations.

Back to the point:

I submit that most business people *expect* a working phone in their
hotel / motel room, backed up with a service (electronic or human)
that accepts messages accurately and delivers them, at appropriate
timing, to the room renter.  The telephone should allow one to connect
with other rooms in the hotel, the front desk, room service, etc.,
plus other locations outside the hotel.  Connections should be quick,
audible quality clear (not necessarily 'hear a pin drop' :-) but
reasonably loud with a minimum of background noise, static, etc.

Most hotel (and other) market research says that people don't like to
pay for things they don't use / need.  Hence the 'budget hotel'
segment, with no or limited lobby, and other limited features.
However, despite the ads which say 'sleep cheap', the words 'budget'
and 'cheap' have negative connotations to many (I think of the
'no-tell motel' :-) , so the 'budget' hotels are trying to stress
'value'.  One of the ways they can communicate *value* at a very
modest cost is 'free local calls'.

The big, expensive hotels with their prestige locations, fancy lobby,
pool, jacuzzi, etc. don't need to communicate 'value', but they do
need to communicate 'quality' to the consumer.  So they can charge for
local calls and *usually* get away with it.  Nothing illegal or
immoral, IMHO.

I digress: it is possible with marketing research to pinpoint the
optimal package of product features using 'conjoint analysis' or
'strategic choice analysis' marketing research techniques, which will
help one design a product package targeted at any specific market
segment.  (One can work it either way: (1) design the product, then
identify what market segment it will appeal to or (2) given a market
segment, design an ideal mix of product(s) for it.  So, we can also
easily measure customer satisfaction and what drives / influences it
with surveys and a multiple regression analysis.

I digress again.  BTW, these principles apply equally to the telephone
and computer business.  Quality to the computer purchaser / user means
somewhat different things to different segments, but in the main
customers *expect* reliability, solutions to their (business)
problems, speed (what that means is defined specifically different for
different segments), ease of use, convenient and secure connections to
the outside world, fast response to service requests, getting the
product fixed right the first time, expansion capability and,
protection of their computer investment (which to many, means an
'open' system.  (Quick advert: AT&T believes, correctly IMHO, that NCR
offers these things and that they are high consistant with AT&T's own
offerings and corporate culture.  end of advert.)

I haven't seen the results of any hotel patron market survey about
phone service, but IMHO business people want fast local connections
(at a 'reasonable' price), access to toll free 800 numbers, and access
to the long distance carrier of *their* (own) choice.  Personally, as
a frequent business traveler, I don't mind it when an AOS is *clearly
and prominantly posted* (like at Wilson Inns, a 'budget' chain), but
where access to AT&T (pardon me, I should have said 'the carrier of
*my* choice, and sometimes that is MCI) is easily available (thru
10xxx+).

The worst bottom feeder I stayed at was in Manhattan, near Penn
Station, where 'toll free 800 numbers were blocked -- you could reach
them for 65 cents, I recall -- no LD except the AOS -- refused AT&T --
even 'directory assistance' cost 65 cents, and although the pay phones
accepted Visa/Master Charge, the rates were outrageous.  Maybe it's my
Scottish background.

Anybody else wish to debate what 'quality' and 'customer satisfaction'
mean in the telecom, computer, or hotel industry?  Please e-mail or
continue this thread (whichever our Moderator permits).


Dennis Blyth, Marketing Research, NCR Europe Group
[e-mail]   Voice: 1-513-445-6580


[Moderator's Note: I've got no objections if we could deal only with
the *telecom* part of your invitation.   PAT]

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

From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How to Start Up Your Personal 900 Number
Date: 11 Jul 91 13:28:47 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patton M.
Turner) writes:

>                           PHONE AMERICA (TM)
>            Todays Fastest Growing HI-TECH Income Opportunity
>     THE MONEY MAKING MACHINE of the Exploding "1-900 Phone Industry"

>* People who dial your Phone America (TM) 900 number benefit in many ways    *
>* They too can take advantage of the same opportunity to make money promoting*
>* and advertising the PHONE AMERICA (TM) "800/900 Business Opportunity       *
>* Showcase" 900 line.  When they call they'll be issued a Phone America (TM) *
>* 900 number.  IN ADDITION, they'll Discover how they can Capitalize from a  *

>Q.  How do I get paid?
>A.  As a Phone America (TM) 900 proprietor you earn $12.69 for EVERY CALL
>    placed to your 900 number.  MCI 900 guarantees all BILLING, COLLECTIONS,

> [Moderator's Note: Yes, I have a comment. This is one of the rottenest

This sounds like it fits quite conveinently into the defintion of a
pyramid scheme: (paraphrased)

   "A business that promotes that you make money mainly through the
    recruitment of others, rather than through product sales."

Some states require that at least 70% of a dealer's income come from
product sales. Since the only way to make money in this is to have
others join in the 'game' it seems it would be illegal in many states.
Send the flyer to the appropriate commision in Florida; they love to
go after these types of cases. If the flyer was mailed to you then
take it to your postmaster, I am QUITE sure he would be interested.
And then there is the FCC ...


VoiceNet: Scott Hinckley | ATTnet: [phone] | Compuserve: 70461,1706
Internet: [e-mail] | UUCP:...!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott
US snail: 110 Pine Ridge Rd / Apt# 608/ Huntsville / AL / 35801
DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions

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

Subject: Re: Telemarketing: Fight Back!
Organization: Holos Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA
Date: 10 Jul 91 15:54:47 EDT (Wed)
From: Weaver Hickerson <holos0![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> asgard!barrett@boulder.
colorado.edu (Dave Barrett) writes:

> Are you tired of receiving unsolicited "junk" telephone calls?  Bob
> Bulmash was.  He has become the telemarketer's worst nightmare by
> forming an organization to fight back.

> Forms for joining Private Citizen are available by sending e-mail to
> me.  I will post them if demand warrants.

Is this the outfit that charges twenty dollars a year for their
"service"?  What exactly is the service, and what else might one get
for the twenty dollars.

Figure 1000 members, thats $20,000 revenues for this "service".  The
cost of mailing those nastygrams is negligible, considering that they
are mailed out "twice a year" to the offending companies.  Probably
bulk rate form letters with the proper name and address stuck in.

I dislike telemarketing calls as much as the next guy.  Sorta wish I
had figured out this scheme for making twenty bucks a year off of
folks for doing a twice a year mass mailing.  (Yes, I have a
database/word processing system and a printer at home.  Maybe I could
create some competition.  Yeah.  Ill do the same "service", I'll be an
"organization" and you can send me your money instead.  Then, call me
and provide me with the name/address of somebody you want to send a
letter to and I'll send them one.  Ignore the fact that your call will
probably cost you more than the stamp I'll use, and that's on top of
the twenty dollars a year.  Limited number of memberships available!!!
Call now!!!)

Sorry, I don't buy it.


Weaver Hickerson   Voice [phone]   :  ..!edu!gatech!holos0!wdh


[Moderator's Note: I believe his mailings go out certified mail so
there is proof they were received and noted by the telemarketer. That
would bring the cost per letter (including certified postage, printing,
stuffing and addressing the envelopes) up a bit. I believe he also
gives specific instruction, on a case by case basis, to members who
wish to instigate legal action against a telemarketer, and he makes
referrals to attornies in the member's community when professional
help is needed with the litigation.  I doubt he squanders the money.  PAT]

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

From: Doctor Math <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cost of Providing Services vs. Actual Charge
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 00:57:28 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department


[e-mail] (Arun Kandappan) writes:

>     NJ Bell still charges $.99 for a month of Touch-Tone.> ...

>     The next item is the Call Waiting charge. It is $4.50/month.
> My basic charge is $18.xx. Is it really that expensive to provide Call
> Waiting or is it just because of a monopoly ?

>     Are these charges similar around the nation ?

It's not $4.50 a month around here. Indiana Bell doesn't itemise
charges on their bills. They list all the charges in the front of the
phone book and expect you to look it up for yourself. Ah. Page 32. $3.
Interestingly, the phone company is billed as "an Ameritech Company";
Ameritech Publishing prints the phone books for several states in the
area.  Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan for sure.

As to whether it's "really that expensive", could be .. the guy who
gave me the tour of the switch mentioned something about software
upgrades costing millions of dollars. Let's say the "call waiting"
family of fine features cost $5 million. Furthermore assume that 50%
of the 200,000 individuals (telephones, really) in the local area have
call waiting.  Around here, call waiting is $3/month, so that's
$300,000/month or $3.6 million a year. Interesting.

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

From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Operational Definitions
Date: 11 Jul 91 14:17:42 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: I try not to


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dr. M.Q.
Dracks) writes:

> CRACKIST- Essentially, the pre-cursor of "Hacker", but more specific.
> This term refered to Hackers of not computer SYSTEMS, but software
> copy-protections schemes: only. CRACKISTS have been around since at
> least 1980, and the issue of software protection peaked around the

I liked your definitions but must disagree here. I remember 'Hacker'
from when I first started computing in 1979 and I am quite sure it
predates me by a reasonable margin. I also believe that the term
pirating software (which was a take-off from the same term in the
music industry) predates the term Crack(er)(ist).


VoiceNet:Scott Hinckley | ATTnet:[phone] | Compuserve:70461,1706
Internet:[e-mail] | UUCP:...!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott
US snail:110 Pine Ridge Rd / Apt# 608/ Huntsville / AL / 35801
DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions

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

From: "Michael L. Starr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Give Me a Line" Scam
Reply-To: "Michael L. Starr" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T HRISO, Morristown, NJ
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 18:33:28 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Barton F. Bruce) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 529, Message 12 of 15

> A customer of mine (a hotel that is a member of a big chain), just got
> a very suspicious call from a 'Larry Harrington' perporting to be an
> AT&T test man tracking some silly problem.

Just a point of interest: In all of AT&T, there is no 'Larry
Harrington'; as a matter of fact, I could not find even a male
Harrington in my database with the first initial of 'L'.


Michael Starr   AT&T Human Resources


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for your input on this, but I surely hope
you do not meet the same fate as our erstwhile correspondent Randy
Borow, late of AT&T in Oak Brook, IL. *He* let his fingers do the
walking through a company database at his disposal and we know what
happened to him. Of course, unlike Randy who told us factual
information about what *was*, you are giving us information about what
is not! I guess that's okay.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 10:14 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Another Outage?


Justin Leavens <[e-mail]> writes:

> I was trying to call Chicago this afternoon from here in LA and I
> couldn't get through. Apparently an outage affecting the East coast,
> Europe, Mexico, and other international calls.  Who's got the scoop on
> this one?  Another STP failure?

Spot outages have been common on long distance service since time
began. All it takes is a major cable cut or other failure and traffic
will back up. Just because a particular aspect of modern telephony
gets press coverage does not mean that every failure from then on is a
result of that trendy event.

STPs are (at this time) only involved with local and near-toll
traffic.  The IECs are not yet connected to the LECs via SS7.
Therefore, if you are having a long distance problem, look first to
the carrier. Did you try other carriers? I can almost assure you that
an STP was NOT involved.


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

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

From: Warren Burstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Country Direct Numbers
Date: 11 Jul 91 12:00:04 GMT
Organization: WorldWide Software


In Israel (and in other countries, too, I have heard), there is a
service called AT&T Direct.  It sounds like the other side of the
other "... Direct" services.  You dial a local toll-free number
(that's 177 over here) and are connected to an operator somewhere in
the US (I haven't asked where, but accents differ).  You give them a
US number (I never tried to call Alaska) and an ATT local (not
international) card number or make it collect.

We use it because ATT charges are cheaper than Bezeq (the Israeli
phone company), even after adding the fee for the card.  The "Dry
Bones" comic strip has a smiling character explain "and it costs more
to call out of Israel than to call into Israel so ex-Knesset membjers
can have free phone calls for life".  In the last panel his dog asks,
"Why is this man smiling?"

It also saves us from having to bill long-distance calls to our head
office, they get the bill for the calling card.


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #531
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23688;
          15 Jul 91 5:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02933;
          14 Jul 91 21:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11747;
          14 Jul 91 20:37 CDT
Date:     Sun, 14 Jul 91 19:40:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #537
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 14 Jul 91 19:40:08 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 537

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Another Story From 1970's BC Tel [Richard C. Pitt]
    B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices [Patt Bromberger]
    Are English Phones Usable on the Dutch Network? [Hans van Staveren]
    Lightning Protection for Modems [C. Lance Moxley]
    Need Telephone Interface Circuit [[e-mail]]
    Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [John Higdon]
    Re: Ma Bell Didn't Have a Virus [John Higdon]
    Re: Long Distance Calling, Then and Now [David Rabson]
    Re: Party Lines Still in Use in NH? [Yoram Eisenstadter]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun Jul 14 15:32:08 1991
From: centavx![e-mail]
Subject: Another Story From 1970's BC Tel


So after the hasty transfer from Weldwood's PBX site to the one at The
Bayshore Inn, I was again presented with the task of helping install a
system from the bare room on up. But someone had somehow contrived to
screw this project up even before we got there.

It appears that the equipment we were to install consisted of quite a
few pre-constructed switch modules (made no doubt at the C.T.& S.
Plant) that wouldn't fit through the convoluted hallways to the switch
room. In order to get them into the room, they were to be delivered
before the roof was poured (concrete) and put in by crane.

This was all well and good, but in order to meet the construction
deadlines, the floor of the switch room was to be poured with quick
curing cement, while the rest of the structure was to get the normal
seven day cure stuff.  Somehow the loads of cement got mixed up, and
the quick cure was poured in the outside hallways and regular cure was
poured in the room.  When I got there, it was just in time to hear the
job foreman tell everybody "Well, we have put a forest of metal braces
under the room to hold the weight. When we come back in the morning,
if it is still there we'll put it up, and if it's in the basement,
we'll ship it back."

In the morning, it was still there, so we began putting up the iron
frames.  One major problem with this that affected the performance of
the system from day one was that the slower curing cement caused huge
quantities of dust in the room just from us walking and drilling the
required holes. We used 'dustbane' daily, swept almost hourly, and
still the room ended up with the "worst dust problem" the foreman and
supervisor had ever seen.  It was so bad, that eventually the room was
carpeted, and was probably the only such carpeted switch room around.
The consensus was that the switches wouldn't last more than a couple
of years due to the abrasive dust that got into them even before they
were put up.

The basic layout of the telephone area was two rooms separated by a
half wall, with the half being the top half.  This was to accomodate
the operator positions which backed onto the switch room, neatly
filling the bottom half of the wall. We built the operator consoles (I
think there were five positions) in place. The positions were metal
frames with nicely finished wood panels holding pre-wired banks of 600
room position plugs, and a bank of cords and switches on the desk.

We had split the crew into three teams, one for the switch room, one
for the operator consoled, and one to build and test the meter and
switch cases that would be mounted at the front desk. I was in the
crew putting up the iron and main switch gear, but I got to see what
was being done on the other crews, and to help when they needed a hand
with heavier things.

The crew on the meter/switch cases had the job of mounting 600
solenoid activated, manually reset countewrs into a cabinet about 3'
square and 6" deep. A similar cabinet, 2' square held 600 push on/push
off switches to activate the message waiting light on each room phone.
These cabinets were to be made in the switch room with 200' cable
'tails', then carried about 100 yards through narrow corridors and the
main lobby, to rest at the front desk and be wired into the old switch
room behind it.

All went according to plan for these cases until the day we moved
them. The meter case had three cables; two - 300 pair and one - 100
pair, each 200 feet long, done up in bundles. The case weighed enough
that it took four people to carry it, and two each for the 300 pair
bundles and one for the 100 pair bundle. So seven people trudged off
with this load, down a flight of stairs, through some 5' wide
corridors, and out into the lobby. Behind us came the switch case with
a similar number of people, since the trick was to be in the lobby
with our dirty clothes etc. as little as possible.

We got the two cases down to the lobby desk, and put them on the
counter in their respective positions, but not bolted down. The cables
had to be unrolled and strung through the conduits from the back of
their resting places to the old meter room. I was one of two carrying
a 300 pair cable, so we and the other pair on the other cable started
walking backwards across the lobby unrolling our cable as we went. The
one fellow (I'm sorry, I forget his name, but it probably is just as
well) on the 100 pair bundle started doing the same thing, but didn't
look at what he was doing - he was rolling the cable up - and as he
walked backward, he pulled the whole meter case over off the counter
onto the floor. Six week's work by two men gone in ten seconds. I'm
not superstitious, but it was a Friday the 13th.

They shipped the mess back to the Tenth Avenue plant, and built a new
cabinet around the switches, replacing only the ones that had been
actually broken.  It was back in about two weeks.  The installation of
the call waiting cabinet went without a hitch.

As the day for cut-over from the old switch to the new switch
approached, the problems with the cement dust became more and more
apparent. Much of my time was spent cleaning relay and rotary switch
contacts trying to make the system work reliably. Since all of the
switches had been in the room from the first day, all of them had been
subjected to the dust, and as we 'hotted up' each bank, it became more
evident that the packaging had not kept the dust out. Right up to
final cut-over, there was a crew cleaning -- a task which should have
been needed only once or twice a year. I'm not certain that this was
the first installation to use the pre-wired switch banks, or if it was
the last -- but from what I overheard between supervisors in
discussion, it sure wasn't the best idea anyone had had.

And more to come.


The CEN-TA Group - David Ingram & Associates - Real Estate - Tax - Computers
                   Richard C. Pitt   System Administrator
             Voice 604-980-0321    Fax [phone] or 604-987-9364

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

From: Patt Bromberger <[e-mail]>
Subject: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices
Reply-To: Patt Bromberger <[e-mail]>
Organization: City College of New York - Science Computing Facility
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1991 16:34:21 GMT


We'll be moving shortly from New York City to Vancouver, British
Columbia and would appreciate recommendations with respect to any
companies in British Columbia that offer long distance telephone
service because we will still be calling the States very frequently.

Our current service is provided by AT&T and when I spoke to customer
service about the equipment we still rent from AT&T the representative
said to just unplug the phone and take it with us :-)

We'd just like to know if there are better choices than AT&T.


Patt Bromberger   [e-mail]  or    [e-mail]

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

From: Hans van Staveren <[e-mail]>
Subject: Are English Phones Usable on the Dutch Network?
Date: 14 Jul 91 11:24:42 GMT


Yesterday I tried to connect an English phone, specifically the
British Telecom Freeway, to a Dutch outlet. There seems to be a
problem with three-wire vs two-wire operation. Details below. Is this
supposed to be possible? When I asked the Dutch PTT they claimed it
should be possible.

The phone has a four wire flat cable attached, in order red, blue,
green and white, where green is not connected internally.  The Dutch
outlet only has two separate wires.

If I connect red and blue to the outlet, the phone will dial, and you
can hold conversations, but it will not ring.  If I then connect the
white wire to the same post as the red, the phone will ring, but you
cannot dial or talk.

I am not a phone expert, but it looks like this telephone expects
three different signal posts. Could this be true?


Hans van Staveren    Amsterdam, Holland

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

From: C Lance Moxley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lightning Protection for Modems
Organization: AISS/Telecom University of Illinois--Urbana-Champaign
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1991 14:03:23 GMT


The other night I lost my third modem in three years due to an
electrical storm. All three times the phone line was the culprit. This
time it was a TrailBlazer Plus. My question is, what are some ways to
avoid this problem in the future? Luckily these modems are owned by
the University, so it doesn't cost me anything. But I'm going to miss
my TrailBlazer for awhile! Is there anything the phone company can do?

Please post replies, I'm sure I'm not the only one who could use this
information.

Thanks!


C Lance Moxley            Internet: [e-mail]
AISS/Telecommunications   BITNET: UNETCLM at UICVMC
University of Illinois    UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!Lance-Moxley

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Need Telephone Interface Circuit
Date: 14 Jul 91 23:37:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


   I need a technical book on how a typical residential phone system
works (from an electronics point of view - how to take the phone on
and off hook, how to transmit and receive information, etc.  Can
anyone either provide me with a minimal telephone interface circuit,
or point me towards a good book on the subject?

   Also, where are the TELECOM Digests (and possibly an index) kept?

Thanks.


[Moderator's Note: Back issues of the Digest and many other telecom
related files are in the Telecom Archives, which is available using
anonymous FTP.  ftp lcs.mit.edu, then cd telecom-archives.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 91 09:23 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return


mission![e-mail] writes:

> I have GTE service in Orange County, CA, and when I call my own
> number, I hear quiet beeping.  If I then hang up, the phone rings.  At
> this point, someone else in the house can answer (I'll pick it up when
> the ringing stops) and we have an intercom (the quiet beeping
> continues, though).  I find this very useful, certainly much more so
> than a busy signal.

> Is there another reason for this feature?

This is the GTE legacy of inadequate telephone facilities. Since GTE
always underbuilt, it was always necessary to have switches capable of
dealing with party lines. This "feature" you have uncovered is the way
it would have been necessary in the not-so-distant past to call one of
your neighbors. There is one thing you will find in any switch GTE
uses: a better than average provision for ringback. Now you know why.

> Do any other operating companies provide it?

Of course.


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

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 91 09:14 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Ma Bell Didn't Have a Virus


[e-mail] (Neil Shannon) quotes the {Oregonian}:

> "An official of the company that made the software, DSC Communications
> of Plano, Texas, told a congressional sub-committee that the outages
> were caused by a software modification it made in April ... the company
> modified the software at the request of Pacific Bell."

But apparently, the company thought these changes to be worthy of
sending to all the other RBOC, even if they were not properly tested.
Quite frankly, this is a welcome incident: DSC is an arrogant company
that has been in need of some humbling for some time.

> "The changes were made without subjecting them to the normally
> exacting tests, which he (Frank Perpiglia, DSC senior vice president)
> called 'an absolute mistake.'"

Yes, indeed. One that hopefully will send telcos to other manufacturers
of digital switching equipment, such as AT&T. At least AT&T's
arrogance results in worthy product -- on the telco side. Now on the
other hand, a Merlin is not worth the powder it would take to blow it
up ...


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

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 91 14:54:44 PDT
From: David Rabson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Calling, Then and Now


In comp.dcom.telecom, our Moderator writes that "even as late as 1960,
there were still a number of places served by manual exchanges in the
USA, and those people could not use DDD. Those of us who did have it
available still had to make many of our calls through the long
distance operator when calling manual exchanges."

It was still true much later than you think.  In the summer of 1980, I
was in the Los Angeles bus station and had to get through from a pay
phone to someone in Deep Springs, near Bishop, California.  My
recollection of the fifteen minutes it took to make the connection is
imperfect, but the conversation went something like this.

"Hello, operator?  I'd like to place a call to 714+054+181 Deep
Springs number two toll station."

"Excuse me, sir, could you please repeat that number?"

"Yes, it's 714 plus 054 plus 181 Deep Springs number two toll station."

"Uh, could you wait for me to get my supervisor?"

The supervisor knew what I was talking about but didn't know how to
make the call and so had to call in a third operator.  The third
operator had to call someone else still to look up -- in a book, not
on line -- how many quarters the call would cost.  Finally one of the
operators in Los Angeles got through to Bishop, and of course Bishop
knew how to ring the line.

Making calls in the reverse direction was much simpler; the people
there just picked up the receiver to make sure that no one was on the
line, put it down again, and turned the crank that sat where one might
have expected a dial a few times to get the attention of Bishop.  They
actually had a few older phones, the wooden wall-mounted kind with a
fixed microphone and only a receiver on the hook, but while I was
visiting they were used strictly for the local intercom.

As I understand, the exchange was finally disconnected some time
before '85.  The line was in a desert valley between two mountain
passes, and the road, although well-paved, was too narrow and
twisiting for telephone company repair trucks laden with telephone
poles.  Once every twenty years or so, it rains in that part of the
desert and rains hard enough to wash out many of the poles.  The last
time that had happened, AT&T had to fly replacement poles in by
helicopter.  So when the Bell System was broken up and the local
company permitted to charge some approximation of the actual cost of
providing service, the proposed telephone rates went up by a factor of
a thousand or so.  I believe the people on the line put in their own
microwave dish on the pass, and now their number can be dialed
directly.


David Rabson
Departments of Physics, University of British Columbia and McMaster University

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 91 18:22:54 EDT
From: Yoram Eisenstadter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Party Lines Still in Use in NH?


In article <[e-mail]> Paul W. Schleck writes:

> So what's up?  Have all party lines really been eliminated in the U.S.
> or is this some "special case" that doesn't count?

I can report that party lines are still alive and well elsewhere.  I
was up in the Adirondack Mountains in Upstate New York recently, and
the house I stayed at had a party line phone.  The local carrier up
there is Contel, not New York Telephone as I would have expected.  The
phone was a modern ITT tone-dial phone with a 66.66 Hz ringer.  The
exchange was 518/251, in North River, NY.


 ..Y

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #537
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08786;
          15 Jul 91 22:02 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03087;
          13 Jul 91 19:05 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20255;
          13 Jul 91 17:58 CDT
Date:     Sat, 13 Jul 91 17:36:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #532
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 13 Jul 91 17:36:10 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 532

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telephone Outage Due to Deliberate Cable Cut [Peter Knoppers]
    Major ATC Shareholder Sells Stock [David Leibold]
    Memories of BC Tel, 1970's [Richard C. Pitt]
    Party Lines Still in Use in NH? [Paul Schleck]
    Sick US West Building Followup [Jack Winslade]
    "Endorse This Check to Switch to MCI" [Jerry B. Altzman]
    Larry King Gets What He Deserves [Steve Forrette]
    Correction: New AT&T Call Me Card *Not* Always Restricted [Alan Toscano]
    Infamous Quotes About the Telephone [Dell H. Ellison]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Peter Knoppers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Outage Due to Deliberate Cable Cut
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1991 21:05:50 GMT


During the night from Monday to Tuesday a cable junction booth here in
Delft was broken into and some 2700 subscriber lines were cut. Two
cables were completely cut through and a third one was severely
damaged.

It seems that the perpetraters had to end their operation when they
blew a fuse. Evidently they used some electric cutting tool.

It took the phone company about 40 hours to get all circuits
operational again. During this time citizens in the area could use
(free of charge) a phone and fax facility housed in a small truck
operated by the phone company.

Among the damaged subscriber lines were most lines of the Delft
University of Technology, the internet link of the university and
(evidently) the data links of the two ATMs in the area.

The disturbance was detected when several alarms went off. When the
police went to investigate they found the junction booth broken open,
but the perpetrators were gone.

This information was collected from various local sources and personal
observation.


Peter Knoppers - [e-mail]

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

Subject: Major ATC Shareholder Sells Stock
From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 17:21:41 EDT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton


From an article in the Ft. Lauderdale {Sun-Sentinel} (12 July) there
was news of Rotterdam Ventures selling most of its stake in ATC
(Advanced Telecommunications Corp., a long distance carrier).
Rotterdam has about 22% of extant ATC shares. The owner of Rotterdam
also owns (and is chair) of Telesphere, which lost $27.6 M in the last
two quarters. Telesphere had sold off its long distance operations to
MCI; the concentration is on the 900 service.

ATC was reported to be the number four publicly-held long distance
firm with 15.7% operating profit margin, the largest of the carriers.


David Leibold  [e-mail]... and
** NEW ** --->   [e-mail]  or [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri Jul 12 09:33:21 1991
From: centavx![e-mail]
Subject: Memories of BC Tel, 1970's


Hi.

I've been watching this group for about a year now, and thought it was
about time to share some of my adventures with you.

I have been around electronics technology since high school, and spent
three years with 'the phone company' here in Vancouver back in the
early '70s, and have been in and around the field ever since. I hope
that some (or all) of you will enjoy them as much as I enjoy remembering
them.

I started off in Canadian Telephones And Supplies. At that time it was
the construction arm of B.C. Tel. It did things like build the phone
booths, install switch gear, repair phone sets, etc. that were things
that were not directly connected with the day to day operation of a
phone company.

One of the first things I did as a summer student was participate in
the breaking up of literally tons of old 40 and 80 bakelite sets;
ripping out the dials, screws, carbon mike buttons, ringers and
earpieces.  We got two tubs of phones a day, about 8'x8'x4', and spent
most of two months at it; which gives you an idea of how many old
phones the company destroyed.

When we (there were two of us doing this dastardly deed) ran out of
phones to destroy, we got to work on the dial line, refubishing the
dials, testing them and packaging them in boxes for the guys out in
I&R to use for quick re & re in the field.

There were about five permanent employees (all women) who spent
virtually all of their time in this task in the plant on 10th street
in Burnaby (a suburb of Vancouver) where CT&S had/has their main
office. In the same facility were the technicians who wired up
harnesses for plug boards and operator consoles -- this was 1969.

After that summer, I went back to UBC to try to pass bonehead English
and get out of first year on my way to what was supposed to be a degree
in Electrical Engineering, but I spent too much time showing films
through the Film Society and having fun, and dropped out before
Christmas (a whole lot of other stories that one day I might put into
one of the alt groups) and applied to join CT&S full time.

So much for the background, now on to the stories.

The first job I was put on was as an apprentice installing the
telephone switch for Weldwood of Canada in the still under
construction Guiness Tower Building in downtown Vancouver. The switch
was, if memory serves, called a model 80, and was a small version of
what was in the central offices at that time. It consisted of racks of
Strowger switches mounted on steel frames that we had to build up from
a bare cement room, drilling the cement, hammering in lead plugs,
bolting down iron, etc -- just like a giant erector set.

It was right up my alley, since it involved all of the things I loved
and thought I was good at, but every now and then, I actually learned
something new! I got to drill holes, use a plumb bob, hammer, string
cable, solder, and all in the name of putting together phone
equipment.

Well, as I said, the building was still under construction, and one of
the items left to do was finish the floor outside the switch room we
were in.  This involved pouring varathane quite thickly and then
spreading marble chips on it and letting it set for at least 24 hours.
The floor had been poured twice before, and each time someone had
stepped on it before it was set. This time, the construction foreman
had decreed that anyone, no matter who or what union, who marked this
floor would be fired summarily.

In order to get into our room during this setting time, we constructed
a walkway of sawhorses and planks from the loading dock, up the hall,
and around a corner into the switch room. We had been running cable
that day, and by now I had figured out how to read the construction
schedule, and knew that the next run needed some 50 pair that was on a
role out on the loading dock, so I went (unbidden) to get it, figuring
that since I had got it off the truck unaided, I could get it to the
room too.

Everything went just great as I rolled the wooden reel up the ramp
onto our makeshift walkway and down the hall. The reel was about three
inches narrower than the board I was rolling it on, and it was about
half full, so there were the two sides touching the ramp only. When I
got to the corner, one side of the reel fell off the ramp, and I was
left holding the top of the reel, spread-eagle, legs stiff -- yelling
at the top of my lungs for help as I watched the second side slide
farther off. Before the other two guys got there, the weight and
leverage overcame my adreniline heightened strength and I watched in
horror as it planted a three foot circle in the still soft varathane.

The next day I was working at installing a similar switch at the newly
expanded Bayshore Inn about a mile away.

I got my first lesson in doing it the company way; it doesn't pay to
work faster than is safe.

More later.


The CEN-TA Group - David Ingram & Associates - Real Estate - Tax - Computers
                   Richard C. Pitt   System Administrator
             Voice 604-980-0321    Fax [phone] or 604-987-9364

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

Date: 12 Jul 91 20:02:00 CDT
From: Paul Schleck <[e-mail]>
Subject: Party Lines Still in uUe in NH?


I recall several threads, and a piece on CBS news, about the supposed
"last" party lines in existence in the U.S. being disconnected.
Imagine my surprise when I called my mother, who is visiting an old
family friend in New Hampshire, and she told me she was on a party
line!

A bit of background:

1. The exchange is in Enfield, New Hampshire.

2.  The area code is 603, the exchange 632.

3.  Billing is handled by Nynex/(former?) New England Bell, so it
appears to be part of the mainstream telephone network (of course it
could still be a "rural" exchange with Nynex providing billing support
and directory service).

4.  It is a two-party party line with distinctive ringing for each
party.

5.  As far as the old family friend knows, there is no plan to change
the service anytime in the near future.

So what's up?  Have all party lines really been eliminated in the U.S.
or is this some "special case" that doesn't count?  (I asked Mom if
she was talking on a "candlestick" or a "bellcrank" and was
disappointed to hear it was "only" a black Western Electric rotary... :-).


Paul W. Schleck   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The 'last of' stories I've seen (and the threads
here as I recall) all dealt with manual telephone exchanges being
phased out ... not party line service, although it is rare also.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 23:24:14 CST
From: Jack Winslade <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Sick US West Building Followup
Reply-to: ivgate!drbbs![e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


Two Omaha television stations (WOWT and KETV) reported tonight that
two of the US West employees who complained of various symptoms while
working as DA operators at the US West center in Omaha have tested
positive for exposure to _Legionella_premophillia_ bacteria, the
organism responsible for the infamous Legionnaires' Disease.  The
local daily, the {Omaha World-Herald} had nothing about this (that I
saw, anyway ;-) in the evening edition.

Physicians interviewed by the television stations gave mixed responses
when asked if the mystery ailment was, in fact, Legionnaires' Disease.

It was reported that the union is investigating further, and that US
West has stated nothing for the record as to the possibility of
Legionnaires' Disease being responsible for the incident that shut
down a building at the US West DA center last month.

I'll pass on more if/when it develops.


Good Day!       JSW

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

Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 15:03:25 EDT
From: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Endorse This Check to Switch to MCI"
Organization: mailer daemons association


I received today in the mail an advertisement from Citibank exhorting
me to switch to their "Citibank Calling Service", which is basically
like AT&T's calling card-on-the-Universal card setup (at what they say
are cheaper rates); at the bottom of the letter was attached a check
from MCI for $25.

However, being a savvy c.d.t. reader, I looked at the check. Also,
having the USRDA of intelligence, I read said check. It said in big,
bold letters on the front:

    Endorse this check to switch to MCI.

and in little letters on the bottom:

    Attention Financial Institution:
    Check must be endorsed by payee to be valid

and in similarly little letters on the back:

    With this signature I authorize MCI to switch my
    primary long distance service, for the telephone
    number listed on the front of this check ...

I guess MCI was watching all the discussions here about people
depositing checks and trying to get out of switching to MCI ...


Is Citibank still upset at AT&T for creating its own credit card? :-)


jerry b. altzman     [phone]
[e-mail]  jauus@cuvmb (bitnet)
NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET) !rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!)

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 91 04:15:24 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Larry King Gets What He Deserves


I'm sure many of you know how Larry King's radio talk show handles
callers.  Instead of having an 800 number as most do, the callers are
instructed to call a long-distance number.  They don't answer until
just before you go on the air, so you don't rack up a big toll while
you're waiting.  As such, the call may ring for many minutes until
it's answered, which I would imagine that the long distance carriers
don't like, as a call that ties up the circuit for, say, 15 minutes,
is billable at only two minutes or so.

It would seem that Mother doesn't like this very much, as she recently
made a change that effectively ends this practice.  After four minutes
of ringing with no answer, AT&T switches the call to a recording which
says "Your party is not answering.  Please try your call again later.
We're sorry, but your call will now be disconnected."  MCI does a
similar thing, except they just go to reorder.

Since US Sprint doesn't do this (yet?), Larry told people to use the
"Sprint code" by dialing 10333 before the number to avoid this.  A
caller later added a warning that "you'll get billed after 30 seconds
if you use Sprint."

So, here are a couple of questions:

1.  Is this a universal change that AT&T and MCI have made, or is it
only on certain exchanges?  (I would imaging that it's universal, but
I don't know very many numbers that ring forever to use for testing).

2.  Is Larry's method a proper use of The Phone Network?  It is
deliberately tying up the network while paying only for a fraction of
what is used, but apparently is not against the tariffs.  It would
certainly seem to violate the "spirit of the tariffs," no?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[P.S. - I just rented "The President's Analyst" tonight from the video
store.  The ending would truely be appreciated by any Digester.]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Jul 12 07:30:26 CDT 1991
Subject: Correction: New AT&T Call Me Card *Not* Always Restricted


Yesterday, I submitted an article about my new-generation AT&T Call Me
Card.  I have sinced learned that it's even more dangerous to use that
the old card!  The new one is honored without restriction -- by
Southwestern Bell.  SWB at least honored restrictions with the old
card, even if some AOS companies didn't.

I plan to speak with someone at AT&T about this, today. Depending upon
what I learn, I'll submit another article. In the meantime, I don't
want to encourage anyone to order the new card.


A Alan Toscano     Home:  [phone]      Work:  [phone]
P O Box 741982     <[e-mail]>      Telex (UT):  156232556
Houston, TX        CIS:         73300,217      Prodigy:       BHWR97A
77274-1982         X.400:  C=US A=ATTMAIL S=Toscano G=A D=ID:atoscano


[Moderator's Note: Alan's original article went out prior to his note
arriving which asked me to cancel the original article until it could
be researched further. I told him I'd print this addendum while
waiting for more details from him.   PAT]

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

From: "Dell H. Ellison" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Infamous Quotes About the Telephone
Date: 11 Jul 91 15:54:50 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

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


I have the following quote hanging up in my office:

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

                                    -- Boston Post 1865

Enjoy.


Dell Ellison

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #532
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17453;
          16 Jul 91 1:28 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad09810; 14 Jul 91 9:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30007;
          14 Jul 91 2:28 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25282;
          14 Jul 91 1:19 CDT
Date:     Sun, 14 Jul 91 1:16:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #535
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 14 Jul 91 01:15:50 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 535

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cost of Providing Services vs. Actual Charge [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Compuserve Responds to Policy and Operations Questions [B. Allbery]
    Re: Operational Definitions [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Party Lines Still in Use in NH? [Gabe M. Wiener]
    Re: Bulletin Boards Go Corporate [Michael P. Deignan]
    Re: OCC Code Update [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Serious RFI Problem [Nick Sayer]
    Re: Do-it-Yourself "Payphone" [Gabe M. Wiener]
    What is the Meaning of 'VAR'? [Jeff Scheer]
    Using a 'Dumb Switch' in a Residence [Jeff Scheer]
    900 Number Used for Instant-Replay Poll [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cost of Providing Services vs. Actual Charge
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1991 04:23:27 GMT


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

> [e-mail] (Arun Kandappan) writes:

>>     NJ Bell still charges $.99 for a month of Touch-Tone.> ...

>>     The next item is the Call Waiting charge. It is $4.50/month.
>> My basic charge is $18.xx. Is it really that expensive to provide Call
>> Waiting or is it just because of a monopoly ?

> As to whether it's "really that expensive", could be .. the guy who
> gave me the tour of the switch mentioned something about software
> upgrades costing millions of dollars. Let's say the "call waiting"
> family of fine features cost $5 million. Furthermore assume that 50%
> of the 200,000 individuals (telephones, really) in the local area have
> call waiting.  Around here, call waiting is $3/month, so that's
> $300,000/month or $3.6 million a year. Interesting.

That is imaginative!

However, the entire software load may well cost a million bucks, but
any one part of it that is optional won't come close.  And TT hardware
and software are not likely to be optional either.  Also it does not
cost millions to upgrade from one load to the next if no new major
features are being added.  Hence it may cost well over a million to
convert a switch from SS6 to SS7, but the next major software load
won't come close to that cost.

The only specific case that I know about would be a DMS-100 switch.
In that particular case all lines are equipped to be used with either
DT or DP or both, and the optioning is done by a clerk who can change
it in less than ten seconds.

It may actually cost a few pennies per year to make it optional for
the customer to have or change it.  It will also earn a few bucks for
the telco by reducing call setup time.


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: Thu, 11 Jul 91 22:58:44 -0400
From: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Compuserve Responds to Policy and Operations Questions
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by kentrox![e-mail].
net (Bud Couch):

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

>>    I think the issue boils down to this: what makes one immume to
>> liability for messages carried on one's telephone/e-mail/message
>> system?  AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc clearly seem to be immune

>> over the phone).  BBS operators seem to be liable: several recent
>> cases demonstrate this.  What about the middle ground: MCI Mail and
>> CompuServe?

> My cynical mind operates a bit more directly. It looks to me more like
> _size_ of the operation controls the amount of hassle directed toward
> that operation.

> MCI Mail and Compuserve are safe, but hams and individual hobby BBS
> operators have reason to worry.

FACT: Phone services are provided under a "common carrier"
arrangement, which grants legal protection from liability to the
service provider when the service is used for illegal purposes.

FACT: Amateur radio, on the other hand, is regulated by a completely
different arrangement, spelled out in 47 CFR part 97.  The definition
of "illegal purposes" covers quite a few more areas, such as business
use.  Also, there are much more stringent restrictions on use to send
messages to or from people not directly involved in a connection,
whether they are hams or not.  Quite frankly, there is no comparison
between amateur radio and either the phone system or hobbyist phone
BBSes.

FACT: MCI Mail, Compu$erve, et alia are not legally "common carriers"
at present.  And they *certainly* are neither hobbyist BBSes nor
amateur radio!

FACT: There are few, if any, precedents in legal proceedings
concerning such entities.

Now comes the theorizing: we won't know how the law will apply to them
until the $#!+ hits the fan and they actually have to defend
themselves in court.  It could well go either way --- although the
ECPA implies that "common carrier" provisions don't apply, it's
amazing what a lawyer can convince a court to swallow.  In other
words: we don't know.


Me: Brandon S. Allbery             KF8NH: DC to LIGHT!  [44.70.4.88]
Internet: [e-mail]         Delphi: ALLBERY
uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Operational Definitions
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1991 20:08:45 GMT


[e-mail] (Dr. M.Q. Dracks) presents his idea of a
"standard" definition for words like "hacker", "cracker", etc...

Well, those are interesting definitions but not the ones I'm aware of
in common use.

Hacker is fine. Breaker is one I've never heard. Cracker could be what
he calls a "breaker" or could be someone who cracks copy protection
schemes. Though I would call the latter just another pirate.
"Crackist" I've heard before, but only by wannabe pirate-type
crackers.

> Crackists are Hackers.

I disagree. Most of them were just high school kids with too much
spare time. Part of the "hacker ethic" is the drive to create, and
there's none of that there.

The basic problem here is that different groups of people have
different ideas of these terms. Any attempt to standardise them is
doomed to failure.


Peter da Silva.  `-_-'  Taronga Park BBS  [phone]/n/8/1
 Taronga Park.    'U`       "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"

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

From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Party Lines Still in Use in NH?
Reply-To: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1991 23:51:57 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: The 'last of' stories I've seen (and the threads
> here as I recall) all dealt with manual telephone exchanges being
> phased out ... not party line service, although it is rare also.   PAT]

Are there any manual exchanges left?  Bryant Pond is long gone, and
last I heard, Shoup, Idaho was going automatic.  Do any refuges of
antique telephony still exist in the U.S.?

What is the situation with toll stations, also?  I hear they're also
being replaced with more conventional systems.


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.  [e-mail]
[e-mail]         [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Any manual exchanges left? It wouldn't surprise me
if there were still one or two around, but I don't know where they
would be.  Toll stations are still around; there are lots of them in
Nevada and Arizona in remote areas. I notice when calling some toll
stations in Nevada the operator's routing is 702 + 181, where the
distant end is answered in Reno.  PAT]

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

From: "Michael P. Deignan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bulletin Boards Go Corporate
Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI  02917
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 1991 18:28:47 GMT


[e-mail] (Donald E. Kimberlin) writes:

>        "Wildcat is one of the few bulletin board systems commercially
> available.  There's a lot of bulletin board software in the public
> domain, Hutchins says, but most isn't `trustworthy.'  `When I made the
> proposal, the first thing that everybody asked was what about
> hackers?" he recalls. But Hutchins and users such as the Internal
> Revenue Service appear to trust the extensive safeguards in Wildcat.

Apparently, Mr. Hutchins isn't aware of the "back door" the authors'
of Wildcat! BBS put into their software, which allows the authors to
obtain complete Sysop privledges on any Wildcat! system at their mere
whim.

This "back door" has purported to have been used to turn in several
pirate BBS systems operating the Wildcat! software, where the authors
logged in and discovered copyrighted software on the BBS.

Several BBS's in the Rhode Island area which also run the Wildcat!
software have been "examined" in this manner, although none of them
were closed down since they were all above-board operations.


Michael P. Deignan                  Domain: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  Telebit: [phone]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: OCC Code Update
Date: 14 Jul 91 01:55:04 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <zach![e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

> Here is a update to the OCC Codes. I am working on the 800 and 900
> list.

I forgot two:

008 Tele-Fiber Net
272 Bell of PA

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

From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem
Date: 14 Jul 91 04:49:20 GMT
Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA


In comp.dcom.telecom it was writen:

> I've just moved to a hill upon which a radio transmitter is located.
> And while I didn't anticipate it, I guess it should come as no
> surprise that I'm having a very serious problem of radio interference
> with my telephone service, affecting both voice and data. I'm hoping
> that some net.wisdom will help solve/limit the problem.

You didn't say what frequency, modulation pattern and power level the
station isusing.  Believe it or not, the solution will vary widely
based on that. I can take a wild guess, however, that it's a multi-
kilowatt AM station transmitting in the 300 meter band (500-1600 kHz).

Step 1. Unplug every phone in your house.

Step 2. Plug in one phone.

Step 3. Does the interference persist? If not, go to step 5.

Step 4. Unplug that phone and try another. Go to Step 3 until you run
out of phones, then go to step 6.

Step 5. At this point you know that the line and the phone in question
is good. Plug in another phone and keep doing so until the interference
is aparent or you run out of phones. If you run out of phones and you
don't find interference then what were you complaining about? :-)

Step 6. Do any of your neighbors have a clean phone? In general, the
best (RFI) phone is the one that used to be a telco rented unit.
If you can get a known good phone, try it. If the line is still
noisy, then call the telco back and don't take 'no' for an answer.

Whether or not a phone is off-hook it can still create RFI on the
entire line as long as it's plugged in.

> I can often hear a particular radio station very strongly over the
> phone. Both our Panasonic two-line and AT&T one-line phones are
> affected.  The silly "RFI filter" gizmos sold at Radio Shack, etc have
> >nil< effect.

They work on certain things, and must be installed properly. The best
solution when you spot the bad phone is to wrap its cord up in a
ferite torus.

> Our telephone company says, "Your lines are clean. It's
> your phones that are picking up the radio."

They are probably right. The biggest offenders are the freebie-junk
phones Time Life gives away.

> They suggest buying some
> very old style telephones without much electronics in them; they say
> these will be less susceptible to interference. Buying obsolete
> equipment is, IMO, a poor solution. On the other hand, if there were
> decent RFI-immune phones available, I will buy new equipment.

> The problem also occurs on data (2400 bps) transmissions. It happens
> with different intensitites on my Dove FAX/data and PCPI data-only
> modems, but does happen on both. Sometimes 10cps of garbage characters
> will stream out, though it is often only .05-4 cps of garbage.
> Anything above .01 cps is very difficult to work with, IMO.

Treat the modem just like any other phone for the purpose of the
experiment above.

> So, what can I do? New equipment perhaps, but which? Shielding or
> filtering for the equipment? Blame the telco? Complain to/sue the
> radio station?  Bomb the radio tower? Help!

RFI is almost NEVER the fault of the transmitter. In RFI, being the
cause and being at fault are two different things. Obviously if the
transmitter were not operating, the interference would not occur, but
that doesn't change a thing. When RFI is caused by the transmitter, it
is almost always a CB with an illegal amplifier. 97 percent of RFI
complaints involving amateur stations do not end up being the fault of
the ham.

Despite the fact that I disapprove of the ARRL, they do put out some
useful books. One in particular is:

"Radio Frequency Interference: How to Identify and Cure it."
Published by the American Radio Relay League
ISBN 0-87259-042-9, Lib of Cong: 78-60649.
ARRL HQ is at 225 Main St., Newington, CT 06111.

The FCC is supposed to regulate RFI susceptibility in consumer
electronics, but has decided for the moment to leave it to the
manufacturers, with predictable results. Public pressure to change
this may be helpful. We hams would undoubtedly get less abuse and be
happier people.


Nick Sayer   [e-mail]
N6QQQ        209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Do-it-Yourself "Payphone"
Reply-To: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1991 05:20:24 GMT


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

> That old standby of cheap consumer electronics, Service Merchandise,
> includes in their most recent catalogue a "Teleconcepts Payphone Jr.
> Model 890546," stock# 890546MTM for $39.90.

The Teleconcepts Payphone Jr. has been around for years.  I remember
seeing them in '82 or '83.  They have two versions: a novelty phone,
one that looks like a payphone but acts like a regular phone, and a
real coin-op version.  I don't know how secure they are, though.  One
could probably defeat the coin-op with a minimum of skill.


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.  [e-mail]
[e-mail]         [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 91 18:41:40 CST
From: Jeff Scheer <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: What is the Meaning of 'VAR'?
Reply-To: ivgate!command![e-mail]
Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha


Exactly two days ago I recieved my July issue of {Teleconnect}.  What
is a VAR?  Is it some sort of voice announce recording thingie?  I
know most of the acronyms but this one threw me.


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

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

Date: Tue, 09 Jul 91 18:41:40 CST
From: Jeff Scheer <ivgate![e-mail]>
Subject: Use of 'Dumb Switch' in Residence
Reply-To: ivgate!command![e-mail]
Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha


Can you put a "dumb" switch in a residence?  I have a passion for
telephone equiptment and cpe / premise eq since I am retired at a very
early age (35) due to a medical problem.

So I was wondering if I could build a "dumb" switch to handle the
traffic that my house generates both incoming and outgoing.  My CO is
712-325 I think it is ESS but not sure what generic upgrade or
revision.

Thanks.


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

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 91 23:59:16 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 900 Number Used for Instant-Replay Poll


What was the 900 number displayed by CBS-TV the night of the All-Star
Game?  It was for poll regarding use of instant-replay for sports, and
I recall hearing that questions were asked for four sports.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #535
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25378;
          16 Jul 91 4:47 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22023;
          14 Jul 91 17:37 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19064;
          14 Jul 91 16:30 CDT
Date:     Sun, 14 Jul 91 16:04:57 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #536
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 14 Jul 91 16:04:47 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 536

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Long Distance Calling, Then and Now [TELECOM Moderator]
    Using Ringback For Intercom [David Barts]
    Getting Off a Party Line [Doug Sewell]
    Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old on Still Works? [Seng-Poh Lee]
    See-Thru Phone Offer [Carl Moore]
    County Seat Phone Numbers [Carl Moore]
    Re: Wanted - Telephone Conversation Recording Equipment [Ken Jongsma]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 91 15:28:10 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Calling, Then and Now


When we occassionally see network problems of the type we have
experienced in recent weeks where calls have failed to complete and
delays in service have been common, before getting too hot under the
collar about the problems, we would be wise to think back to the way
long distance calls were handled half a century ago.

Before direct distance dialing (DDD) was a reality, human operators
strung the connections together long distance just as they did locally
in manual exchanges. A call from Chicago to Los Angeles in 1940 would
have gone like this:

As a subscriber in the Edgewater CO in Chicago, you would have gone
off hook. Your local operator would answer in a few seconds, and when
she queried, 'number please?', you would ask for 'Long Distance'. She
would then extend your call to a hole on her board which was a direct
circuit to the long distance operators downtown. One of those
operators would answer in a few seconds, and your operator would
respond by passing your number to the other operator, then exiting
from the line.

Long distance would take your request. Let's say you wished to call
Los Angeles, to the number Hollywood 1212.  The LD operator at that
point would plug into a circuit to St. Louis, and would do what is
called 'overlap' by writing up the toll ticket while she was waiting
for St. Louis to respond. Sooner or later, usually in a few seconds,
or a minute at most depending on how busy they were, an operator on
the distant end would answer. Your operator would say something like,
"Hello St. Louis, this is Chicago. Pass me to Kansas City, please."
Another several seconds would go by, and a distant voice would answer,
identifying herself as "Kansas City". Your operator would ask to be
extended on to Denver ... and after connecting there, would ask for
connection to Salt Lake City. A request of Salt Lake would be for
connection to Los Angeles.

When Los Angeles 'inward' answered, typically 3-4 minutes would have
passed from when you first went off hook to start the call. Your LD
operator would then ask Los Angeles 'inward' for Hollywood 1212, and
by the time the word 'Hollywood' had passed her lips, the Los Angeles
operator would already be plugging into a circuit to the Hollywood CO,
so that when that operator responded, LA inward mearly had to say to
her, '1212', and leave the line. If all went well, five minutes after
you initiated the call, you were connected. If congestion at the sites
along the way caused a delay, ten minutes might pass, and that was not
considered an unreasonable delay in getting through.

Once the *operators* could dial direct, a Chicago operator could go
straight to Los Angeles inward in a matter of seconds, but the first
part of the connection (you to your long distance center) and the last
part of the connection (Los Angeles inward via a local CO to the
number you wanted) still took a minute or two. So operator dialing
between cities cut the time down from five minutes to all of only two
minutes or so to get connected!  Now days, we connect around the world
in a few seconds, of course.

With a half dozen or more human operators linked together from Chicago
to Los Angeles for your call, the chances of accidental disconnection
were better than average, and as often as not, midway through your
conversation there would be dead silence.

Your reaction would be to flash the hook vigorously, and of course
your local CO operator would be the one to answer, and get the heat
for the disconnection. She'd protest her innocence in the matter, and
flash back to Long Distance, who in turn claimed you 'were still up on
her board'. She'd raise St. Louis, then Kansas City, then Denver, Salt
Lake and Los Angeles, and as each in turn came on the line, the
operator connecting to them would blame the next one down the line,
"you disconnected my party!" ... each would claim ignorance of it, and
protest that the call was 'still up here'.  But the connection would
eventually be re-established. Whichever operator along the way bungled
the connection and lost the call would never admit to it, but
obviously someone had to have yanked the cord down accidentally.

A call which lasted two minutes after taking five minutes to connect
cost several dollars. To add to the confusion, assume you were calling
from an extension on a PBX here, trying to reach someone on an
extension of a PBX in the distant city. That put two more operators in
the middle of the connection to be dealt with.

International calls were handled much the same way; only the time
delay in call completion was different. Your local CO operator still
connected you to the local toll board for long distance, and that
operator in turn connected you with one of the international centers,
which in those days were located in White Plains, NY; Oakland, CA; and
Miami, FL. There were a couple others as well.  The operator at the
international center took the details, 'booked' the call, then called
you back when the connection was up and running, or to give you
progress reports if there was to be a delay.

Calls from White Plains to the larger European cities were the easiest
of all, and typically were completed in a matter of five minutes or
less. Calls to smaller towns which had to be connected via London or
Paris always took longer, and delays of ten to fifteen minutes were
not uncommon. Telephone circuits in Europe were in short supply, and
AT&T was pretty much at the mercy of the whims of the foreign
telephone administrations as to how and when the call would go
through.

I remember one call, probably 1956/1957 to a small town in Wales. It
was about 9 PM Chicago time, and the international operator called
back to say she was now ringing London. The connection to London rang
*many* times (it was about 3 AM there), and when the male operator
answered in London the conversation went something like this:

"Hello London, this is White Plains, I've got a call for (town name in
Wales and the number).

"Uh, just a minute White Plains. Wait, I'll see about it."

(We wait for perhaps two minutes in silence.)

"Hullo, White Plains ... sorry dear, I can't raise her (the operator
in the town in Wales) now. She only has the exchange open until about
eleven o'clock; we're not supposed to call her during the night unless
its an emergency."

Hearing this the operator in the USA asked me if it was an emergency
call, which it was not.

(London again) "well, dear, she doesn't like it if we're rousting her
now. The exchange is in her home. We give her a wake-up call at 0700
GMT, you want me to book you for then?"

That would have been about 2 AM to me, so the call was cancelled and
made later on ...

Calls to (then) more remote areas such as Africa took anywhere from
several hours to a couple *days* to complete. Many places in north
Africa were colonies of France and Paris controlled the phone
circuits, period. Even today, most of the places we cannot dial direct
around the world are countries in Africa. There were very few
circuits, and the hours permitted for calls from the USA were very
few. When placing a call there, the operators in White Plains were
quick to point out they had to in turn 'book' the call with the
overseas operator in Paris. You'd place the call, then go on to bed
and at 3 AM the next day the phone would ring ... 'ready on your call
to Stanleyville ... hello Paris, this is White Plains, I've got party
on here ... and Paris would disappear for anywhere from thirty seconds
to a couple minutes and come back, "oooh, White Plains, oh sorry
madamoiselle, zee number is engaged. And now zee circuits close in
five minutes, I cannot try again."

White Plains would protest to no avail, and Paris would explain 'zee
circuits will open again at 1400 GMT for calls from zee States, and
would madamoiselle wish to speak with her superior'.  That of course
did no good at all since her superior would not come to the line for
five minutes and would simply repeat what had been said earlier.

Calls to Hong Kong, Australia and that part of the world went through
Oakland, CA; and calls to Cuba, South America and islands in the South
Atlantic went through Miami.

Australia's telecom controlled the circuits to New Zealand and many of
the South Pacific islands. The USA could use the circuits certain
times of the day on certain days of the week. Calls to places like
India and China were not impossible, but almost unheard of, and always
required advance 'booking' and a waiting period of many hours at a
minimum to get through.

Once Direct Distance Dialing (DDD) became possible for many of us in
the late 1950's, you can imagine the thrill we had of being able to
add a few digits and reach such 'far away' places as Los Angeles
direct in a matter of seconds. But even as late as 1960, there were
still a number of places served by manual exchanges in the USA, and
those people could not use DDD. Those of us who did have it available
still had to make many of our calls through the long distance operator
when calling manual exchanges.

So the next time a peice of software gets broken and your calls won't
go through for a few minutes at a time, just remember a half century ago
delays of that sort were common on all long distance calls. We have
become spoiled by modern telecommunications. Business people who feel
they should sue the telco because their calls would not go through
should stop to remember that when their grandfather ran the firm, he
had to book his overseas calls the day before if he expected to get
through at the time he wanted.


Patrick Townson

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

From: polari![e-mail]
Subject: Using Ringback For Intercom
Date: Sat Jul 13 22:50:41 1991


In 1977, my parents were having a new house built in a small town in
New Mexico (505-672) that was then served by an SXS CDO.  Dialing
672-3011 or 672-2022 would result in dead silence; if you would hang
up the phone would then ring (and there would be dead silence when it
was answered).

When the house was finished enough to be wired for telephone service,
Mountain Bell came to wire it and left a phone.  This phone was on the
same number as our old house (two miles away) and acted just like an
extension phone.  I showed the rest of the family how to use the
ringback number to place a call from one house to the other.

Right before we moved in, the SXS CDO was upgraded to ESS and the old
ringback numbers went away.  Soon after, the 3011 number was assigned
to a local merchant.  Since just about every kid in town over the age
of six had known of the 3011 ringback number (and had used it in
numerous practical jokes ;-) ), I bet this merchant was tormented with
numerous calls from perplexed children (how do you think I found out
the number had been reassigned?).


David Barts  N5JRN
[e-mail]    ...!uunet!apex!camco!ars2!polari!davidb

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

Organization: Youngstown State University VM system (YSUB)
Date: Saturday, 13 Jul 1991 22:34:18 EDT
From: Doug Sewell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting Off a Party Line


A friend of my family's is on one of the few remaining party lines in
Trumbull County, OH (United Telephone is the local carrier).

Up until about 15 years or so ago, two- or four- party lines were
common in some exchanges, because they couldn't handle any more
private lines.  If you wanted one, you were put on a waiting list.
Most of those limitations have cleared up, and now there are just a
few two-party lines left.

D & ML were told that they couldn't switch from a two-party line to a
private line unless the other party on the line agrees.  The other
party doesn't want to, so they feel 'stuck'.

I might add that UTS rates in NE Ohio were significantly higher than
the neighboring Ohio Bell rates, and may still be.  I'd suspect
there's a hefty charge ($50 or so) involved in the changeover, as
well.

Any advice (short of offering to pay the other party's connection
charge or praying that party lines be eliminated?)


Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center,         [e-mail]
Youngstown State University, Youngstown,  OH 44555  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 91 22:55:13 -0400
From: "Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old on Still Works?


I too have received my new AT&T card with the new number. I remember
AT&T calling me up to ask me if I received it. I asked her if I could
still use my old number, which is the same as my local SNET calling
card and she said I would have to call my local phone company.

Anyway, I'm kind of attached to my old number and resisted trying to
remember the new card number. So I've still been using my old number
on trips. It still works fine. If AT&T has to accept my local calling
card number, then what's the point of two numbers. I'll just keep using
my old number. Are there any things I can't do with my old number?


Seng-Poh Lee    <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 91 23:59:16 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: See-Thru Phone Offer


Earlier this year, I recall seeing (on a wrapper for Sunmark Inc. of
St. Louis, Missouri) a "See-Thru Phone Offer".  Does anyone know what
the meaning of this was?


[Moderator's Note: There is a type of phone with a clear plastic shell
which allows you to see all the innards. One model of clear plastic
phone also has a neon bulb inside which flashes when the phone rings,
creating a rather interesting display. Strictly Art Deco stuff.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 13 Jul 91 23:59:16 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: County Seat Phone Numbers


I take it most people are local to their county seat in the U.S.
(Failing that, a special number is usually provided for those people
long distance within the county.)

In Howard County, Md., there is a 301-854 prefix whose local area is
that of Ashton PLUS the Ellicott City exchange.  Ashton is in
Montgomery County and is local to Washington DC, so 854 stays in 301
although as far as I know the rest of Howard County goes into new area
410.

In New Castle County, Delaware, I recall special numbers being
provided for subscribers on 378 and 653 who need to call the county
offices.  (Wilmington had been a toll call for these prefixes, but 378
became local recently as part of that county-wide calling area.  As
you heard earlier, there has been some trouble regarding the extreme
southern fringe of the county being on 653.)

In olden times (going back to before the American Revolution?), new
counties sometimes got formed because people got tired of long trips
to the county seat.  There is a vestige of this in the local calling
arrangements such as are given in this message.


[Moderator's Note: I've seen cases where the county sheriff had an
Enterprise phone number in order for people in the outer areas of the
county to be able to call toll-free.  In the city of Chicago, calls to
the 312-PIG (city government) exchange are a 'local area' untimed call
for everyone in Chicago, even folks ordinarily outside the 'local'
calling area for downtown.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Wanted - Telephone Conversation Recording Equipment
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 91 22:29:59 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Mark Nakamura) writes:

> I'm looking for an elegant, over-the-counter piece of equipment to
> record my phone conversations.  (I deal with a number of clients
> placing securities orders, and it's a necessary means of protection in
> the industry.)

My company just bought me a Phonemate 7210 (?) answering machine. It
has a digital chip for the outgoing message and uses a microcassette
for up to 30 minutes of replies. It has a button that will record both
sides of the coversation and date/timestamps the end. Goes for about
$75.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #536
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27132;
          16 Jul 91 5:48 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03014;
          16 Jul 91 4:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06828;
          16 Jul 91 2:56 CDT
Date:     Tue, 16 Jul 91 2:22:38 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #538
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 16 Jul 91 02:22:31 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 538

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Long Distance Calling, Then and Now [Gabe M. Wiener]
    Re: Long Distance Calling, Then and Now [Kyle Leon Webb]
    Re: Long Distance Calling, Then and Now [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Long Distance Calling, Then and Now [Dave Niebuhr]
    Long Distance Calling, Kenya, 1969 [Andy Rabagliati]
    Re: Telemarketing: Fight Back! [Craig Ibbotson]
    Re: Telemarketing: Fight Back! [Jordan M. Kossack]
    Re: RJ11 <-> RJ45 [Lionel Vigue]
    Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting [Eric R. Skinner]
    Re: Exchange Upgrades in Australia [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Bulletin Boards Go Corporate [Brandon S. Allbery]
    Inconsistency With 206-958 [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Calling, Then and Now
Reply-To: Gabe M Wiener <[e-mail]>
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1991 04:23:21 GMT


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

> Once the *operators* could dial direct, a Chicago operator could go
> straight to Los Angeles inward in a matter of seconds, but the first
> part of the connection (you to your long distance center) and the last
> part of the connection (Los Angeles inward via a local CO to the
> number you wanted) still took a minute or two. So operator dialing
> between cities cut the time down from five minutes to all of only two
> minutes or so to get connected!  Now days, we connect around the world
> in a few seconds, of course.

Pat,

Thanks for such an interesting piece!  A few questions...

DDD came out in the 50's, right?  When did the _operators_ first get direct
dialing?

How did the Area Codes first become assigned?  And why did the U.S.
decide to go with a three-digit system as opposed to most foreign
systems where area codes can be of variable length?

Finally, are there any places in the U.S. that are not direct-dialable?
I remember a piece in the Digest a few years ago about this, but I
can't remember its contents.

Thanks again...


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.    [e-mail]
[e-mail]           [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I think the operators started dialing many places
direct in the early fifties. DDD was not generally available to the
public until the late fifties, or maybe about 1960.  There are still
several 'toll stations' in the USA which cannot be dialed direct. As
to how area codes came to be assigned, and why we went with three
digit codes, that's a long story we have discussed here before. Maybe
someone will rehash it for us.    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1991 09:29:52 -0500
From: Kyle Leon Webb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Calling, Then and Now


Hi,

I read your article on long distance before DDD with considerable
interest.  I'm a National Guard communications sergeant, and we are
still using the old switchboards for our field communications. After
being one of the unlucky souls manning a board on a 3 AM call through
five switches and two UHF MUX links (with attendent whooshing etc from
bad synch on the multiplexers) and an angry colonel on one end, and
having to have two of the operators relay the conversation (the
operators could hear each other, but not the far caller) I can
certainly empathize with the old LD operators. Thankfully we are
slowly changingover to direct dial systems in most of the military,
but the old plugboards are still around.


Kyle Webb

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 10:16 PDT
Subject: Re: Long Distance Calling, Then and Now


> It was still true much later than you think.  In the summer of 1980,
> I was in the Los Angeles bus station and had to get through from a
> pay phone to someone in Deep Springs, near Bishop, California.  My
> recollection of the fifteen minutes it took to make the connection
> is imperfect, but the conversation went something like this.

> "Hello, operator?  I'd like to place a call to 714+054+181 Deep
> Springs number two toll station."

It is still true.  Lots of Nevada (well, many different places with
very few phones) is wired with Toll Stations.  You call the operator
and ask for <toll_station_name>-number-<whatever>.  Not having a
Nevada phone directory handy, I can't give any examples.  Consult your
local library for the "Nevada" telephone directory, put out by Nevada
Bell.  Not the one for Las Vegas, which is put out by Centel.

It's been discussed here in Telecom that the correct way to request a
toll station is just by state, name and number.  You don't provide an
area code or any internal routing.  They may have to look up the
routing, but they don't expect to get it from the customer.  According
to discussion here, you say "Foobar Toll Station in Nevada, Number
Two, Please" (or whatever) and it should happen.


edg

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1991 13:35:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long Distance Calling, Then and Now


Pat:

Loved your article on 'pre-DDD' days and the chances of getting
disconnected during a long distance call.

In '78, I was in Northeastern Nebraska (Dakota City, Ne.) and had to
call a community about 30 miles away (Pender, Ne.), both in area 402.
The call was routed through Sioux City, Ia., Sloan, Ia. (I think),
Council Bluffs, Ia., Omaha, Ne., Bancroft, Ne., and my destination in
Pender, Ne. (locations given for those in Western Iowa and Eastern
Nebraska -- my starting point in life).

If I remember (the little grey cells "Hurcule Poirot'" term) correctly,
the call took about 15 minutes to complete.  What a difference from
L.I. where DDD was fully in effect since the advent of area codes.

Again, thanks for a 'good old days' story relating how much more
difficult it was to place a call long distance as opposed to today.


Dave Niebuhr   Brookhaven National Laboratory   Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Andy Rabagliati <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Calling, Kenya, 1969
Organization: SGS-Thomson/Inmos Division
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 07:08:55 GMT


Long distance calls in America?

That's nothing ... [mumble mumble ... uphill both ways too ... ]

I lived in Kenya, East Africa in the late '60s, (I was just a nipper
then) and a long distance call went like this ...

Our number was Timboroa long-short-short-long. This was on the local
party line shared by a few farms, the forestry service, the police
station, and the local telephone exchange.

It was a dynamo system - you simply rang the 'code' of the other farm,
or the exchange ( Looooooong ).

No tuned ringers - if the phone rang, conversation stopped while you
listened for the code.

There was a problem sometimes as the wife of the forester got bored a
lot and eavesdropped whenever there was activity on the phone -- one
could tell as the volume dropped when she picked up.

Worse was she left it off the hook when the conversation didnt keep
her attention -- she didnt want people to 'notice' the click when sho
hung up! My dad kept a whistle by the phone that served the same
function as the attention signal here when you leave the phone off
hook. (Of course the phone didnt ring when one instrument was off hook
 -- you knew this because when you cranked, all bells, including your
own, rang, or not, as the case may be).

Anyway -- to call Nairobi (halfway across the country) would take all
day.

First call the operator. This could sometimes take a while -- our
neighbour once got so exasperated at the sweat he was working up after
half an hour on the crank (hurt your hand after a while, it was quite
a small throw crank and you had to really spin it) that he tore the
phone out by the roots, threw it in the truck, drove over to the
exchange, and threw it at the operator sunning himself on the lawn.

Not normal procedure though ...

The operator would take down the number, and you would hang up.

There may have been an order scheme, where a time was arranged for the
call back -- I just remember my parents anxious pacing back and forth
waiting for the Phone Call.

This (I imagine) was much as Pat described, with operator calling
operator across the country and plugging those lines together.
Timboroa (us) ... Molo ... Nakuru ... Naivasha ... Nairobi.

The Call was returned !!!

There was then another five minutes while you were connected,
punctuated by regular "Hello? ... Hello? ... Hello?"  that served as a
'ping' through all sections of the connection.  No answer was required
 -- I suppose it was useful for the operators to know that one end was
nailed down.

You were connected !!!

You immediately noted the time, than proceeded with your call.

After hanging up, you waited for a little while (I imagine little
lights going on in exchanges, and operators pulling cords), then you
rang the local operator again, and came to an agreement over the
length of the call. But naturally, you wrote it down yourself, so you
could argue when the bill came.

International ??  You had to order those days in advance.


Cheers,

Andy.   (Soon to be going back to those very parts)

Maybe some day I'll tell you about the Public Phone in Varanasi,
India.  You want Express ??


[Moderator's Note: Please do tell us about it.   PAT]

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

From: Craig Ibbotson <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketing: Fight Back!
Date: 15 Jul 91 18:05:49 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (Ronald Greenberg) writes:

> Hmm, can somebody come up with a list of who voted against it in the
> Senate?  Or tell me how to get it; I live in DC.  Then what we really
> need is a list of their home phone numbers!

> [Moderator's Note: Do you conduct business at home? No? Then why do
> you think the legislators should do it?   PAT]

You could always argue that by calling the legislators you are using
your "right" as a "telemarketer" to interrupt them at home and to
"sell them" on your position regarding telemarketing.  Maybe that will
enlighten them to the problem.

I see your point, Pat, but who hasn't received a call at home asking
them to vote for a particular candidate?  Last Presidential election,
I received a number of calls on behalf of both candidates.  What's the
difference between them calling me at home to ask me for my vote and
me calling them at their home asking for their vote?


Craig Ibbotson, Motorola, Inc.    ...uunet!motcid!ibbotsonc
Cellular Infrastructure Division, Radio Telephone Systems Group

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

Subject: Re: Telemarketing: Fight Back!
Organization: A corner of their bedroom
Date: 16 Jul 91 00:01:33 CDT (Tue)
From: Jordan M Kossack <[e-mail]>


In <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator Notes:
[ Re: HR 1304 and such ]

> [Moderator's Note: Do you conduct business at home? No? Then why do
> you think the legislators should do it?   PAT]

Well, by voting against the bill, they have expressed the opinion that
it is OK for telemarketers to call us at home, so it would be
extremely hypocritical for the legislators to object when we call them
at home.

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

From: Lionel Vigue <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RJ11 <-> RJ45
Organization: San Diego State University Computing Services
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1991 22:36:18 GMT


[e-mail] (Chris Swanson) writes:

>    I need to know how to wire an RJ45 (4 wire data jack) to RJ11
> (wall jack) adapter.  Please e-mail any replies.  Thanks in advance.

    It depends on what it is used for.  Is is for Twisted Pair,
or?  With your answer I can solve your problem.


Lionel    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 91 14:52:06 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Software Exoterica Corporation, Ottawa, Ontario


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

>> *NOT* flash over, but instead disconnect the first call and let the
>> second call then 'ring through' if the Caller ID data would then get
>> sent between the first and second ring **of the rings you heard** --
>> or is it too late at that point?   PAT]

It's too late at that point.  At least in Bell Canada territory,
nothing happens.


Eric R. Skinner                    [e-mail]
Software Exoterica Corporation  [phone]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Exchange Upgrades in Australia
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1991 21:08:48 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

> [e-mail] (Peter da Silva) writes:

>> Telecom Australia has its problems (like they're massively behind the
>> times) but apparently charging for "Touch Tone" never occurred to them.

> That seems a little harsh.  If Telecom Australia is so behind the
> times how come it was the first operator to publicly offer ISDN in the
> world?

Offer it where? A few central business districts? They certainly don't
have it available for residential users even in the "better" suburbs
of Sydney. My father just recently installed a baby PBX in his house.
He'd much rather have had something like Centrex, but that's not
offered.  Let alone ISDN. And that's in Vaucluse! Things like "Call
Waiting" are rumored to exist, but nobody I'd met had actually seen
them.

> How come Australia has the highest penetration rate in the world
> of both Basic Rate and Primary Rate ISDN customers?

Because *nobody* has any significant penetration for ISDN?

> How come Telecom Australia had the world's first networked Credit Card
> payphone?

How does that help residential service customers?

> How come Australia has the highest penetration of EFTPOS terminals in
> the world?

How does that help residential service customers?

> Hate to disillusion you ... but the USA does not have the most advanced
> phone system in the world.

Never said it did.

Neither, for that matter, does Australia.

> Oh yes, and Telecom Australia never charges for Touch Tone access.

Didn't I say that?


Peter da Silva  Taronga Park BBS  [phone]/n/8/1  Taronga Park

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

Date: Sun, 14 Jul 91 09:59:47 -0400
From: "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bulletin Boards Go Corporate
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by [e-mail]
(Michael P. Deignan):

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

>>        "Wildcat is one of the few bulletin board systems commercially
>> available.  There's a lot of bulletin board software in the public
>> domain, Hutchins says, but most isn't `trustworthy.'  `When I made the

> Several BBS's in the Rhode Island area which also run the Wildcat!
> software have been "examined" in this manner, although none of them
> were closed down since they were all above-board operations.

Which probably says something about the devil you know vs. the one you
don't.

I might also note that the original article didn't say anything new to
me: back when I released UNaXcess (now defunct due to lack of time) I
had more corporations contacting me than individuals/groups.  (Of
course, the fact that it was one of the earliest Unix BBSes may also
have had something to do with this ...)  At least some companies caught
onto the idea of BBSes as business tools quite some time ago.

( ... hoping this doesn't start another wave of calls: I'm out of the
BBS-writing business and have no plans to get back into it in the
forseeable future.)


Me: Brandon S. Allbery    KF8NH: DC to LIGHT!
[44.70.4.88]  Internet:  [e-mail]
Delphi: ALLBERY    uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 13:22:13 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inconsistency With 206-958


I noticed 958 in a recent prefix list in this Digest for Bellevue,
Washington (area 206), but 206-958 got intercepted in area 215 when I
tried a call to it from Delaware.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #538
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27346;
          16 Jul 91 5:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03014;
          16 Jul 91 4:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06828;
          16 Jul 91 2:56 CDT
Date:     Tue, 16 Jul 91 2:54:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #539
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 16 Jul 91 02:54:05 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 539

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Paul Wexelblat]
    Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Patton M. Turner]
    Re: Dialing Long Distance, Then and Now [Paolo Bellutta]
    Re: "Give Me a Line" Scam [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Are English Phones Usable on the Dutch Network? [Martin Loach]
    Re: See-Thru Phone Offer [John Higdon]
    Re: X.25 Protocol -- Help! [Steve Huston]
    Re: County Seat Phone Numbers [Toby Nixon]
    Pacific Bell Touts Their Calling Card [Ed Greenberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Paul Wexelblat <samsung!ulowell![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modem Owners
Reply-To: samsung!ulowell![e-mail]
Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1991 18:24:09 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(C Lance Moxley) writes:

> The other night I lost my third modem in three years due to an
> electrical storm. All three times the phone line was the culprit. This
> time it was a TrailBlazer Plus. My question is, what are some ways to
> avoid this problem in the future? Luckily these modems are owned by
> the University, so it doesn't cost me anything. But I'm going to miss
> my TrailBlazer for awhile! Is there anything the phone company can do?

This is probably not a help to you directly, although you may want to
pass it on to the University ...

NOTICE TO COMP.CDOM.TELECOM Newsreaders, response also being posted to
misc.consumers, that may be the right group for follows-up (correct
plural?)  to this thread.

I live in the sticks (Not posting to misc.rural) and often have
lightning problems, your equipment (modems, TV,s microwave ovens,
computers, etc.)  are probably covered by your [home|apartment]
[owners|renters] insurance.  There may be some deductable, but last
year I lost a pump, two televisions, and an answering machine, and a
microwave oven in one storm (silly me, the TVs were unplugged but I
left the antenna feeds connected).  My insurance company just paid all
repair/replacement costs minus the deductable.

{Note, the pump still ran, but tripped the GFI, the insurance company
gave me no hassle about that.}


Wex

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems
Date: 15 Jul 91 02:06:09 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


> The other night I lost my third modem in three years due to an
> electrical storm. All three times the phone line was the culprit. This

You need GOOD lightning protection. The Telco will give you so-so
protection, generally.

The old protectors were carbon block gaps that got noisy as carbon
dust got zapped loose.

Many of these are replaced with gas tubes. This is good, but you
really want three electrode gas tubes where any any arc between any
two of T, R, and Ground clamp all three together. Get the phone
company to use three electrode gas tubes at your entrance if possible,
but put in your own protection AT your equipment.

For their UL rating, there will be some auxiliary gap as backup to the
gas tube.  Gas tubes can hack a lot of energy, but are really not as
fast as you may want.  Better units have avalanche diodes, too. They
fire very fast, and the gas tube eventually fires to relieve the
diodes that can't hack as much energy.

To round out the package, you should get heat coils or sneak current
fuses all built in to protect from power line crosses at voltages too
low to fire the gas tube.

Good plug in CO grade protectors cost LESS than whimpy junk sold to
'data-suckers' (tm). The problem is getting them and then getting a
small enough and cheap enough block to plug them into.

If you have thousands of cable pairs to protect, these things are
readily available. Most of the brands do make small 25 pair blocks and
you will also find ten and six pair, too. Most will be punch in and
out or even wire-wrap tails in these sizes. You can get 66 punch in,
and rj21x out.

Most brands (AT&T, Cook/NTI, Reliable, etc) all plug in
interchangably.  Porta Systems makes modules to plug into the other
folk's blocks, BUT also makes their own style packaging that is more
compact (appreciated by folks with a few hundred thousand pair per CO
to protect).

I like the PortaSystems Delta series protectors (have EVERY feature I
mentioned above). Try the 95BCDXN-230 unit. Is good for any electronic
CO. Costs less than $10. Maybe $8.50 per pair.

A typical 25 pair block would be their 581P-<something>. The something
will define punch, cable stub, 25 pair connector, in whatever
combination IN and OUT. Costs maybe $95 without protectors.

They make a SIX-PAK PLUS rig that does six pair and a power cord.
This (as does all their blocks) takes the Delta as well as many less
expensive protector modules. This is good for a typical key phone
system.  Their ten pair (but no power protection) blocks can be added
alongside if more pairs are needed.

The advantage to getting a power and phone unit of this quality in a
single package is that your ground is hardly going to be perfect, but
having a common one for phone and equipment power helps ensure there
are no high voltages between any different wires entering your
hardware.

The single pair telco protector often used for NEW home installations
and used to retrofit older protectors is a black plastic 'log' about
two inches long with three wires sprouting out (near each end and the
middle for the ground).  This often is made by TTI in Farmingdale LI,
and the Porta Systems folks are in Soyosset LI.

This sort of stuff is sold be Anixter, Graybar, TW Comm Corp, North
Supply, AllTel, etc.

The Siemon (of 66 block note) folks also make a plug on protector that
can go onto a 50 pair (vertically split) M block, but you need to add
their ground bus superstructure kit first. These are three electrode
gas, avalanche diodes, and tiny replacable sneek fuzes all in a cute
package, but at just over $15 for a pair, I like the more standard
plug in CO style units nentioned above that cost 1/2. If you only
want an occasional pair and have lots of 66 punch mounted, try these.
In general the same suppliers will have them.

Sadly, the 'protected' power strip folks generally stick just a cheap
MOV in to do the power. The better ones, like the TrippLite IsoBar
units sometimes include a phone line (e.g. their IsoTel unit). I doubt
they do as good a phone job as the CO grade phone units above.

TrippLite is small enough a company and supposedly has a techie PRES,
so I pestered their engineer at a trade show to make a unit with
SERIOUS phone line protection, and gave him sample PortaSystems and
WECO plug in protectors.

They should provide the plugin base and phone jacks on their power
strip, and OEM the serious phone plugins the industry has. Again,
having that common ground for power and phone protection at your
hardware is a good idea.

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 00:02:59 CDT
From: "Patton M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems


[Questions about how to protect modems from surges]

There are other more qualified than I to discuss surge protection, but
let me pass on two examples of supressors that will not work.

1) Homemade job with low voltage MOV's.  I found on of these on a FAX
line once.  Both MOV's were burned up.  I suspect they tried to clamp
the ringing voltage on the first call after they were installed.

2) Supressors that only clamp differential mode transients.  For good
protection both common mode (tip and ring to ground) and differential
mode (tip to ring) transients must be supressed.  To realize this with
MOV's three are needed, two for common mode and one for differental
mode transient supression.

In addition to installing a supressor, coiling a length of excess line
cord on the CO side of the supressor will lengthen the voltage rise
time, increasing the efectiveness of the supressor.

Although I can't comment on their theoretical or statistical
effectiveness, I've had good luck with gas discharge protectors on
phone lines, antenna feedline, and LV control wiring.

Since you are on the campus PBX (I assume), I think it's strange you
have lost three modems given the short cable length typical for a
campus.

Disclaimer - I have no connection to Auburn University Telcom/ETV


Pat Turner      KB4GRZ       [e-mail]

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

From: Paolo Bellutta <[e-mail]>
Organization: I.R.S.T. 38050 POVO (TRENTO) ITALY
Subject: Re: Dialing Long Distance, Then and Now
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 9:30:11 MET DST


> in manual exchanges. A call from Chicago to Los Angeles in 1940 would
> have gone like this:

[details deleted]

That leads to a question:

How did the operator know which route had to be used?  Did he knew
just which calls could be completed by its site, and had another site
where to route other calls? (This could be used recursively to
complete the call.)

And this will lead us to another question:

Now that routing is done automatically, and there are several ways to
connect two points, how the route is determined (on long distance and
on international calls). I mean, WHO decides the route? Is it
dead-lock possible?


Paolo Bellutta
I.R.S.T.        vox:    [phone]
loc. Pante' di Povo    fax:    [phone]
38050 POVO (TN)        e-mail:    [e-mail]
ITALY                [e-mail]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Give Me a Line" Scam
Date: 15 Jul 91 01:10:59 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


> Pat, I wouldn't be surprised if the identity of AT&T employees is at
> least semi-public information.  Here's how to find out.  Call up some

If you send mail to an incomplete name @attmail.com, you get back a
listing of valid possibilities complete with their locations.

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

From: "Martin Loach at CCRG" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are English Phones Usable on the Dutch Network?
Date: 15 Jul 91 15:49:39 BST
Organization: Oxford University VAXcluster


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Hans van
Staveren) writes:

> Yesterday I tried to connect an English phone, specifically the
> British Telecom Freeway, to a Dutch outlet. There seems to be a
> problem with three-wire vs two-wire operation. Details below. Is this
> supposed to be possible? When I asked the Dutch PTT they claimed it
> should be possible.

Connect red and white only. If this works but there is no ring, you
may have a problem, the blue needing the capacitor which you probably
havent got in your outlet?

I don't know the phone, so I don't know if it is reconfigurable.


Martin

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 09:44 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: See-Thru Phone Offer


[e-mail] writes:

> Earlier this year, I recall seeing (on a wrapper for Sunmark Inc. of
> St. Louis, Missouri) a "See-Thru Phone Offer".  Does anyone know what
> the meaning of this was?

If you are in the mood for a "see thru" phone, go to your nearest
telephone supply company and purchase a Cortelco clear 2500-style set.
Cortelco still makes a basic telephone with a mechanical ringer and
the classic case with metal base in many colors including clear.

Mine was under $30. And how long has it been since you have seen a
phone with an REN of 1.0A?


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: X.25 Protocol -- Help!
Date: 15 Jul 91 17:14:22 GMT
Organization: Process Software Corporation


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Richard Leon Kapusta) writes:

> Does anyone know where I can get X.25 libraries for the PC?  I'm
> writing a terminal package for the New York Stock Exchange and it uses
> the X.25 protocol.  Any information at all will be greatly appreciated!

The first question you need to answer is probably "what hardware do
I have to work with?"  If you have a card that handles X.25 levels
2 and 3, you just need to find out how to program it, which you would
presumably ask the vendor for.  If you have a simple sync line card
with no protocol support, you need to start with the X.25 specs,
unless you can get a package that supports your card - in that case
the vendor again can give you info on how to program against their
software.


Steve Huston          Process Software Corporation
[e-mail]    Framingham, MA

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: County Seat Phone Numbers
Date: 15 Jul 91 13:40:30 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

> I take it most people are local to their county seat in the U.S.
> (Failing that, a special number is usually provided for those people
> long distance within the county.)

That's not a good assumption.  Here in Georgia, even though most of
the state is served by Southern Bell, there are dozens of small phone
companies.  Some counties are divided up into four, five, or more
separate companies.  Until 1 July 1991, you would be charged toll
charges, even if the call was within your own county, just a couple of
miles away (counties in Georgia are generally very small; we have 154
of them, more than any state but Texas).

When the state legislature proposed a law requiring free calling
anywhere within ones home county (primarily to allow folks to call
government offices in the county seat without paying toll charges),
these small phone companies were outraged, sent hordes of lobbyists to
the capitol, and protested of their certain demise (or, at the very
least, the need to raise local rates to make up for the lost revenue).
The government offices refused to put in toll-free lines or accept
collect calls from people within the county -- budgetary constraints,
you know.  Actually, the initial proposal was to permit free calling
anywhere within the county plus seven miles outside the county, but
that was eventually cut back to the county line.

> In olden times (going back to before the American Revolution?), new
> counties sometimes got formed because people got tired of long trips
> to the county seat.  There is a vestige of this in the local calling
> arrangements such as are given in this message.

That is exactly the reason most often given for the huge number of
counties in Georgia: people wanted to be able to get from their farm
to the county seat and back home again in one day, by horse and buggy.
Nowdays, however, the reason for perpetuating the system is to keep
thousands of county commissioners, school board members, sheriffs,
clerks, judges, and other various officers in power.  Period.  Having
a huge number of counties makes available a huge number of public
offices and jobs. Georgia has about the highest number of government
employees in the USA, per-capita, as a result.  It is a disgusting
waste of resources.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348  USA        | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
(Views expressed are personal only) | Internet       [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 10:37 PDT
Subject: Pacific Bell Touts Their Calling Card


Pacific Bell sent out new calling cards this month, with the same old
number and pin.  They now offer pin selection if you want it.

The collateral material hammers strongly on the point that THIS card
has your easy-to-remember phone number on it, will work on ALL phones
to make ALL calls, and will not result in nasty INVALID NUMBER
messages.

The very fine print states that calls outside the service area are
carried by a long distance carrier and that rates will vary and that
Pacific Bell is not responsible for calls carried on LD carriers other
than the one presubscribed on the phone to which your calling card is
billed, etc. etc.

Sounds like Pacific Bell is fighting back against the new AT&T cards
coming out.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #539
******************************





ISSUES 540 THROUGH 545 GOT MIXED UP IN TRANSMISSION AND APPEAR BELOW
VERY OUT OF ORDER, BUT ALL ARE THERE.





Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20110;
          17 Jul 91 2:35 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02895;
          17 Jul 91 0:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27802;
          16 Jul 91 23:36 CDT
Date:     Tue, 16 Jul 91 22:34:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #542
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 16 Jul 91 22:34:30 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 542

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    ATC's Wonderful New Billing [Bill Huttig]
    Strange Phone Behavior [David Hardy]
    AT&T Call Manager *Does* Work in CT [A. Satish Pai]
    MCI 800 Numbers [Dave Marthouse]
    Scammers Get Scammed [John Higdon]
    Call Monitoring in NY State [portal!cup.portal.com!kohathi]
    French PTT Information Wanted [Mark Eggers]
    PacTel Information Wanted [Matt Simpson]
    The Big Losers [John Higdon]
    Party Lines Are Prominent in Iowa [Brian D. McMahon]
    ISDN Terminator Information Wanted [Steve Jeske]
    Information Wanted on ISDN Technology [Jorge Delvasto]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATC's Wonderful New Billing
Date: 15 Jul 91 19:07:51 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


  I just received my third new bill from ATC. The invoice date was 7/5
and the cycle date was 5-28-91 / 6-27-91. It was mailed from Cleveland,
OH on the 12th. I assume this is the location of EDS (the people who
wrote the new billing system).

The account was a MicroTel account originally before the buy out.
Never had any major billing problems or anything with them. I hardly
ever use this account since I have a ATC/SouthTel account with the
Ring America program ... $6/hour + $1.50/month (actually its called
Access America on the SouthTel System.)

The June 11th invoice showed a charge to 407 392-2244 Boca Raton, FL
and was three daytime minutes. Well first of all, I don't know anyone
in Boca and second I don't make many daytime calls.  I called up
Customer Relations and explained to them the problem the rep said hold
and she would check. It turned out to be a local ATC number. She
issued credit.

So this month I had one daytime call to 407-750-2530. I called and it
checked out to be another ATC number. Plus there was another call to
the 392 number. Seems like they were billing for calls to the 800
numbers that are translated. I don't know why they would have the 800
number translated into a real BOC number and not just use T-1's to the
CS office.

I was wondering why they even processed the details on the 800 call?

Does the local BOC send them a tape with all calls completed on their
network with the 800 number translation done? Maybe the new billing
software did not pick up the 'auto collect call' code so it would
ignore the record.

They also added South Carolina to the ATC network.

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 17:39:04 EDT
From: David Hardy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Strange Phone Behavior


Yesterday, while using my phone, I noticed that every few seconds or
so the person I was talking to dropped out and would be replaced for a
small amount of time by either another voice, a ringing signal, or
silence.  I determined that the problem was in my exchange (617-926)
and called repair.  The problem later went away, but it was bizarre
while it was happening.  Almost like a digital line was getting out of
synch and occasionally giving me someone else's frames.  Didn't make
for very good modem connections, either.  :)

Anybody had this happen before, or know what the cause might be?  I
don't know what kind of switch the CO has, but I believe it was
changed recently since at one point the sound of the dial tone changed
and the ANI number that used to work (220-2622) no longer does.


Dave   BITNET: DAVEH@MITVMC   Internet: [e-mail]
Acknowledge-To: <DAVEH@MITVMC>

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

From: "A. Satish Pai" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Call Manager *Does* Work in CT
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven CT 06520, USA
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1991 22:06:17 GMT


Hi,

    Just a curiosity that I encountered recently. I'm in Connecticut,
and my local telco is SNET, and my long distance company is AT&T.
After choosing AT&T, I asked one of their representatives whether I
could use the Call Manager feature. After some consultation, the
representative told me that I definitely could _not_ use it since the
feature was not available in CT. They also said it was because of
something to do with SNET. Well, I called SNET too, and they told me
the same thing, that with their phone system one couldn't (yet) use
the Call Manager.

    The funny thing is, I _am_ able to use the Call Manager by
dialling 0-xxx-zzz-yyyy-15-ab where 'ab' is a random two-digit
combination, and the calls get correctly tabulated and billed in my
monthly statement.

    Now, does AT&T really not know what they are doing? I made yet
another call to AT&T recently and I was assured again that while the
Call Manager was not available in CT, they would do their best to
include my area in the scheme "as soon as possible". Why would they
not want to tell people some feature was really working?


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: Dave Marthouse <overlf![e-mail]>
Subject: MCI 800 Numbers
Date: 15 Jul 91 23:21:58 GMT
Organization: Overleaf Systems, Inc.  Fords, NJ


A few days back I had to call a company that had an MCI 800 number.
When I called I was asked by a computer voice to enter my code. I did
so and the call was put through. Why does MCI use such a method? I
assume that lots of users share the same 800 number, but have diffrent
access codes. Why doesn't the company assign diffrent numbers to each
user? Or, does a shortage of standart 800 numbers exist?

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 19:24 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Scammers Get Scammed


I thought some of you might like a little insight into the 900
business, and the fact that even in that sewer, there is a food chain
heirarchy.

If you ever had thoughts about beginning a 900 service be sure you
have the equipment, a place to put it, arrangements with a 900
carrier, and expertise in fields ranging from advertising to digital
audio. For those without these skills it is a jungle out there.

If you lack any of the above, you will be forced to deal with "service
bureaus". These are the real bottom feeders. For $5000 per month,
(which covers 24 lines), $180 per line per month (for the carrier's
cozy arrangement with the service bureau), plus $.20 to $.50 per call
for "setup", plus some indeterminate amount per call over 30,000
calls, you will be provided with space on someone's equipment. In
other words, you come up with the idea and the capital and the service
bureau will be happy to collect the money.

The rates above were taken from an ad for TeleServe, a service bureau
that is owned and run by a manufacturer of interactive voice
equipment.  They will also be happy to do custom programming for you
(and then sell it to others and make even more money). They will also
lock you into their equipment and they alone will keep track of how
your line does.  They pay themselves, and then they pay you--if there
is anything left over. Accounting and auditing? Those are dirty words
in the 900 service business.

So the next time you get an idea to start a 900 line, be sure that you
are fully prepared with equipment, location, and line arrangements.
Otherwise you will be at the not so tender mercy of a service bureau
and will be fattening someone else's pocket other than your own.


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

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Call Monitoring in NY State
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 19:14:40 PDT


     If one calls a certain number in the state of New York, one is
answered by a recorded voice claiming that the line is being monitored
by the NY telco and asking for a name and number to call back.  Is
this a usual telco procedure if a subscriber is receiving harassing or
threatening calls?  If so, under what conditions can such monitoring
be done, and, if not, what is going on?  Thanks.

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

From: Temp account <[e-mail]>
Subject: French PTT Information Wanted
Organization: University of Notre Dame,  Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 16:07:32 GMT


Could someone point me to readily accessible information concerning
the French PTT regulations, particularly with respect to data?


Thanks,

Mark Eggers    [e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 13:03:53 EST
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: PacTel Information Wanted


I'm still trying to get my hands on PacTel's alleged new long-range
(4-8 mile) cordless phone. As telecom readers may remember, I posted
here earlier that I'd seen a very brief magazine blurb about it last
year and was trying to find more info. I finally got a phone number
(408-957-6300) where someone answered "PacTel Products," and knew what
I was talking about, but said no information was available yet, but
promised to send some when it was available.

Not trusting such a vague promise, I decided to follow up
occasionally. In May, I was told the information would not be
available until mid-June. At least this was a more definite answer
than I'd ever gotten before. Around the end of June, I tried to follow
up again. I tried every day for a week, and got no answer, although
there was one two-hour span when the line was busy every time I tried.

The following week, all my calls were answered by an intercept: "You
have reached a number that is not in use. Please call the main number
as listed in the directory." Sounded like I'd gotten an unused DID
extension. Unfortunately, I didn't have a directory, and didn't know
where 408-957 was. It showed up on my bill as San Jose. One call to
408-555-1212 got me the reply that there was no PacTel Products in San
Jose. Another try got me a more ambitious operator who checked under
some other location, which I didn't catch when she told it to me, and
found the 957-6300 number.

The next week, the intercept had changed to "You have reached a number
which has been disconnected or is no longer in service," which I would
guess was coming from the CO rather than a PBX.  Does anybody know
anything about PacTel Products/Great Technologies, or their model SST
cordless phone, or where I could look for more info?

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 11:33 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: The Big Losers


AT&T NEWS BRIEFS

Tuesday, July 16, 1991

BELLS -- [Anchor]:  The seven Baby Bell phone companies may soon
be manufacturing [telecommunications] equipment, something banned
under the [MFJ decree].  The Senate already has voted to remove
that restriction and the House is heading in the same direction.
 ... The major potential loser would be AT&T. ... [AT&T senior vp
Gerald Lowrie]: The customers of that equipment are the seven regional
Bell companies.  They will buy from themselves, in most cases, to make
sure that [their own] manufacturing company is successful. ... CNN
Business News, 7/15.

[end quote]

The other major losers will be the customers and ratepayers of the
RBOCs. Choice of equipment will suddenly disappear as the Bells tell
customers that only its equipment is REALLY compatible with the
telephone network (and stage some CO failures to make the point for
customers that have the nerve to buy elsewhere). I have some
documented cases where Pac*Bell has done this, and then sent the
Centrex goons in to push the reliability of Centrex over the
customer-owned PBX. In the case where the customer was also my client,
this backfired big-time.  But many customers will be taken in and will
chuck over for the telco-manufactured equipment.

As ratepayers, we will all lose as the Bells inflate the cost of its
own equipment to the regulated arm -- making big profits for the
manufacturing division and justifying major rate increases for the
regulated utility. And please, have no delusions about any regulators
preventing any of this.

Allowing the greedy RBOCs the ability to manufacture equipment is bad
enough, but allowing them to sell it to themselves will destroy any
benefits that may have come out of the MFJ.


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

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 14:18:14 cdt
From: "McMahon,Brian D" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Party Lines Are Prominent in Iowa


Paul Schleck <[e-mail]> asks about party lines still
being in use.  Pat (a.k.a. "Our Esteemed Moderator") notes that party
line service is "rare."

Well, I suppose "rare" depends on your perspective.  For you big-city
types (over 10,000 8-), probably so.  In rural areas, you may still
find quite a few party lines around.  The GTE Grinnell/Malcom phone
directory lists tariffs for single-, two-, and four-party service,
with the rates further divided into four service rate areas (urban,
and rural zones 1 - 3).  I was curious about how this looked in
practice, so I asked a friend in GTE Public Affairs.  (See also recent
postings by John Higdon. 8-) Here's what I was told, paraphrased and
filtered by my faulty powers of recall:

The bulk of the rural customers in our area are still on two- or
four-party lines, although in many cases a multi-party line may have
only one active subscriber.  The state utilities commission wants to
have all the four-party stuff eliminated by 1993.  One of the ways
they want to deliver the added capacity to meet that goal is
essentially cellular technology.  Gentel will have a transmitter in
Creston, IA to serve rural residential customers in the area.  (I
doubt you can get FMR for your tractor, though. 8-)

I presume (didn't ask specifically) that the charges for this would be
according to the tariffs for rural residential service, not according
to the $$ for cellular car phones.  The transmitter even makes
economic sense for GTE: rural plant is expensive, and the number of
customers has been shrinking.  With cellular, you're not stuck with
miles of wire running to abandoned farmhouses when the subscribers
move.

Don't blame GTE for my mistakes; don't blame me for GTE's; thank you. 8-)


Brian McMahon  <[e-mail]> Grinnell College Computer Services
Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA  Voice: [phone]  Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 17:02:55 -0700
From: Steve Jeske <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Terminator Information Wanted


I'm working for a guy who's designing what I think of as a piece of
ISDN "station" equipment.  That is, it will be attached to an ISDN
"basic" rate interface point.  Directly I mean, not via a "terminal
adapter" (DSU).  The casual reading I've done seems to suggest that
ISDN allows up to eight (8) such things, all on the same "bus", with
modular plugs and jacks similar to RJ45 ones (defined by ISO 8877?).
Each end of the transmit and receive pairs of the bus are terminated
with a 100-ohm resistor across them.

I suspect that the majority of ISDN station equipment is meant for
point-to-point use, and probably has the termination resistors built
into each end.  Does anybody know of any equipment, from any
manufacturer, which is meant to be plugged into a bus as one device
among many?  How do the manufacturers handle the bussing aspect?  Do
they have two RJ45-type jacks on the rear of their device, one for
incoming, one for outgoing?  How do they allow their customers to
terminate the bus, given that the customer makes it?  Do you know of
somebody who sells terminators for such a "simple passive bus"?  Etc.


Thanks,

Steve      [e-mail]        ...!decwrl!jeske

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

Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 16 Jul 1991 21:59:36 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Information Wanted on ISDN Technology


I'm interested in finding out more information on how ISDN technology
is being implemented in LAN or WAN environments.  Specifically in the
use of video conferencing or video text.  What type of cabling is
needed?  How much of the theory of ISDN has been standarized?

Thank you very much,


Jorge Delvasto

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #542
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21750;
          17 Jul 91 3:14 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09675;
          16 Jul 91 22:24 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30251;
          16 Jul 91 21:16 CDT
Date:     Tue, 16 Jul 91 20:55:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #540
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 16 Jul 91 20:55:02 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 540

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices [Martin Janzen]
    Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices [Mark Henderson]
    Re: Sprint Dropping Calls From 415 to SoCal [John Higdon]
    Re: Telemarketing: Fight Back! [Robert Jacobson]
    Re: Dialing Long Distance, Then and Now [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Exchange Upgrades in Australia [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Inconsistency With 206-958 [David Leibold]
    Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [Ken J. Clark]
    Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Linc Madison]
    Re: Using Ringback For Intercom [Dale Gass]
    Re: Book Review: 5ESS Switch Feature Handbook [Bob Yazz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Martin Janzen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices
Reply-To: Martin Janzen <[e-mail]>
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd.
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 21:58:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Patt Bromberger <patth@sci.
ccny.cuny.edu> writes:

> We'll be moving shortly from New York City to Vancouver, British
> Columbia and would appreciate recommendations with respect to any
> companies in British Columbia that offer long distance telephone
> service because we will still be calling the States very frequently.

Allow me to recommend the services of my employer's parent company,
B.C. Tel!  They have the distinction of being the *only* provider of
public long-distance services in the province.  :-)

My phone book lists two long-distance purchase plans that may help:

1) "Between Friends" gives you 30 minutes of direct-dialed calls
anywhere in Canada (except B.C.) and the U.S. (except Alaska and
Hawaii).  Calls must be made between 5-11PM on weekdays, and 8AM-11PM
on weekends, Christmas, or New Year's Day.  It costs $8.45/month for
the first 30 minutes, $0.28/minute after that.

2) "Teleplus" gives you a 15% discount, 24 hours a day, seven days a
week.  For $4.00/month, you get 15% off the first $100 of calls; for
$10.00/month, you get the discount on the first $400.  The discount is
applied even to evening and night rates.

It costs $8.25 to sign up for either plan.  I believe that you can
only sign up for one or the other, not both.  If you want more info,
the customer service number is [phone].

> Our current service is provided by AT&T and when I spoke to customer
> service about the equipment we still rent from AT&T the representative
> said to just unplug the phone and take it with us :-)

You can rent or buy phones from B.C. Tel, or supply your own.  I'd be
surprised if they allow you to plug in a phone that doesn't have a
Communications Canada sticker; if you do want to "take it with you",
you should probably ask first.

> We'd just like to know if there are better choices than AT&T.

"Choices"?  What's that?    :-)


Martin Janzen                     [e-mail] (134.87.131.13)
MPR Teltech Ltd.                  Phone: [phone]
8999 Nelson Way                   Fax: [phone]
Burnaby, BC, CANADA  V5A 4B5

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

From: "Mark C. Henderson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby BC, CANADA
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 16:17:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Patt Bromberger <patth@sci.
ccny.cuny.edu> writes:

> We'll be moving shortly from New York City to Vancouver, British
> Columbia and would appreciate recommendations with respect to any
> companies in British Columbia that offer long distance telephone
> service because we will still be calling the States very frequently.

Long distance here is more tightly regulated than in the U.S.
Essentially, one does not have the choice of various long distance
carriers; so in Vancouver, one uses BC Tel.

However, through some loophole in the law (I don't know the details)
there are small alternative long distance companies here which provide
substantial savings over BC Tel.  One has to call up a local number
and then dial an access code to use these services.  The discount with
CAMNET, for example, on calls to the U.S. is 35% over BC Tel's rates,
which is often (it depends on distance and rate periods) a
considerable saving over BC Tel.

They can be contacted at [phone]. I have no connection with
CAMNET other than as a customer.


Mark C. Henderson, Special Service Networks, MPR Teltech Ltd.
8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC V5A 4B5 CANADA   [phone] (voice)
Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Fax:    [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 00:49 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Sprint Dropping Calls From 415 to SoCal


"John L. Shelton" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Approximatly 1/4 of our calls to southern California fail to go
> through; usually there is no audible indication of a problem; our
> callers just complain that "nothing happens" and give up after a
> while.  Calls routed over AT&T (dialing 10288 + ) go through just
> fine.

This is just one of many reasons why I quit using Sprint for my calls
to SoCal. Each time I would call Sprint repair and there would be a
few days of back and forth communications and eventually the current
problem would go away.

When Sprint started charging me hundreds of dollars for someone else's
calls, I threw in the towel. Yes, Sprint ultimately removed the
charges and even threw in a goodwill credit, but I just finally got
tired of screwing around with it constantly. A number of months ago, I
signed up with AT&T's Reach Out California plan and have been happy
ever since.

> Sprint claims there's nothing wrong with their network, that it must
> be a Pac Bell problem.

This is usually the first response you get. Initially, nothing is ever
wrong with Sprint. No way. (However, unlike AT&T, Sprint never offers
to contact Pac*Bell to straighten it out for you, either.)

> Are we getting the run-around?  Are there things I should (or could)
> check on?

If you insist on keeping Sprint, tell your repair person to contact
Pac*Bell if it is an LEC problem -- but in any event, HANDLE IT!


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

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketing: Fight Back!
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1991 12:19:04 GMT


Don't call a legislator at home.  You won't often find him/her there.

Call the office and ask for the staff person assigned to the
telemarketing bill.  Or give the bill number, in its House or Senate
version.  The staffer will tally the responses and advise the Member
how the "public" feels about the vote.  Follow up your call with a
letter, which goes in the file and is pulled out just before the vote.
Seriously, you can make a difference.  And the joy is thinking that
the 29 cents or, with a phone call, buck you've invested is about
equal to a high-paid lobbyist's hourly fee in terms of effect. That
is, you're getting about $400 value for your dollar.


Bob Jacobson

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dialing Long Distance, Then and Now
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1991 13:30:35 GMT


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

> Now that routing is done automatically, and there are several ways to
> connect two points, how the route is determined (on long distance and
> on international calls). I mean, WHO decides the route? Is it
> dead-lock possible?

Each switch determines routing to outgoing trunks, and it may not
always be for the obvious reasons.

For instance, here in Fairbanks we have many incoming trunks that are
via satellite from various places in the northern part of the state.
First choice trunking for them is always going to be a terrestrial
route if one exists, just to avoid a double satellite hop.  First
choice for a local caller will be satellite if one exists, just to
keep the terrestrial trunks available.  It spreads out the annoyance
at satellite circuits evenly!

Usually it depends most on how many trunks and how much traffic is
normal on a particular route.  We route most of our traffic to the
lower 48 states via the Anchorage toll switch because they are much
better connected.  Calls directly to places that we have outgoing
trunks to will go direct (Seattle for instance).  Calls that will be
passed on to another toll switch will go via Anchorage first, even if
they are basically next door to a tandem that we have direct access
to.  As much routing is kept local to our own network as possible.

Routing is also set up on a basis of first, second and maybe more
choices.  If first choice routes are busy, the second route is used,
etc.  The first trunk group is said to be in "overflow" when that
happens.  If no route is available you will get the "All Trunks Busy".

If you make calls at low traffic times (3 AM for example) you can be
certain that ten out of ten to the same place will take the same route
(first choice routing all the way).  If you try at 9 AM it may go
different ways every time if it is routed across the country.


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: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Exchange Upgrades in Australia
Date: 16 Jul 91 09:06:19 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan


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

> If Telecom Australia is so behind the
> times how come it was the first operator to publicly offer ISDN in the
> world?  How come Australia has the highest penetration rate in the
> world of both Basic Rate and Primary Rate ISDN customers?

I think ISDN is often used as a cover for a lack of basic services.
Japan's NTT loves to talk about how much ISDN they have.  But the fact
remains that I still can't get a reliable connection above 1200bps
between my home and office in Tokyo, and 90% of the population is
still using black rotary dial phones.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Inconsistency With 206-958
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1991 16:32:33 GMT


Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> writes:

> I noticed 958 in a recent prefix list in this Digest for Bellevue,
> Washington (area 206), but 206-958 got intercepted in area 215 when I
> tried a call to it from Delaware.

958 is used in most NPA's for test purposes, at least so says the
{Notes on the Network} book ... there are a few exceptions such as
809-958 in Jamaica for regular service; it might also be an intra-NPA
paging number which can only be reached within Washington

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 13:34:15 PDT
From: "Ken J. Clark" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rob Knauerhase)
writes:

> We used to be able to do something similar in our Ohio Bell exchange
> (614-876 in Columbus) -- dialing 955-xxxx (where xxxx were the last
> four digits of your phone number) would give an unbreakable dial tone.
> From that, you flashed the hook which produced a hum tone (constant
> tone) and then hung up.  In a second or two the phone would ring.
> Answering it got you the same hum tone, but it was low enough that
> people on extensions could speak to you.

We had the same feature in Olean, NY (area code 716, exchange 372) for
years.  My parents house was on a two-party line with the neighbors
across the street, and this was one way to ring the other party.  You
simply waited until the phone stopped ringing, which indicated that
our neighbor had picked up their phone, then picked up your own phone.
I don't ever remember having to talk over a hum tone though.

A second way to ring on the party line was to dial your own number and
wait for a busy signal.  Then dial the "party code number" and hang
up, with the same result as the 955-xxxx.  I'm not sure of the
differences here, but the telco (New York Telephone) did listed our
party code on the center of the phone's dial, as part of the phone
number.  This probably was more useful on party lines with more then
two parties.

This ring back feature went away after NYT upgraded the Olean switch
to a 5ESS in 1983.


Ken J. Clark                      [e-mail]
Security Engineering Services     {uunet..}!simpact!cevax.simpact.com!kclark
Simpact Associates Inc.           Voice: 703-758-0190  ex. 2134
Reston, VA                        Fax:   [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 13:07:53 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Lance Moxley (Lance-Moxley@
uiuc.edu) writes:

> The other night I lost my third modem in three years due to an
> electrical storm. ... My question is, what are some ways to
> avoid this problem in the future?

I have a little device that is supposed to serve as a phone line surge
suppressor.  I'm not sure it's even worth the plastic it's made out
of, but basically it's a little box with an RJ-11 phone jack on one
side and three-wire electrical plug on the other.  The hot and neutral
connections on the electrical side are plastic, but the ground is real
metal (!).  The hope is that any surge on the phone line will short to
the power company's ground.  Of course, you have to have a properly
grounded electrical outlet for this to work.

I got the little box for about $12.95 from a company called Direct
Micro (I think; don't have the info here at hand).  If anyone wants
more info, e-mail me.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]  =  ucbvax!tongue1!linc

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

From: Dale Gass <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Using Ringback For Intercom
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems, Atlantic Canada Branch
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1991 21:28:15 -0300


In article <[e-mail]> polari![e-mail].
edu writs:

> In 1977, my parents were having a new house built in a small town in
> New Mexico (505-672) that was then served by an SXS CDO.  Dialing
> 672-3011 or 672-2022 would result in dead silence; if you would hang
> up the phone would then ring (and there would be dead silence when it
> was answered).

We used to have this in Nova Scotia, and it was handy on occasion.
(The phone book described it as being used for party lines.)

I noticed recently when I got a phone installed after moving back that
this is now an "Intercom" feature for which there is a monthly charge.
It's interesting how a leftover from the old days of party lines can
be recycled into a new "feature".


[e-mail]

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Book Review: 5ESS Switch Feature Handbook
Date: 16 Jul 1991 01:58:51 GMT


[e-mail] (Wes Morgan) writes:

> I just received my copy of Issue 6 of the "5ESS Switch Feature
> Handbook" from AT&T.  This 430-page text documents every available
> feature of the 5ESS, including some "coming soon" features.  For

Thank-you so much, Wes, for publicizing the existance of this book.

Does anyone know of a similar publication for Northern Telecom's
DMS-100 switch?


Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]
Payphone ripoff?  Californians call Pac Bell at 800/352-2201, M-F, 8-5.
 From elsewhere try the FCC's enforcement division at 202/632-7553.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #540
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22498;
          17 Jul 91 3:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19220;
          17 Jul 91 1:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02895;
          17 Jul 91 0:42 CDT
Date:     Wed, 17 Jul 91 0:20:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #542
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 17 Jul 91 00:20:23 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 543

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Illinois Bell Fights the Drug War [Adam J. Ashby]
    IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [TELECOM Moderator]
    Military Phones [Brian D. McMahon]
    Schematic For Model 500 Telephone [Bob Hale]
    Re: Book Review: 5ESS Switch Feature Handbook [Al L. Varney]
    New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 09:38:53 CDT
From: "Adam J. Ashby" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Illinois Bell Fights the Drug War


Pat,

I heard this on the news on my way to work this morning.  You may have
more details on the areas involved.  Somehow I don't see this helping
keep the US drug free!!

Illinois Bell announced today that it is going to prevent coin phones
from accepting coins at night in two of Chicago's worst affected drug
areas.  The rationale behind this is that it will stop dealers from
getting orders for drugs.  Emergency and operator calls will still be
allowed.

It would seem to me that preventing incoming calls at those phones
would be a better course of action.  It would also seem that the
COCOTs are going to see an increase in business!

Of course, the areas in question no doubt have the least penetration
of residential lines, thus are the areas that need the coin phones the
most, thereby depriving the majority in order to be seen to be doing
something about the majority.


Adam


[Moderator's Note All the papers were talking about it today. I've
included the story from the {Chicago Sun Times} in this issue.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 23:29:41 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals


{Chicago Sun-Times}, Tuesday, July 16, 1991.

Test in two wards will make public calls easy to trace.
By Maureen O'Donnell, Staff Writer


Brison Poindexter says he knows when a motorist using the pay phone
outside his south side 7-Eleven store is up to no good.

"Someone pulls up in a fancy car in the middle of the night and asks
for change for $3 or $4. You don't ask for that kind of change to call
mom," said the 21-year old manager of the convenience store at 1800
East 87th Street.

Poindexter suspects the callers are using the payphones to conduct
drug deals or other illegal activity.

But as of Monday night (July 15), Illinois Bell is conducting an
unusual experiment aimed at payphone drug-dealing and other called-in
criminal activity in two city wards, including the one where
Poindexter's 7-Eleven is located.

More than 50 payphones in the 8th and 37th wards will no longer accept
coins between 6 PM and 6 AM.

All outgoing calls from those phones must be 'zero-plussed', meaning
the caller must use a calling card, call collect, or bill the call to
a third party, but quarters won't do them any good. Bell believes is
is the first such experiment in the country. It will not affect free
calls to 911 (emergency), 411 (inquiries) or 611 (repair bureau).

"The reason they (drug dealers) like payphones is they can put in
their quarter and no one knows who they are," said Illinois Bell
spokesman Geoff Potter. "That's going to change with this. If they
call collect, or with their calling card, they're going to leave a
paper trail. And billing to a third party is also going to be difficult,
since that links another person to that call. That'll discourage them.

The 90-day trial has the approval of Chicago Police Superintendent
LeRoy Martin and City Aldermen Lorraine L. Dixon (8th ward) and Percy
Giles, (37th ward), who praised the idea from Bell.

"We believe this restriction will help deter criminals from using
public phones to plan drug-dealing and other illegal activities,"
Martin said.

But the American Civil Liberties Union questions how it will affect
poor people who don't have phones. Illinois Bell requires a $500
deposit from people who do not have phones before it will issue a
calling card. Poor people cannot afford such a payment, according to
Harvey Grossman, legal director of the Illinois chapter of the ACLU.

"Basically, it will have a discriminatory effect on poor people and
African-Americans, and the drug-dealers will just move to other
telephones," Grossman said. "We question the appropriateness of that
kind of decision by a public utility."

"For people without phones, they'll have to call collect pretty much,"
Potter said. "Or, if it is not an emergency, wait until the next day."

The phones involved in the trial are only a portion of the total
Illinois Bell phones in the area. Independent payphone providers are
not participating in the experiment, Potter said.

Illinois Bell has received no opposition so far. Business groups,
including the 87th Street/Stony Island Avenue Business Association are
backing the experiment.

The neighborhood around 87th and Stony Island Avenue, called Calumet
Heights, is a thriving business community whose residents include
Police Superintendent Martin, said Sam Neely, owner of Neely Brothers
Shell Service Station, 8700 South Stony Island Avenue, and president
of the local business association.  The payphones outside Neely's
gasoline service station are going to restrict night-time coin calls.

The experiment is intended to head off trouble in a good neighborhood,
Neely said. "It is preventive. We don't want things to happen," he
said.

"I think it is a great idea," Poindexter said. "Anything to cut down
on drugs."

                 ------   end of article -----


Moderator's Musings:

I wonder if Illinois Bell has left a paper trail of their own by
filing any tariff on this with the Illinois Commerce Commission?

I wonder how IBT plans to deal with long distance *inter-LATA* calls
where coins are traditionally collected by the AT&T operator? Have
they explained all this to AT&T and received their approval also?
No doubt some AT&T customers will be complaining about an addtional
charge due to being forced to use a card instead of coins.

I wonder if IBT plans to waive or somewhat reduce its usual credit
requirements for a calling card for people living in this area?

I wonder if IBT plans to waive any price differential incurred on an
operator assisted call where a calling card or third party/collect
billing is used?  Will they handle local payphone calls from that area
for the customary 25 cents, since this latest scheme was their bright
idea?  Nah ... I doubt they care *that much* about the war on drugs.

This has to be one of the most hair-brained schemes yet! It ranks
right up there with the fools who want to convert the payphones to
rotary dial to 'prevent the use of beepers'. So the gasoline station
has genuine Bell payphones which won't accept money ... that's okay,
because the cut-rate liquor store across the street has a COCOT folks
can use.  Nothing changes except good -- but poor -- people have to
walk a little further at midnight to use the COCOT instead.

In thirty-plus years I have yet to see anything I agreed with the ACLU
about, but this time I hope they go to court and slap the fire out of
IBT once and for all, or at the very least, put IBT completely through
their paces before letting this pass: (1) a complete tariff filing and
commission approval; (2) a waiver of any additional fees usually
incurred by the use of operator-handled calls; (3) relaxed credit
requirements for residents in the area who do not otherwise have phone
service, (i.e. no deposit on non-subscriber calling cards or a chance
to install life-line bare minimum private service with no installation
fee, etc.)

Either that, or just forget this foolish idea completely.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 14:23:37 cdt
From: "McMahon,Brian D" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Military Phones


Kyle Leon Webb <[e-mail]> writes:

> I'm a National Guard communications sergeant, and we are
> still using the old switchboards for our field communications.

> Thankfully we are slowly changingover to direct dial systems in
> most of the military, but the old plugboards are still around.

Which reminds me ... 8-) My summer job in high school (early 1980's)
involved working on the switchboard for the University of Maryland's
Munich (Germany) Campus, an old electro-mechanical beast made by
Deutsche Telefon und Normalzeit.  The phone systems (note the plural)
were quite an adventure.  I placed calls to some pretty interesting
places; I remember one especially fun call to Crete:

 From Munich, the operator patched me through to somewhere else in
Germany (can't recall exactly where), then to Italy, and from Italy to
Crete.  I believe there was more than one hop in Italy, too.  The call
had to get from the Army to the Air Force network at some point, that
might have been the extra Italy stage.  By that point, I was completely
befuddled about where all I'd been routed (took several tries to get
through, each time with a slightly different routing), and the quality
of the connection to Crete was TERRIBLE.  Lord knows what the link
was -- cable, radio, or smoke signal.  The operator at the base in Crete
and I spent a few minutes yelling at each other over the static, then
I plugged in the office at U.  of M., crossed my fingers, and
disconnected.

There were other joys, including calls to SHAPE Belgium and various
sites in the UK, but that one stands out in my mind.  It was about
that time (about 1982-83) that they started to clear up the
hodge-podge of phone systems and tin cans with string that was the
U.S. military phone network, introducing "ETS," the European Telephone
System.  Among other features, ETS gave us seven-digit numbers ("just
like in the States") in place of the old Munich military four-digit
numbers (<arbitrary prefix>-6535 for U. Maryland became 440-6535) and
a few standard calling features like call forwarding, camp-on, and
(VERY popular in that tense time of anti-US/anti-NATO/ anti-nukes
demonstrations) nuisance/threat call tracing.  On phones with that
feature, the procedure was to flash, dial a code, keep the caller on
the line for as long as possible, then call the M.P. station.

The military systems could also be called from German civilian phones,
like the phones in the housing area.  With the old system, when you
dialed 6229 from a Munich civilian phone, you'd get a station
announcement, a taped message repeating, "Munich military, dial your
number."  The recording went away about the time the new system went
in.  Those old recordings were apparently a local production, because
they were slightly different at other bases.  Augsburg, for instance,
kept the old recording for some time after Munich's went away, and
theirs was a different voice saying, "Augsboorg, dial your number."
There were times when I had a call to a base that wouldn't go through
on the military lines, but by dialing the city code and then whatever
prefix would get you into the local military system in that city, I
could connect!  (Of course, that was a toll call, at Bundespost
long-distance rates.)  The 6229 prefix wasn't standard, it varied city
by city, and appeared to be sort of a hack in each locality.
Unfortunately, I wasn't telecom-literate at the time, and didn't
really understand what was going on, or pay much attention.


Brian McMahon  <[e-mail]> Grinnell College Computer Services
Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA Voice: [phone]  Fax: [phone]

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

From: Bob Hale <btree![e-mail]>
Subject: Schematic For Model 500 Telephone
Organization: Brooktree Corporation
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 19:38:58 GMT


Someone (sorry, the article expired here) had asked for a schematic
for a model 500 telephone.  I have one; if you (or anyone else) is
still interested then please e-mail me and we'll see about a copy.


Bob Hale       ...!ucsd!btree!hale
619-535-3234   ...!btree![e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 22:32:21 CDT
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Book Review: 5ESS Switch Feature Handbook
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In an old telecom message, [e-mail] (Wes Morgan) writes:

> I just received my copy of Issue 6 of the "5ESS Switch Feature
> Handbook" from AT&T.  This 430-page text documents every available
> feature of the 5ESS, including some "coming soon" features.  For

  If you buy a 5ESS(tm) switch, we'll even put you on the mailing list
for advance feature information! :-) Seriously, while AT&T and the
telecom industry in general are not exactly "open systems", the world
of AT&T documentation is fairly open to outside purchase.  For
example, for analog switching fans, there is:

  "1 and 1A ESS(tm) Switches Feature Handbook", 231-090-425, Issue 6,
about 250 pages, including some tables of feature compatibility, the
initial software release supporting the feature, etc.

and even:
  "General Description - No. 5 Crossbar Offices", 218-100-000, Iss. 1.
     {Mr. Higdon needs this one, just for the memories.}

Aside from the Feature Handbooks and other "Marketing-related" stuff,
the real technical info. catalog for switching, PBX, power, etc. is:

  "AT&T Master Index, 9-digit Documents", 000-000-002 (1100+ pages!!)
      available from the:
AT&T Customer Information Center, PO Box 19901, Indianapolis,IN 46219
  or call   1-800-432-6600    or   317-352-0011

Many documents are on microfiche, tape or CD-ROM, as well as hardcopy.
Note that some may be on "limited" distribution, such as AUTOVON
documentation (don't ask).

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

> Does anyone know of a similar publication for Northern Telecom's
> DMS-100 switch?

   Don't know, but I'd like one ... Some vendors are very "tight" with
documentation, even the marketing literature.  I'm not allowed to give
out their phone numbers, but guess you could call Information for
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina and ask for Northern Telecom.

Another information source is:

   Bellcore's "Catalog of Technical Information" and the TRs are
available from  1-800-521-CORE  or  201-699-5800 (Orders or Inquiries)

  Telex Orders: [phone]
  Fax Orders:   [phone]
  Mail Orders: Bellcore Customer Service, 60 New England Ave.
               Piscataway, NJ 08854-4196


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle IL
Disclaimer:  This message is not an official AT&T publication.

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 0:08:47 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today


The Chicago Alphabetical (White Pages) Directory arrived today from
Illinois Bell for 1991-92, dated August, 1991. With it came the little
'neighborhood directory' with the local area white and yellow pages
for the Rogers Park/Edgewater/Uptown neighborhoods.

I've reviewed it briefly, and there appears to be nothing much
different than last year, except more attention given this time to the
new custom calling features; i.e. return last call, call screening, etc.

This year the Customer Information pages are printed in blue and white
instead of white only, as in the past. There is also a section in the
front of the book, about ten pages in length, called 'The Blue Pages',
and this is a four-part directory of federal, State of Illinois,
County of Cook and City of Chicago government listings.

As for many years in the past, the first entry in the alphabetical
section is  "A", at 946 West Belmont Avenue, 312-975-7600, which I
believe is just one of several listings for the Annex Telephone
Answering Service. This is probably just a concentrator at the
Chicago-Lakeview CO, on the north side.

"A" is also located at 2912 North Central Park, 1216 West Flournoy,
and 619 West Randolph Street, all of which are probably just
concentrators going to Annex, whose office is downtown. For whatever
reason, this year "A" is not listed at an address they used for
several years on Michigan Avenue downtown with the long-time number of
312-STAte-3000.

And continuing to hold last place, as he has for at least thirty years
is "Zzyzx, Isadore 1706 S. Halsted, 942-1695", who the directory notes
is a purveyor of general merchandise.

I'll end this 'book review' with a tired old joke: After reading it,
my opinion is it has a fascinating cast of characters, but not much of
a plot!   :)


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #543
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22732;
          17 Jul 91 3:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19220;
          17 Jul 91 1:52 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac02895;
          17 Jul 91 0:42 CDT
Date:     Wed, 17 Jul 91 0:24:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #543
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 17 Jul 91 00:20:23 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 543

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Illinois Bell Fights the Drug War [Adam J. Ashby]
    IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [TELECOM Moderator]
    Military Phones [Brian D. McMahon]
    Schematic For Model 500 Telephone [Bob Hale]
    Re: Book Review: 5ESS Switch Feature Handbook [Al L. Varney]
    New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 09:38:53 CDT
From: "Adam J. Ashby" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Illinois Bell Fights the Drug War


Pat,

I heard this on the news on my way to work this morning.  You may have
more details on the areas involved.  Somehow I don't see this helping
keep the US drug free!!

Illinois Bell announced today that it is going to prevent coin phones
from accepting coins at night in two of Chicago's worst affected drug
areas.  The rationale behind this is that it will stop dealers from
getting orders for drugs.  Emergency and operator calls will still be
allowed.

It would seem to me that preventing incoming calls at those phones
would be a better course of action.  It would also seem that the
COCOTs are going to see an increase in business!

Of course, the areas in question no doubt have the least penetration
of residential lines, thus are the areas that need the coin phones the
most, thereby depriving the majority in order to be seen to be doing
something about the majority.


Adam


[Moderator's Note All the papers were talking about it today. I've
included the story from the {Chicago Sun Times} in this issue.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 23:29:41 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals


{Chicago Sun-Times}, Tuesday, July 16, 1991.

Test in two wards will make public calls easy to trace.
By Maureen O'Donnell, Staff Writer


Brison Poindexter says he knows when a motorist using the pay phone
outside his south side 7-Eleven store is up to no good.

"Someone pulls up in a fancy car in the middle of the night and asks
for change for $3 or $4. You don't ask for that kind of change to call
mom," said the 21-year old manager of the convenience store at 1800
East 87th Street.

Poindexter suspects the callers are using the payphones to conduct
drug deals or other illegal activity.

But as of Monday night (July 15), Illinois Bell is conducting an
unusual experiment aimed at payphone drug-dealing and other called-in
criminal activity in two city wards, including the one where
Poindexter's 7-Eleven is located.

More than 50 payphones in the 8th and 37th wards will no longer accept
coins between 6 PM and 6 AM.

All outgoing calls from those phones must be 'zero-plussed', meaning
the caller must use a calling card, call collect, or bill the call to
a third party, but quarters won't do them any good. Bell believes is
is the first such experiment in the country. It will not affect free
calls to 911 (emergency), 411 (inquiries) or 611 (repair bureau).

"The reason they (drug dealers) like payphones is they can put in
their quarter and no one knows who they are," said Illinois Bell
spokesman Geoff Potter. "That's going to change with this. If they
call collect, or with their calling card, they're going to leave a
paper trail. And billing to a third party is also going to be difficult,
since that links another person to that call. That'll discourage them.

The 90-day trial has the approval of Chicago Police Superintendent
LeRoy Martin and City Aldermen Lorraine L. Dixon (8th ward) and Percy
Giles, (37th ward), who praised the idea from Bell.

"We believe this restriction will help deter criminals from using
public phones to plan drug-dealing and other illegal activities,"
Martin said.

But the American Civil Liberties Union questions how it will affect
poor people who don't have phones. Illinois Bell requires a $500
deposit from people who do not have phones before it will issue a
calling card. Poor people cannot afford such a payment, according to
Harvey Grossman, legal director of the Illinois chapter of the ACLU.

"Basically, it will have a discriminatory effect on poor people and
African-Americans, and the drug-dealers will just move to other
telephones," Grossman said. "We question the appropriateness of that
kind of decision by a public utility."

"For people without phones, they'll have to call collect pretty much,"
Potter said. "Or, if it is not an emergency, wait until the next day."

The phones involved in the trial are only a portion of the total
Illinois Bell phones in the area. Independent payphone providers are
not participating in the experiment, Potter said.

Illinois Bell has received no opposition so far. Business groups,
including the 87th Street/Stony Island Avenue Business Association are
backing the experiment.

The neighborhood around 87th and Stony Island Avenue, called Calumet
Heights, is a thriving business community whose residents include
Police Superintendent Martin, said Sam Neely, owner of Neely Brothers
Shell Service Station, 8700 South Stony Island Avenue, and president
of the local business association.  The payphones outside Neely's
gasoline service station are going to restrict night-time coin calls.

The experiment is intended to head off trouble in a good neighborhood,
Neely said. "It is preventive. We don't want things to happen," he
said.

"I think it is a great idea," Poindexter said. "Anything to cut down
on drugs."

                 ------   end of article -----


Moderator's Musings:

I wonder if Illinois Bell has left a paper trail of their own by
filing any tariff on this with the Illinois Commerce Commission?

I wonder how IBT plans to deal with long distance *inter-LATA* calls
where coins are traditionally collected by the AT&T operator? Have
they explained all this to AT&T and received their approval also?
No doubt some AT&T customers will be complaining about an addtional
charge due to being forced to use a card instead of coins.

I wonder if IBT plans to waive or somewhat reduce its usual credit
requirements for a calling card for people living in this area?

I wonder if IBT plans to waive any price differential incurred on an
operator assisted call where a calling card or third party/collect
billing is used?  Will they handle local payphone calls from that area
for the customary 25 cents, since this latest scheme was their bright
idea?  Nah ... I doubt they care *that much* about the war on drugs.

This has to be one of the most hair-brained schemes yet! It ranks
right up there with the fools who want to convert the payphones to
rotary dial to 'prevent the use of beepers'. So the gasoline station
has genuine Bell payphones which won't accept money ... that's okay,
because the cut-rate liquor store across the street has a COCOT folks
can use.  Nothing changes except good -- but poor -- people have to
walk a little further at midnight to use the COCOT instead.

In thirty-plus years I have yet to see anything I agreed with the ACLU
about, but this time I hope they go to court and slap the fire out of
IBT once and for all, or at the very least, put IBT completely through
their paces before letting this pass: (1) a complete tariff filing and
commission approval; (2) a waiver of any additional fees usually
incurred by the use of operator-handled calls; (3) relaxed credit
requirements for residents in the area who do not otherwise have phone
service, (i.e. no deposit on non-subscriber calling cards or a chance
to install life-line bare minimum private service with no installation
fee, etc.)

Either that, or just forget this foolish idea completely.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 14:23:37 cdt
From: "McMahon,Brian D" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Military Phones


Kyle Leon Webb <[e-mail]> writes:

> I'm a National Guard communications sergeant, and we are
> still using the old switchboards for our field communications.

> Thankfully we are slowly changingover to direct dial systems in
> most of the military, but the old plugboards are still around.

Which reminds me ... 8-) My summer job in high school (early 1980's)
involved working on the switchboard for the University of Maryland's
Munich (Germany) Campus, an old electro-mechanical beast made by
Deutsche Telefon und Normalzeit.  The phone systems (note the plural)
were quite an adventure.  I placed calls to some pretty interesting
places; I remember one especially fun call to Crete:

 From Munich, the operator patched me through to somewhere else in
Germany (can't recall exactly where), then to Italy, and from Italy to
Crete.  I believe there was more than one hop in Italy, too.  The call
had to get from the Army to the Air Force network at some point, that
might have been the extra Italy stage.  By that point, I was completely
befuddled about where all I'd been routed (took several tries to get
through, each time with a slightly different routing), and the quality
of the connection to Crete was TERRIBLE.  Lord knows what the link
was -- cable, radio, or smoke signal.  The operator at the base in Crete
and I spent a few minutes yelling at each other over the static, then
I plugged in the office at U.  of M., crossed my fingers, and
disconnected.

There were other joys, including calls to SHAPE Belgium and various
sites in the UK, but that one stands out in my mind.  It was about
that time (about 1982-83) that they started to clear up the
hodge-podge of phone systems and tin cans with string that was the
U.S. military phone network, introducing "ETS," the European Telephone
System.  Among other features, ETS gave us seven-digit numbers ("just
like in the States") in place of the old Munich military four-digit
numbers (<arbitrary prefix>-6535 for U. Maryland became 440-6535) and
a few standard calling features like call forwarding, camp-on, and
(VERY popular in that tense time of anti-US/anti-NATO/ anti-nukes
demonstrations) nuisance/threat call tracing.  On phones with that
feature, the procedure was to flash, dial a code, keep the caller on
the line for as long as possible, then call the M.P. station.

The military systems could also be called from German civilian phones,
like the phones in the housing area.  With the old system, when you
dialed 6229 from a Munich civilian phone, you'd get a station
announcement, a taped message repeating, "Munich military, dial your
number."  The recording went away about the time the new system went
in.  Those old recordings were apparently a local production, because
they were slightly different at other bases.  Augsburg, for instance,
kept the old recording for some time after Munich's went away, and
theirs was a different voice saying, "Augsboorg, dial your number."
There were times when I had a call to a base that wouldn't go through
on the military lines, but by dialing the city code and then whatever
prefix would get you into the local military system in that city, I
could connect!  (Of course, that was a toll call, at Bundespost
long-distance rates.)  The 6229 prefix wasn't standard, it varied city
by city, and appeared to be sort of a hack in each locality.
Unfortunately, I wasn't telecom-literate at the time, and didn't
really understand what was going on, or pay much attention.


Brian McMahon  <[e-mail]> Grinnell College Computer Services
Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA Voice: [phone]  Fax: [phone]

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

From: Bob Hale <btree![e-mail]>
Subject: Schematic For Model 500 Telephone
Organization: Brooktree Corporation
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 91 19:38:58 GMT


Someone (sorry, the article expired here) had asked for a schematic
for a model 500 telephone.  I have one; if you (or anyone else) is
still interested then please e-mail me and we'll see about a copy.


Bob Hale       ...!ucsd!btree!hale
619-535-3234   ...!btree![e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 22:32:21 CDT
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Book Review: 5ESS Switch Feature Handbook
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In an old telecom message, [e-mail] (Wes Morgan) writes:

> I just received my copy of Issue 6 of the "5ESS Switch Feature
> Handbook" from AT&T.  This 430-page text documents every available
> feature of the 5ESS, including some "coming soon" features.  For

  If you buy a 5ESS(tm) switch, we'll even put you on the mailing list
for advance feature information! :-) Seriously, while AT&T and the
telecom industry in general are not exactly "open systems", the world
of AT&T documentation is fairly open to outside purchase.  For
example, for analog switching fans, there is:

  "1 and 1A ESS(tm) Switches Feature Handbook", 231-090-425, Issue 6,
about 250 pages, including some tables of feature compatibility, the
initial software release supporting the feature, etc.

and even:
  "General Description - No. 5 Crossbar Offices", 218-100-000, Iss. 1.
     {Mr. Higdon needs this one, just for the memories.}

Aside from the Feature Handbooks and other "Marketing-related" stuff,
the real technical info. catalog for switching, PBX, power, etc. is:

  "AT&T Master Index, 9-digit Documents", 000-000-002 (1100+ pages!!)
      available from the:
AT&T Customer Information Center, PO Box 19901, Indianapolis,IN 46219
  or call   1-800-432-6600    or   317-352-0011

Many documents are on microfiche, tape or CD-ROM, as well as hardcopy.
Note that some may be on "limited" distribution, such as AUTOVON
documentation (don't ask).

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

> Does anyone know of a similar publication for Northern Telecom's
> DMS-100 switch?

   Don't know, but I'd like one ... Some vendors are very "tight" with
documentation, even the marketing literature.  I'm not allowed to give
out their phone numbers, but guess you could call Information for
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina and ask for Northern Telecom.

Another information source is:

   Bellcore's "Catalog of Technical Information" and the TRs are
available from  1-800-521-CORE  or  201-699-5800 (Orders or Inquiries)

  Telex Orders: [phone]
  Fax Orders:   [phone]
  Mail Orders: Bellcore Customer Service, 60 New England Ave.
               Piscataway, NJ 08854-4196


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle IL
Disclaimer:  This message is not an official AT&T publication.

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 0:08:47 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today


The Chicago Alphabetical (White Pages) Directory arrived today from
Illinois Bell for 1991-92, dated August, 1991. With it came the little
'neighborhood directory' with the local area white and yellow pages
for the Rogers Park/Edgewater/Uptown neighborhoods.

I've reviewed it briefly, and there appears to be nothing much
different than last year, except more attention given this time to the
new custom calling features; i.e. return last call, call screening, etc.

This year the Customer Information pages are printed in blue and white
instead of white only, as in the past. There is also a section in the
front of the book, about ten pages in length, called 'The Blue Pages',
and this is a four-part directory of federal, State of Illinois,
County of Cook and City of Chicago government listings.

As for many years in the past, the first entry in the alphabetical
section is  "A", at 946 West Belmont Avenue, 312-975-7600, which I
believe is just one of several listings for the Annex Telephone
Answering Service. This is probably just a concentrator at the
Chicago-Lakeview CO, on the north side.

"A" is also located at 2912 North Central Park, 1216 West Flournoy,
and 619 West Randolph Street, all of which are probably just
concentrators going to Annex, whose office is downtown. For whatever
reason, this year "A" is not listed at an address they used for
several years on Michigan Avenue downtown with the long-time number of
312-STAte-3000.

And continuing to hold last place, as he has for at least thirty years
is "Zzyzx, Isadore 1706 S. Halsted, 942-1695", who the directory notes
is a purveyor of general merchandise.

I'll end this 'book review' with a tired old joke: After reading it,
my opinion is it has a fascinating cast of characters, but not much of
a plot!   :)


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #543
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27502;
          17 Jul 91 5:43 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad21979; 17 Jul 91 4:38 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27802;
          16 Jul 91 23:35 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09675;
          16 Jul 91 22:24 CDT
Date:     Tue, 16 Jul 91 21:27:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #541
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 16 Jul 91 21:26:41 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 541

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Automatic Follow Me Roaming [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Dialing Long Distance, Then and Now [Bryan Richardson]
    Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Glenn R. Stone]
    Re: Party Lines Still in Use in NH? [Michael Goodlett]
    Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [Todd Inch]
    New York City Switch Conversion [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    RJ11, 12, 13 [Alain Fontaine]
    Wiring For ISDN, etc. (Summary) [Stan Reeves]
    Information on Execuline Requested [Arun Baheti]
    Sharp UX-111 FAX Diagnostic Mode [Brian Kantor]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15-JUL-1991 03:22:31.76
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automatic Follow Me Roaming


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

> I had Follow Me Roaming on my Cellular One/Chicago phone for about a
> month.  I found it annoying to have to enter *31 to tell the system
> where I was every day and every time I passed into a new system. It
> was much easier giving people who needed to call me the roamer port
> number.

Hmm ... you said Cell One/Chicago, the "A" system, so you mean
"Nationlink" (aka Roam America), right?

(FMR generally uses *18/*19, while Nationlink uses *30,*31,*32)

If you use the "follow me" command on Nationlink, which I think is
*31, you shouldn't have to hit *31 in every system that you go to.
 From my experience (and this is a bit more limited than I would like
 ... ahem ... Metro Mobile ... when ARE you getting Nationlink? :) ),
*31 merely activates the follow me feature. When you enter a new
system, all you have to do is dial a number, or just hit SEND, and
Nationlink will then be alerted that you are there. You can do this
from system to system, without having to enter *31, although you can
enter *31 as well if you like. Calls to *711 and *611/611 customer
service should work fine too - basically anything you do that tells
the system you are roaming in their area will work fine. (Can this be
automatic in systems that audit a new roamer as he enters the system?)

I am not sure if this works for *32, ie, the message which tells
callers at your home system how to reach you through the roam port.
You may have to hit *32 for each new city that you go to.

> A question still remains in my mind, however.  If I enter a foreign
> system as a roamer, I can receive calls through the roam port because
> the system knows I'm there. Why then doesn't this foreign system say
> "aha! He's *really* here from Chicago.  Let's tell the Chicago system
> that he's here so they can forward calls this way if he's got FMR."

I think this is how it works, ie, once you receive a call through the
roam port, your phone has been active in the foreign system, and if
you had activated *31 either at home or in any other system that has
Nationlink, your calls would be redirected to the system you are
currently in. But I don't think that in all systems the "roam port"
knows that you are there until someone calls you and the MTSO/cell
system tries to find you.

If you mean why doesn't forwarding activate even without you doing
anything or receiving any calls (assuming *31 is active from a
previous system, and less than 24 hours ago [*31 automatically
deactivates after 24 hours if it sees no activity..MUCH better than
"B"/FMR! ]), I am not sure. I know SOME systems audit you as you enter
their service area, such as Monterey, CA. But I am not sure if all
systems to this or if in fact such information can be relayed back to
Nationlink, although this seems feasible.

> They already contact my home system to verify there is a legitimate
> place to bill calls.

Hmmm ... do they? (not sarcastic, really a question on my part as
well).  Isn't there a central database that handles this? Or is PRV
trying to get away from a central database and do actual checks with
the specific cell co. in question?

> They even (in most places) *charge* for this.

Hey, as someone at GTE in Houston told me, they are charging to make
money.  The roamer verification systems don't cost $3 a shot, believe
me. Just like speeding tickets are to the states, "daily roam charges"
are a gold mine to the cell companies, one that you really can't
contest and one that they have a vested interest in maintaining. They
of course don't tell you this, and say instead "Oh, it is to cover the
costs of roamer validation and those REALLY huge bills that "tumblers"
making fraudulent calls cost us!" Sure ... right.

Interesting though that there was a problem with Nationlink in the
Cell One/SF service area. I wonder if that has been cleared up yet?

By the way, forgive me if I am wrong, but as I recall, the codes for
Nationlink are:

*30 deactivate both *31 and *32
*31 activate the "follow me" feature
*32 activate verbal notification to callers as to what port you can be
    reached at.


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

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

From: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dialing Long Distance, Then and Now
Date: 17 Jul 91 01:39:14 GMT
Reply-To: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


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

> And this will lead us to another question:

> Now that routing is done automatically, and there are several ways to
> connect two points, how the route is determined (on long distance and
> on international calls). I mean, WHO decides the route? Is it
> dead-lock possible?

Domestically, it is up to the LEC to "deliver" the call to the
appropriate IEC.  If that IEC happens to be AT&T, then the call is
completed using one of two routing algorithms.  The AT&T network is
currently in transition to an algorithm called "Real-Time Network
Routing" which has been advertised in some trade magazines.

Simplified, this algorithm consists of first determining if there is
trunking available to the destination switch (within the AT&T
network), and if so routing the call directly.  If not, then the
switch may complete the call through any other 4 ESS in the network
(called a "via" switch).  Only one via switch is allowed in any call,
eliminating the possibility of deadlock or non-terminating routing.
With Real-Time Network Routing, each switch has real-time information
about which switches are available for routing.


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

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

From: "Glenn R. Stone" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems
Date: 17 Jul 91 01:40:30 GMT
Organization: Dead Poets Society


In Telecom v11i537#4 [e-mail] (C Lance Moxley)
writes:

> The other night I lost my third modem in three years due to an
> electrical storm.  My question is, what are some ways to avoid this
> problem in the future? Is there anything the phone company can do?

Don't blame the phone company for something YOU can fix.  Surge-suppress!

You can get single-outlet cubes, multi-outlet taps, or power strips at
your local electronics/computer store ... and you can also get phone
line isolaters, which plug into grounded outlets and suppress surges
received thru the phone lines.  I use both, and have yet to lose
equipment here in thunderstorm-prone Atlanta ... <user knocks on
wood> Fifteen bucks worth of surge suppression is cheap insurance for
three- and four-digit modem purchases.  You pay now, or pay later.


Glenn R. Stone ([e-mail])

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

From: Michael Goodlett <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Party Lines Still in Use in NH?
Date: 15 Jul 91 01:36:46 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station


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

> I can report that party lines are still alive and well elsewhere.  I
> was up in the Adirondack Mountains in Upstate New York recently, and
> the house I stayed at had a party line phone.  The local carrier up
> there is Contel, not New York Telephone as I would have expected.  The
> phone was a modern ITT tone-dial phone with a 66.66 Hz ringer.  The
> exchange was 518/251, in North River, NY.

AND in Buda, TX they are still using party lines.  They just started
putting in private lines a few years back (of which the people I know
out there took a private line).

Buda is just south of Austin, just north of San Marcos.


Mike
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

From: Todd Inch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return
Organization: Maverick International Inc.
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 19:58:47 GMT


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

> mission![e-mail] writes:

>> I have GTE service in Orange County, CA, and when I call my own
>> number, I hear quiet beeping.  If I then hang up, the phone rings.

> This "feature" you have uncovered is the way
> it would have been necessary in the not-so-distant past to call one of
> your neighbors. There is one thing you will find in any switch GTE
> uses: a better than average provision for ringback. Now you know why.

Our local GTE switches (GTD-5 if I remember correctly) go one step
further:

When we call our own number we get a message like "Calling party: The
number you have dialed is on your line.  Please hang up and allow time
for them to answer."  (not verbatim)

Then, when you pick it up: "Called party: Someone on your line is
calling you.  Please wait a moment for them to answer."

By the way, on the local GTE switches, we just dial 411 to get an ANI
computer to read back the number for the line.  Very helpful when
working in the phone connection closet with your butt-set.  Hopefully
it'll work for you, too.

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

Date: 15-JUL-1991 03:23:58.78
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: New York City Switch Conversion


Metro One in New York is presently in the process of changing their
switch to an Ericsson, and despite efforts which I assume they took to
make sure the transition was a smooth one, there are still major
problems as of Sunday night.

The roam port is not operating properly, the DMX to Connecticut and
South Jersey is down, many of Metro One's customers have lost all of
their Custom Calling features, calls have been dropped, callers get a
re-order, etc. They have their Customer service office open all night,
and one rep called it a "total mess!". "I'm going to strangle the
person who said this will be a simple transition!", she said. (And
interestingly, the Philly roam port, 215-350-7626, is down too!)

Anyhow, I am wondering how they will manage to get everything in order
by Monday, when the REAL traffic begins. The system is in such a state
now that they will have to work like dogs to get it back to normal by
the start of the business day.

Not wanting to be left out, Metro Mobile sent its customers a letter
(a day after the cut-over took place, of course), saying that due to
the new switch in NY, *Connecticut customers* can NOT use
No-Answer-Transfer at all! That is, they are eliminating the
No-Answer-Transfer feature, until further notice (they hinted at about
a year!), because of the new switch in New York! The letter said it
was due to incompatiblity between Metro Mobile's Motorola switches and
New York's Ericsson switches. The only alternative for those who
insist on having No-Answer-Transfer is to call Metro Mobile, and have
them disallow paging in the New York system, ie, if you want
No-Answer-Transfer, you can't get calls in New York and New Jersey!

How correct is this? Is there really some problem here? Or is Metro
making excuses again for some outrageous reason?

Customer service says that they are working on a new system for
No-Answer-Transfer, but that it will be slow, and that "some callers
may just hang up". Ooohhh! Elegant! :) The new system should be up in
about a week.

I suggest that any other Metro Mobile/CT or Western Mass customers who
are upset about this contact Metro at 800-346-0508 and ask them
exactly what is going on with No-Answer-Transfer. This does not affect
Metro Mobile/RI customers, as No-Answer-Transfer is still working for
them (as of my last test).

I think this is one of the more pathetic things they have done ...
they DO manage to top even themselves on a regular basis, it seems!
Why can't SNET connect to NYNEX/NY and NYNEX/New England?  Please!! ;)


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

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

From: Alain Fontaine <[e-mail]>
Subject: RJ11, 12,13
Organization: Universite Catholique de Louvain
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1991 11:37:32 GMT


I am trying to make sense of a modem manual wrutten for the US market.

Reference is made to RJ12 and RJ13 jacks, which seems to be
wiring variations on a 'physical RJ11'. The (very small) diagram
shows a box labeled 'Line Circuit', whose purpose seems to synthetize
two signals called 'A' and 'A1' from the usual Tip and Ring.

Any volunteer to elaborate? (I can stand a technical explanation -
despite the fact that I use a computer, I am still an electrical engineer
8-) ....). Thanks.


AF

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 91 11:06:25 CDT
From: Stan Reeves <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wiring For ISDN, etc. (Summary)


A few weeks ago I posted a question about prewiring a house for ISDN
and home automation.  Several people expressed an interest in the
feedback I got, so I am posting a brief summary of the suggestions I
received.

* The most common suggestion was to run multiple twisted-pair wire
from a central location to each room of the house.  The central
location would allow flexibility in the use of each pair later on.
The wire could be run to a box in each room and a blank cover
installed on the box until the wire was needed.  That way I could have
pairs for ISDN basic rate (one pair), ISDN primary rate (two pairs),
auxiliary power, LAN, burglar alarm, intercom, and other applications
I might not be able to anticipate.  The following related points were
made many times:

+ Labor costs much more than the wire, so don't skimp on the quantity
  of wire.

+ It is *much* easier to install the wire before the walls go up, so
  put in everything you could possibly anticipate before the sheetrock
  is installed.

* It was suggested that I put in spare outlets everywhere I can.

* It was suggested that I run conduit from the crawl space to the
attic to provide easy wiring access between them.  (This is
particularly important for two-story homes.)

* Some people expressed concern over trying to run ISDN basic and/or
ISDN primary pairs in the same jacket as the twisted pairs for phone
lines.

* It was suggested that I run conduit from a box in each room down to
the crawl space to keep my options open for future wiring.

I haven't decided exactly how I will tackle this problem, but I
appreciate all the suggestions!


Stan Reeves
Auburn University, Department of Electrical Engineering, Auburn, AL  36849
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Jul 1991 17:53 CDT
From: Arun Baheti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information on Execuline Requested


I'm looking for information on a firm called Execuline in Los Angeles.
They resell LD service at flat rate, six second intervals.  Rates for
in-state 15.9 cents per minute, out-state 17.9.  Can anyone tell me how
this compares to others, or if you have any information on this
specific firm?

Thanks.

Arun Baheti  [e-mail]

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sharp UX-111 FAX Diagnostic Mode
Date: 15 Jul 91 23:09:01 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


Anyone know the magic incantation to put a Sharp UX-111 FAX into
diagnostic mode?  I want to adjust the level and equalization.

The people at Sharp won't tell me.


Brian

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #541
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20870;
          18 Jul 91 2:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03329;
          18 Jul 91 1:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22467;
          18 Jul 91 0:02 CDT
Date:     Wed, 17 Jul 91 23:50:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #544
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 17 Jul 91 23:50:16 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 544

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [John Higdon]
    Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Cris Pedregal-Martin]
    Re: Serious RFI Problem [Tad Cook]
    Re: Serious RFI Problem [John Higdon]
    Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: New York City Switch Conversion [Seng-Poh Lee]
    Re: Inconsistency With 206-958 [Jeff Carroll]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 01:58 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals


Some months ago, there was a thread here about how difficult is was to
place "casual" international (or even domestic long distance calls)
from a pay phone. The comment was that in other countries, coins or
stored value cards could be used to call anywhere in the world. In the
US, you need an account with someone somewhere to be able to
conveniently call.

I suggested at the time the one reason for this might be that "the
powers that be" wanted a paper trail of calls made by all of the
people in this nation. Convenient coin or stored value calling was
anonymous and undesireable from a law enforcement point of view. At
that time, I was generally pooh-poohed.

Now it looks like there might be a little flame under that smoke. And
since all liberties, rights, and privacy are to be surrendered in the
name of the war on drugs, it would be expected that the true colors of
this scheme would come to light in the pursuit of this cause. Since
the payphone is the last place for anonymous calling, it only stands
to reason that it would be eliminated for such purposes.

It would really make things much easier if we all used our SSNs as
telephone billing numbers. But then the agenda would become pretty
obvious, no?


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 11:28:57 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> our Moderator writes:
[excerpt from local newspaper story]

> "We believe this restriction will help deter criminals from using
> public phones to plan drug-dealing and other illegal activities,"
> Martin said.

I see that the BOCs are interested in the traffic that their wonderful
public network is carrying.  Sounds like they are opening themselves
up to legal action by setting this dangerous precedent for themselves.

> "I think it is a great idea," Poindexter said. "Anything to cut down
> on drugs."

How typical.  Throw away our rights, privileges, and conveniences, all
in the name of the so-called War on Drugs.  Here's some questions for
these "feel good" drug warriors: What rights should we forego in the
name of the war?  How will we know when the war is over?  Will we get
all that was taken from the American people back when the war is over?
What will the people have to do, if anything, to get all that was
taken from us back again?

> Moderator's Musings:

> This has to be one of the most hair-brained schemes yet! It ranks
> right up there with the fools who want to convert the payphones to
> rotary dial to 'prevent the use of beepers'. So the gasoline station
> has genuine Bell payphones which won't accept money ... that's okay,
> because the cut-rate liquor store across the street has a COCOT folks
> can use.  Nothing changes except good -- but poor -- people have to
> walk a little further at midnight to use the COCOT instead.

Yes, it is just another "do something, anything!" idea that will just
hurt decent folk and strip them of another right or convenience while
doing virtually nothing to stem the supply and demand for illicit drug
use.

And yes, decent poor folk will have to walk further, at night, in bad,
dangerous neighborhoods, to conduct their personal affairs via a
medium that most of us take for granted.  Something that these people
once had and paid for is now being taken away, apparently without them
even having a say.

Good heavens, Mr. Moderator!  Is this the prevailing political
sentiment in the Windy City nowadays?  IBT is being run by a pack of
naive idiots, that much seems evident.  Money grubbing, breast-beating
idiots, who could give a rat's backside about the people in the poor
areas and the war that they fight every day in their own
neighborhoods, just to get to work and conduct their daily affairs.

I'd dispute the other points that the IBT weasels made, but it would
be tough to be objective in the face of such overwhelming idiocy.

These are my opinions.  I suspect that a number of others share them.


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


[Moderator's Musing: The 'windy city' is getting *awfully* bad once
you get away from the nice airport and the lakefront. The inner city
is extremely violent and drug-ridden these days.    PAT]

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

From: Cris Pedregal-Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 12:03:40 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I couldn't agree more with the Moderator's Musings on this.  IBT, and
worse, various public officials have lost perspective in this one.
The main effect of their "experiment" will be to further alienate poor
people from the authorities (and for good reasons).  The problems as
usual fall mainly outside the realm of technology, but techno-fixes
are always easier to implement. And as the Moderator implies, they
might bring a buck as well.

My remarks arise out of relief (I don't live in Chicago) and, the part
relevant to comp.dcom.telecom), some anger (because I am not a
customer of IBT, nor a constituent of the public officials who approve
of the measure described): I want to encourage readers in the Chicago
area to let IBT and the authorities know what they think about this.

I leave the Big Brother implications of all this to comp.risks, and
the ACLU.


Cristobal Pedregal Martin   [e-mail] (internet)
LGRC - COINS Dept.          [phone] (facsimile)
UMass / Amherst, MA 01003   [phone] (voice)

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

From: hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 23:01:18 PDT


[e-mail] complained recently about radio frequency
interference to his phone system, and asked for help.

One big problem is that inside wire is not shielded.  A big help would
be to replace the inside wire with shielded twisted pair, and ground
the shield to a good earth ground.  It also helps to use .01 uf disc
ceramic capacitors as bypass caps, from tip to ring, ring to ground
and tip to ground.  You can also use ferrite beads over tip and ring
at the protector and at each jack.

The filters from Radio Shack and AT&T aren't very good, especially
when trying to filter anything but AM broadcast band interference.
You might try some filters from K-Com, Box 82, Randolph, OH 44265.
They are optimized for HF from .5 to 30 MHz.  I don't know what
frequency the radio station that is bothering Jonathon is at, but if
it is a broadcast station on a hill, I would suspect that it is an FM
station from 88-108 MHz.  I don't know how well these filters perform
at those frequencies, but you could ask the manufacturer.

The newer electronic phones are usually more RFI susceptible than the
older simpler phones.  One interesting experiment would be to take an
old 500 set or a butt set, disconnect all the inside wire at the
protector, and see if the RFI was audible with the phone at the
protoctor.  If it is, I wonder what the telco would do to try to
allevaite RF from coming into the premises from their lines?  I had a
problem with a neighbor who was bothered by my HF ham station.  The
telco could not solve the problem with filters, and I tried to get
them to put in shielded drop wire.  They said they didn't have any,
and wouldn't do anything more beside following the Bell System
Practice and putting in the standard filter, which was probably
optimized for the AM broadcast band, rather than 14 MHz, where most of
my transmissions were taking place.

There was a good article on telephone RFI in the May, 1991 issue of
{QST}, published by the ARRL, 225 Main St, Newington, CT 06111.  They
also publish a book called Radio Frequency Interference, which has a
section devoted to telephones.


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA    Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]   MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad  or, [e-mail]
or, [e-mail]   or, [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 00:14 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem


Nick Sayer <[e-mail]> writes:

> The FCC is supposed to regulate RFI susceptibility in consumer
> electronics, but has decided for the moment to leave it to the
> manufacturers, with predictable results. Public pressure to change
> this may be helpful. We hams would undoubtedly get less abuse and be
> happier people.

And you would be horrified at the ineptitude and incompetence that
surfaces on the part of telecom equipment vendors when faced with RFI.
This comes up time and time again since I am the designated person
responsible for the RF emissions for a number of stations.

The usual manifestation is a call from some technician who has just
been involved in an installation at a business located near the
transmitter. The usual opener is a question like, "are you
broadcasting with too much power?", or "are you over-modulating?" I
usually ask the address of the installation and upon realizing that it
is across the street from the towers advise the person that he will
have to use standard AM RFI filtering procedures.

"What's that? Pac*Bell says to contact the station and you will take
care of it." As nicely as I can, I explain that the responsibility is
his and his alone, although I do give helpful advice when time
permits.

There was one installation that went on for months. The techs
continually whined at me, wanting some magic, I suppose. Just out of
curiosity, I took the field intensity meter and measured the signal at
the front door of the office building. It read 2.5 VOLTS. (AM signals
are usually measured in millivolts.) These people did indeed have a
problem, but the radio station did predate the office building by
about thirty-five years.


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

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves
Date: 16 Jul 91 22:27:50 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> Since US Sprint doesn't do this (yet?), Larry told people to use the
> "Sprint code" by dialing 10333 before the number to avoid this.  A
> caller later added a warning that "you'll get billed after 30 seconds
> if you use Sprint."

    I don't think Sprint's tariffs allow them to do this, unless
they've been changed; a few years back I (as one of Sprint's early-on
customers) was the beneficiary of a class action brought against
Sprint for doing precisely this in and around the fall of 1982.

    However, it's not at all hard for me to believe that it's
happening; Sprint's billing department has through the years pulled
all kinds of boneheaded stunts like that. I had a credit line for
Sprint for a year or so because they overbilled me about $40 or $50
one month.

> 1.  Is this a universal change that AT&T and MCI have made, or is it
> only on certain exchanges?  (I would imaging that it's universal, but
> I don't know very many numbers that ring forever to use for testing).

    I've found that some local telcos will cut you off after five
or ten or fifteen minutes if your call has not been answered. I'd
suppose that the LD carriers would also consider this standard
practice as a method of clearing calls that just will not complete.

    It's hard for me to imagine that the carriers aren't well
within their legal rights.

> 2.  Is Larry's method a proper use of The Phone Network?  It is
> deliberately tying up the network while paying only for a fraction of
> what is used, but apparently is not against the tariffs.  It would
> certainly seem to violate the "spirit of the tariffs," no?

    In my book the Larry King show is an insult to the
intelligence and a threat to civilization as we know it as well as an
abuse of the telecom network. Of all America's media celebrities, LK
has to be high on the "Least Deserving" list.


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 00:57:40 -0400
From: "Seng-Poh Lee, Speedy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New York City Switch Conversion
Organization: FSF Guest Machines


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

> Why can't SNET connect to NYNEX/NY and NYNEX/New England?  Please!! ;)

Well, almost! News Flash from my last Linx bill;

 -- Start quote --

"Linx Announces Uninterrupted Coverage Across the NY, MA & RI Borders"

Effective April 1, 1991 all Linx Mobile Phone customers have
uninterrupted coverage when crossing the border from CT into NY via
I-95 or the Merrit Parkway, into MA via I-395, into Rhode Island via
I-95, and in the greater Springfield aread heading East along I-90.

Naturally, your calls originating in NY, MA or RI will also be
automatically handed off without interruption when you enter CT or
Springfield along these routes.

THis good news is made possible by a recent decision permitting an
interstate handoff agreement between SNET and NYNEX.

 -- End of quote --

While this isn't the same service as I get from my Metro Mobile phone,
its a step in the right direction. Perhaps the next step is automatic
Follow Me Roaming ala Metro Mobile, or even just plain Follow Me
Roaming in NY and MA.


Seng-Poh Lee   <[e-mail]>

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Inconsistency With 206-958
Date: 17 Jul 91 00:05:14 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> I noticed 958 in a recent prefix list in this Digest for Bellevue,
> Washington (area 206), but 206-958 got intercepted in area 215 when I
> tried a call to it from Delaware.

I believe this is the exchange in which a recently-moved friend of
mine was assigned a new number (within the last couple of months), but
it doesn't show up in the June '91 Bellevue directory (957 does).

My friend, who is not especially telecom-savvy to my knowledge,
conjectured that she may have been assigned a leftover number from an
underpopulated cellular exchange. This sounds too strange to be true
to me. Has anyone heard of such things happening?

The population of people and telephones is expanding so rapidly around
here that I don't think anyone not formally initiated into the
mysteries of local telecom can keep track of it properly.

Maybe they're just assigning 958 numbers to people who don't know
anyone in Delaware :^)


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #544
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24575;
          18 Jul 91 4:07 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26655;
          18 Jul 91 2:16 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03329;
          18 Jul 91 1:10 CDT
Date:     Thu, 18 Jul 91 0:22:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #545
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 18 Jul 91 00:22:15 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 545

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: County Seat Phone Numbers [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: ISDN Terminator Information Wanted [James J. Allen]
    Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old on Still Works? [Andy Sherman]
    Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [Jon Sreekanth]
    Re: Serious RFI Problem - Solution [Jonathan Eunice]
    Re: PacTel Information Wanted [[e-mail]]
    Re: Getting Off a Party Line [Mike Berger]
    Re: Inconsistency With 206-958 [Tony Harminc]
    Re: What is the Meaning of 'VAR'? [Paul Cook]
    Re: RJ11, 12, 13 [Paul Cook]
    Re: AT&T Call Manager *Does* Work in CT [Brian Charles Kohn]
    Re: PacTel Information Wanted [Phydeaux]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: County Seat Phone Numbers
Date: 16 Jul 91 23:45:59 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

> I take it most people are local to their county seat in the U.S.
> (Failing that, a special number is usually provided for those people
> long distance within the county.)

    This is not the case in Washington State, not even here in
King County, of which the county seat is Seattle.

    Counties are somewhat larger here in the West than many
Yankees would expect. Seattle, located on the shore of Puget Sound, is
thus, except for Vashon Island which is also in King County, at the
western extremity of the county, is roughly fifty miles from the
Kittitas County line at Snoqualmie Pass at the summit of the Cascades,
and even farther than that from the Chelan County line at Stevens
Pass. (In order to get to Stevens Pass from Seattle it is necessary to
travel a considerable distance through neighboring Snohomish County.)

    Much of southern King County, which is served by US West, is
long distance to and from the 296 exchange in Seattle which serves
most King County offices; most of eastern King County is served by
independent telcos and is probably also long distance from Seattle.

    Most of eastern King County would still be long distance from
the county seat were it to be reorganized into the proposed "Cascade
County" which is often talked about as a solution to the isolation
felt by Far East Side residents. The county seat of "Cascade County"
would be Bellevue, which most Seattleites think of as the East Side
although it's only ten miles from downtown Seattle. Most of the
Californians currently streaming into the Seattle area are settling
well east of Bellevue.

    Incidentally, in Huntington County, Indiana, where I grew up,
almost all the territory adjacent to the county line was long distance
from the county seat. This in a rectangular area only twenty-four by
sixteen miles.


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]


[Moderator's Musing: If I am correct (from reading an old phone
directory from the Huntington area, folks in the outskirts there had
an 'Enterprise' number to call the Sheriff in emergencies. Right or
wrong?   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 09:02:24 EDT
From: James J Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN Terminator Information Wanted
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Steve Jeske):

> ISDN allows up to eight (8) such things, all on the same "bus", with
> modular plugs and jacks similar to RJ45 ones (defined by ISO 8877?).
> Each end of the transmit and receive pairs of the bus are terminated
> with a 100-ohm resistor across them.

> I suspect that the majority of ISDN station equipment is meant for
> point-to-point use, and probably has the termination resistors built
> into each end.... Do you know of somebody who sells terminators
> for such a "simple passive bus"?.

The technical issues of the S/T interface are documented in CCITT
I.430.  The RJ45 plugs and jacks are defined in ISO 8877.  The AT&T
terminating resistor is a part called the 440A4.  Detailed information
on passive bus wiring is available in:

    5ESS(r) Switch ISDN Customer Premises Planning Guide
    AT&T 533-700-100

    As usual call 1-800-432-6600 to order AT&T documentation

Most ISDN terminals are built for use on the passive bus and either do
not have terminators built in, or have jumpers/switches to select the
terminator.


Jim Allen   [e-mail]

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

From: Andy Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old on Still Works?
Date: 17 Jul 91 13:18:00 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ, USA


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

> Anyway, I'm kind of attached to my old number and resisted trying to
> remember the new card number. So I've still been using my old number
> on trips. It still works fine. If AT&T has to accept my local calling
> card number, then what's the point of two numbers. I'll just keep using
> my old number. Are there any things I can't do with my old number?

IXCs will not have to accept LEC issued calling cards (at least not
after 1/1/92), although my best knowledge is that AT&T will continue
to do so.  However, I'm not sure that the Reach Out card option will
be available with your old card number.  I don't know that it won't
either, but those customers were among the first to get the new cards.

Also, of course, your new AT&T card will be AOS-proof while your old
card will not.  Also, if you move frequently, you will appreciate that
this is one number that won't change no matter how often your phone
number does.


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: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1991 14:23:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Ken J. Clark) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 540, Message 8 of 11

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rob Knauerhase)
writes:

> We used to be able to do something similar in our Ohio Bell exchange
> (614-876 in Columbus) -- dialing 955-xxxx (where xxxx were the last
> four digits of your phone number) would give an unbreakable dial tone.
> From that, you flashed the hook which produced a hum tone (constant
> tone) and then hung up.  In a second or two the phone would ring.
> Answering it got you the same hum tone, but it was low enough that
> people on extensions could speak to you.

> This ring back feature went away after NYT upgraded the Olean switch
> to a 5ESS in 1983.

With all these fun CLASS services, like call waiting and such, why
aren't the phone companies offering something like Home PBX (SM) ?

Instead of being an undocumented feature, there would be an
above-board means of using home wiring as a PBX. You'd dial 75#, hang
up, and the phones would ring, perhaps with a distinctive ring;
parties throughout a house would pick up the phone and talk.

Is there something about this feature that makes it hard for the phone
company to offer ?

Regards,


Jon Sreekanth

Assabet Valley Microsystems, Inc.       | Fax and PC products
346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752 | [phone]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 12:47:35 -0400
From: Jonathan Eunice <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem - The Solution


The problem:

> I've just moved to a hill upon which a radio transmitter is located.
> And while I didn't anticipate it, I guess it should come as no surprise
> that I'm having a very serious problem of radio interference with my
> telephone service, affecting both voice and data. I'm hoping that some
> net.wisdom will help solve/limit the problem.

It did.  Bombing the radio tower turned out to be unnecessary.  Many
thanks to Floyd Davidson, Nick Sayer, [e-mail],
Wayne Sung, Kenneth A Becker, John McHarry, and Ken Boi.

Even though I said,

> The silly "RFI filter" gizmos sold at Radio Shack, etc have >nil<
> effect.

my solution turned out to be a Radio Shack RFI filter device. Not the
ones designed for phones, which I was talking about, but rather Archer
Snap-On Chokes (cat. no. 273-104, about $8 a pair). They attenuated
the noise down to almost nil.

Other solutions on my "to try" list included replacing the phones
(some neighbors have done this; ITT phones, some high-end Radio Shack
phones and generic "old, non-electronic" phones were recommended,
while AT&T phones were surprisingly badly panned), finding a local ham
or telecom genius to come rid me of my problem, complaining to telco,
radio station, and FCC (with only small hopes that this would really
fix anything), and so on. Luckily, these measures won't be needed.

Thanks again.


Jonathan Eunice    [e-mail]   412-488-1368

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

Subject: Re: PacTel Information Wanted
Date: Wed Jul 17 10:14:28 PDT 1991
From: [e-mail]


Matt Simpson <[e-mail]> writes:

> I'm still trying to get my hands on PacTel's alleged new long-range
> (4-8 mile) cordless phone.

Ah, so you saw that blurb in "The Bottom Line" about the SST phone as
well?  Yes, I did the same thing and arrived at the same number (408)
957-6300.  I spoke to a gentleman named Edward Chaing on a number of
occasions.  Last time I talked to him (around Christmas), he said they
were still working on the prototype in Japan.

As I understand it, PacTel sold off their "products" division to Great
Technologies in Milpidas, CA.  Well, I just talked to PacTel Business
Systems and they told me Great Technologies wnet out of business ... :-(
so much for the super cordless phone.

Anyone know anything about the parent company?

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

From: Mike Berger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Getting Off a Party Line
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1991 20:22:08 GMT


[e-mail] (Doug Sewell) writes:

> D & ML were told that they couldn't switch from a two-party line to a
> private line unless the other party on the line agrees.  The other
> party doesn't want to, so they feel 'stuck'.

> Any advice (short of offering to pay the other party's connection
> charge or praying that party lines be eliminated?)

They can't make him keep the telephone service.  Can't he just cancel,
and then request a new single-party line as new service?


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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 17:12:21 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Inconsistency with 206-958


Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I noticed 958 in a recent prefix list in this Digest for Bellevue,
> Washington (area 206), but 206-958 got intercepted in area 215 when I
> tried a call to it from Delaware.

The 958 prefix has historically been a plant test code, and not
assigned as a CO prefix.  It's quite likely that some toll switch in
215 "knows" that customer dialed calls to 958 should be blocked.


Tony H.

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 21:04 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is the Meaning of 'VAR'?


Jeff Scheer <ivgate![e-mail]> writes:

> Exactly two days ago I recieved my July issue of {Teleconnect}.  What
> is a VAR?  Is it some sort of voice announce recording thingie?  I
> know most of the acronyms but this one threw me.

VAR stands for Value Added Reseller.


Paul Cook    Proctor & Associates    Redmond, WA
206-881-7000    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 21:06 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RJ11, 12, 13


Alain Fontaine <[e-mail]> writes:

> I am trying to make sense of a modem manual wrutten for the US
> market.

> Reference is made to RJ12 and RJ13 jacks, which seems to be
> wiring variations on a 'physical RJ11'. The (very small) diagram
> shows a box labeled 'Line Circuit', whose purpose seems to synthetize
> two signals called 'A' and 'A1' from the usual Tip and Ring.

> Any volunteer to elaborate? (I can stand a technical explanation -

The A and A1 leads are used in old 1A2 key systems to light the lamps
on the other phones in the system when a line is in use.  There is a
short across A and A1 whenever the phone (or in this case, the modem)
is in use.  A and A1 are sometimes used on the black and yellow (outer
pair) on a modular connection to allow the instrument to be easily
integrated into an older key system.


Paul Cook  Proctor & Associates  Redmond, WA
206-881-7000     [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 19:32:24 EDT
From: Brian Charles Kohn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Call Manager *Does* Work in CT
Reply-To: "The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality" <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Internet


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A.
Satish Pai) writes:

>    Just a curiosity that I encountered recently. I'm in Connecticut,
> and my local telco is SNET, and my long distance company is AT&T.
> After choosing AT&T, I asked one of their representatives whether I
> could use the Call Manager feature. After some consultation, the
> representative told me that I definitely could _not_ use it since the
> feature was not available in CT. They also said it was because of
> something to do with SNET. Well, I called SNET too, and they told me
> the same thing, that with their phone system one couldn't (yet) use
> the Call Manager.

>    The funny thing is, I _am_ able to use the Call Manager by
> dialling 0-xxx-zzz-yyyy-15-ab where 'ab' is a random two-digit
> combination, and the calls get correctly tabulated and billed in my
> monthly statement.

>    Now, does AT&T really not know what they are doing? I made yet
> another call to AT&T recently and I was assured again that while the
> Call Manager was not available in CT, they would do their best to
> include my area in the scheme "as soon as possible". Why would they
> not want to tell people some feature was really working?

Usually phone companies will not make a feature available until it is
available in a complete "offering area."  As an example: there's a
Class feature here in NJ that supposedly has this restriction on it
 ... its use is limited by some equipment.  So they say you can only
use the service one-at-a-time.  Well, lo and behold, I'm using it in a
multiple way, because that restriction happens to not exist on the
equipment in my town.  But NJ Bell will still assert that multiple use
just won't work.


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]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 12:05:31 PDT
From: Phydeaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PacTel Information Wanted


> I'm still trying to get my hands on PacTel's alleged new long-range
> (4-8 mile) cordless phone. As telecom readers may remember, I posted
   ...

> Does anybody know
> anything about PacTel Products/Great Technologies, or their model SST
> cordless phone, or where I could look for more info?

Haven't heard anything about PacTel, but I've seen such units
advertised in many magazines lately, mostly in-flight airline ones.
Funny thing is that each advertisement has tiny print which says "not
for use in the U.S.A."  They will ship anywhere.  I wonder what
frequencies they are using and who the (illegal) users of the devices
in the U.S.A. are interfering with.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #545
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27987;
          18 Jul 91 5:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10313;
          18 Jul 91 3:25 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26655;
          18 Jul 91 2:16 CDT
Date:     Thu, 18 Jul 91 1:24:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #546
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 18 Jul 91 01:24:00 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 546

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Dialing Long Distance, Then and Now [Al L. Varney]
    Re: Serious RFI Problem [Tad Cook]
    Re: MCI 800 Numbers [Paul Cook]
    Re: ISDN Terminator Information Wanted [Bud Couch]
    Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today [Nick Sayer]
    Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today [David Ptasnik]
    Telephone Directories -- A to Z [Ed Greenberg]
    Merlin Phone Source Wanted [Jack Decker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 23:24:29 CDT
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dialing Long Distance, Then and Now
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

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

>> Now that routing is done automatically, and there are several ways to
>> connect two points, how the route is determined (on long distance and
>> on international calls). I mean, WHO decides the route? Is it
>> dead-lock possible?

   {And Bryan gives a nice summary for a simple POTS IEC call.}

I'm not sure what you mean by "done automatically".  Routing isn't yet
(and shouldn't ever be, IMHO) done in any automatic manner such as
many packet networks use.  For any given class of service, destination
number, feature request, etc., there is (in a given switch) a list of
available circuit (or trunk) groups that can be "hunted" for an idle
outgoing circuit.  Each group is hunted in a specific order (to lessen
the chance of "glare" -- selecting the same circuit the far-end switch
is also selecting), until a circuit is selected.  Failure gives you
"reorder" or "no circuit available"; both usually sound like 120 IPM,
but are different failure cases.

The requested destination number is forwarded to the switch at the far
end of the idle circuit, where the same algorithm is performed.  There
is no attempt to "back off" the call to a previous switch if no
circuits are available further along the call path (except for some
IECs private methods, as explained by Bryan).  If glare is detected,
one switch will back down and select another circuit.  Glare on the
second attempt will also go to "reorder"

Since the routing for a given number is (in effect) in a distributed
database (the switches), a form of "dead-lock" called "looped routing"
is possible.  That is, two switches can forever send calls back and
forth, until the caller hangs up or all the idle trunks are tied up.
Patrick might know some folks that used to play with the network in
such ways ... :-).  Most networks today have methods of dealing with
such calls.

In general, for inter-LATA/International calls, an End Office will
select direct trunks to an IEC/INC, with an alternate route to an
Access Tandem.  Not a lot of flexibility here, since the maximum
number of switches before reaching an IEC is supposed to be two, or
three if you count SXS CDOs and such.  The IEC should use a maximum of
three switches (under normal conditions) before delivering the call to
the destination LATA.  Final connection can be through two (or three)
switches.  PBXs aren't switches for this (or almost any) purpose.

Routing strategies are determined by "Network Switching Engineers" or
an equivalent title, using some fancy software aids.  Note that these
folks must work closely with the "Circuit Provisioning" people, who
decide where to add or delete circuits (and routes) between switches.
The algorithms are complex and could never be used in a real-time
application.  The Toll folks back in the early 70's used to take over
Bell Labs fastest CPU at Holmdel to run some of their models (all
week-end).  I'm sure that stuff would be called trivial these days.

To close: Routing is a major task in the LEC networks, and a critical
task in the IEC networks.  It determines how well you use those
switches and all the fiber/copper/etc. you paid for.  But to say the
path selection is "automatic" is perhaps too strong.  The routing
algorithm is generally fast, optimized code based on large static data
tables.  Hunting a trunk can't take long, or you wouldn't be able to
handle 150 calls every second.


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL
Disclaimer:  None of the above information is proprietary.
             And you certainly can't build a switch from it.

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

From: hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Serious RFI Problem
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 14:37:16 PDT


In comp.dcom.telecom it was written:

>> I've just moved to a hill upon which a radio transmitter is located.
>> And while I didn't anticipate it, I guess it should come as no
>> surprise that I'm having a very serious problem of radio interference
>> with my telephone service, affecting both voice and data. I'm hoping
>> that some net.wisdom will help solve/limit the problem.

Nick Sayer <[e-mail]> responds with:

> You didn't say what frequency, modulation pattern and power level the
> station isusing.  Believe it or not, the solution will vary widely
> based on that. I can take a wild guess, however, that it's a multi-
> kilowatt AM station transmitting in the 300 meter band (500-1600 kHz).

Since he said he was on a hill, and it was broadcast type interference,
AM broadcast is not a good bet.  Most AM stations have their towers in
the lowlands, where they can get better ground conductivity.  FM
broadcast stations and other VHF/UHF services tend to be up high.

Nick goes on:

> RFI is almost NEVER the fault of the transmitter. In RFI, being the
> cause and being at fault are two different things. Obviously if the
> transmitter were not operating, the interference would not occur, but
> that doesn't change a thing. When RFI is caused by the transmitter, it
> is almost always a CB with an illegal amplifier. 97 percent of RFI
> complaints involving amateur stations do not end up being the fault of
> the ham.

RFI to TELEPHONE SYSTEMS is almost never the fault of the transmitter.
When RFI to radio communications is caused by a faulty transmitter
(like with the illegal CBer mentioned above), it is because the
transmitter is putting out spurious radiation on frequencies other
than the frequency that the transmitter is transmitting on.  These
emissions are usually at a much lower level than the transmission on
the fundamental frequency.

The reason we can state categorically that radio transmitters are not
at fault when there is interference to telephones is that the (wired)
telephone is not a radio device, and should not be detecting RF.  If
it IS detecting RF, chances are that it is detecting the much stronger
LEGAL fundamental frequency, rather than the weaker spurious radiation.
Of course, in the case of the CBer, they are limited to a few watts
output power, so if they are running illegal power, it may be easier
to shut them down, rather then RFI proof the phone system.

Nick adds:

> Despite the fact that I disapprove of the ARRL, they do put out some
> useful books. One in particular is:

> "Radio Frequency Interference: How to Identify and Cure it."
> Published by the American Radio Relay League.

Tsk tsk.  Too bad Nick doesn't confine his anti-ARRL sentiments to
rec.radio.amateur.misc.  Here is a national volunteer organization
with a tiny overworked professional staff that puts out great books
like the one he recommends, among many other services.  The board of
directors is elected at the grass roots local level.  Of course, if
Nick isn't a member, then he doesn't get to vote, and his personal
agenda may not be represented.

Nick goes on to mention that the FCC is supposed to regulate RFI
susceptibility, which of course the ARRL has been trying to get them
to do for years.  Somehow during the Reagan years, the idea got
promoted that because of some overriding need to eliminate bureaucracy
and regulation, that "market forces" could regulate RFI
susceptibility.  "Market forces" tend to compel manufacturers to lower
parts counts and build less expensive products.  Since a few cents
worth of filtering does not add any "features" to the products, its a
bit like assuming that "market forces" will somehow regulate auto
emissions.


Tad Cook    Seattle, WA   Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA
Phone: [phone]    MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad   or, [e-mail]
or, [e-mail]   or, [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 21:08 GMT
From: Proctor & Associates <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI 800 Numbers


Dave Marthouse <overlf![e-mail]> writes:

> A few days back I had to call a company that had an MCI 800 number.
> When I called I was asked by a computer voice to enter my code. I did
> so and the call was put through. Why does MCI use such a method? I
> assume that lots of users share the same 800 number, but have diffrent
> access codes. Why doesn't the company assign diffrent numbers to each
> user? Or, does a shortage of standard 800 numbers exist?

This is their new residential 800 service.  Sounds like the company
went for the low priced option.  MCI decided to market low cost 800
service to residential customers, but this created a dilema; there
just aren't a lot of 800 numbers available, considering that it is
only one NPA, and each carrier has a limited number of prefixes
assigned to it.  To get around this problem, one 800 number can be
shared by a number of users, if they each have a unique access code.
So it is a little like calling through an auto-attendant system.  MCI
still offers the normal 800 service, at the normal (higher) price.

My mom has this service at her home, so that her vagabond out-of-state
boyfriends can easily call her!


Paul Cook    Proctor & Associates    Redmond, WA
206-881-7000      [e-mail]

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

From: Bud Couch <kentrox![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN Terminator Information Wanted
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1991 21:44:09 GMT


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

> I suspect that the majority of ISDN station equipment is meant for
> point-to-point use, and probably has the termination resistors built
> into each end.  Does anybody know of any equipment, from any
> manufacturer, which is meant to be plugged into a bus as one device
> among many?  How do the manufacturers handle the bussing aspect?  Do
> they have two RJ45-type jacks on the rear of their device, one for
> incoming, one for outgoing?  How do they allow their customers to
> terminate the bus, given that the customer makes it?  Do you know of
> somebody who sells terminators for such a "simple passive bus"?  Etc.

There are specifications for ISDN which define the busing aspect. The S
bus allows for multiple users and is controlled from the NT2 device
and ...

I would be typing forever (especially with my typing ability:-)) if I
really got into this. Here are the references you need:

CCITT Blue Book , Vol III - Fascicle III.8
This has all of the I.3xx and I.4xx specs in it which define the ISDN
network and its components.

CCITT Blue Book , Vol VI - Fascicle VI.10 and VI.11
These have all of the Q.920-Q.940 protocol requirements for control of
the network.


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

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1991 08:07:13 -0700
From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today


In comp.dcom.telecom TELECOM Moderator writes:

> And continuing to hold last place, as he has for at least thirty years
> is "Zzyzx, Isadore 1706 S. Halsted, 942-1695", who the directory notes
> is a purveyor of general merchandise.

He's got a brother named "Zeke" in San Diego.

Here in Stockton, the best we can do is Zysman, which probably
wouldn't even be on the last page some places.


Nick Sayer     [e-mail]
N6QQQ          209-952-5347 (Telebit)


[Moderator's Musing: Are you sure its his brother, and not his cousin?
We used to have almost a full column of "A" many years ago, and people
who know how directory listings are sorted know that when the 'names'
(last, first, middle) are identical -- in this case "A" is identical
to "A" -- then the sort continues by street name in alphabetical
order; then by numbers (from low to high) on the street if more than
one identical name is on the same street. If they still are identical,
then the sort continues by phone number at the address from low to
high number. "A" at 111 North Austin Avenue was around for many years,
but no more. For a few years now, IBT has insisted that to get such a
listing, you must come to their office and prove (via letterhead,
business license, etc) that you are doing business as "A", or that "A"
is your name.  All that's left now are the ones that were
grandfathered in when IBT started cracking down on such vanity (me
first!) type listings. Now they will only let you be first or last if
you legitimatly and naturally fall in that way.  PAT]

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 8:34:22 PDT


Pat -

In your new phone book does Illinois Bell show their rates for
intra-lata calls?  I was recently attempting to compare US West's
rates to Cable and Wireless rates (yes, I know they aren't supposed to
process that kind of call, but they do), and was unable to find the
rates in the phone book.  I called US West to ask their rates, and the
customer service rep said that they did not have them available.  He
recommended that I call the operator, and that the operator would tell
me the rate to the city of my choice.

When I informed him that I wanted the rates by mileage band for the
entire calling area, he became quite confused.  His supervisor told me
that she would have Denver send me a copy of the rates (I live in
Seattle).  That was about a month ago <sigh>.  I'm going to try again,
documenting the names this time.  Is US West unique?  I remeber
getting both Illinois Bell and AT&T rates in my Peoria, IL phonebooks
(well, someone has to come from there).  IBT rates were even lower
than AT&T rates.  As their rates are now so high, I rather expect
LEC's are trying to hide their charges.  Sad.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Musing: IBT devotes a couple pages to explaining the
rates, accompanied by a chart which shows the cost between different
zones depending on the time of day, etc.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 11:15 PDT
Subject: Telephone Directories -- A to Z


This year, in San Jose and Santa Clara, "A" is listed as being at:

A
    Campbell 900 Dell Ave Cml     378-4921
    Milpitas 1300 S Main Mlpts    263-7368
    17130 Depot Road Morgan Hill  779-7368
    2550 Lafayette S Clara        723-8077

The listings are as you see them here, with four lines indented under
A.  The ones with spelled out town names sorted first, above those
that began with a number, which makes no sense.

The book ends with Zzopher Green  998-8123

The San Martin suppliment at the end of the book lists no "A", and
lists Zubow Realty as the closing listing.

The Los Gatos suppliment, serviced by GTE, lists A at 900 Dell Avenue
in Campbell, with the number shown above.  Note that this is a Pacific
Bell prefix, so A must be paying for a Los Gatos listing.  At the
other end of the spectrum, the Los Gatos directory ends with Zynda
Construction.

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

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 91 01:01:00 EDT
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Merlin Phone Source Wanted


Does anyone know of a place that deals in used but reconditioned AT&T
Merlin systems?  A company that I'm working with has a Merlin Plus
system (Model 820D) but only TWO of the phones ... they could really
use some additional phones and the second line card (expands system
from four to eight outside lines), but would prefer not to pay new
prices.  I know I've seen ads from companies that deal in
reconditioned Merlin systems, just don't recall where right now!

Please reply via mail if possible.


Via D'Bridge 1:1/211  07/16 19:51
Jack Decker, via 1:120/183@fidonet (royaljok.fidonet.org)
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP:     {...}!uunet!mailrus!umich!wsu-cs!royaljok!154!8!Jack.Decker

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #546
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28420;
          18 Jul 91 5:26 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10313;
          18 Jul 91 3:32 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac26655;
          18 Jul 91 2:16 CDT
Date:     Thu, 18 Jul 91 1:50:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #547
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 18 Jul 91 01:50:33 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 547

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Private Citizen Membership Forms [Dave Barrett]
    Swedish Televerket Changes Policy on AXE Services [H. Peter Anvin]
    Stupid 700 Tricks [David Leibold]
    The Day the Telephone Bug Hit [Philadelphia Inquirer, via Syd Weinstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 10:35:19 mdt
From: Dave Barrett <asgard![e-mail]>
Subject: Private Citizen Membership Forms


I have received over 20 requests for membership forms for joining
Private Citizen, Inc., an anti-telemarketing organization.
Accordingly, I am posting these forms.

Don't forget to write your congressional representative to obtain
copies of H.R. 1304, a bill which would require telemarketing firms to
abide by a national "no-call" list.  Incidently, note that in a poll
appearing in the 1-21-91 "Direct Marketing News" reported that only
12% of the 238 direct marketing firms sampled used the "Telephone
Preference List" (only 27% used the "Mail Preference Service").  This
is despite a 71% membership rate to the Direct Marketing Association
(DMA) which prepares these lists.  DMA has claimed that 80% of it's
members use these lists.  Clearly, these lists are not working as they
stand.  Some sort of legislation is necessary.


Dave Barrett    [e-mail]


              Private Citizen, Inc.
       Box 233 - Naperville, IL 60566 - [phone]


                 AUTHORIZATION FORM
                 ------------------

Yes, I'm fed up with junk phone calls.  List me in the Private Citizen
Directory for one year.  Over 1000 Directories will be sent to
telemarketers nationwide.  Then send me a list of firms to whom it was
sent.  My $20 check is enclosed.


I/we __________________________________________________________________________
      clearly print your full name (e.g. for spouses, John R. & Jane Doe)
      Note: Only one "Last" name of Firm name may appear on this line.


located at ____________________________________________________________________
        print your street address, city, state, zip


hereby adopt as my own, the NOTIFICATION & OFFER and DEFINITIONS on
the back of this form or as attached, and appoint Private Citizen,
Inc. (PCI), to be my agent to communicate this to firms involved in
telemarketing, and advise them of my wish not to be junk called, and
that such a call will be taken as acceptance of my offer, and their
obligation to pay me for their use of my time and telephone.
Accordingly, PCI will also advise such firms of my name, city, state,
zip, and

phone number:   (______)  ______ - ________
    To further protect your privacy, the Directory lists phone numbers
    in a separate table, apart from subscriber names, city, state & zip.


    (______)  ______ - ________      (______)  ______ - ________
    * You can list additional phone numbers for an added $5 each.


X _____________________________________________________  ______________________
   SIGN HERE                              DATE


| Are particular junk calling firms annoying you?  Tell us about them below.  |
|                                           |
|   Firm Name        Address        City-State-Zip        Phone #       |
|                                           |
|                                           |
|                                           |
|                                           |
|                                           |

Page 2:

To:     Those involved in the direct marketing
     (telemarketing / telenuisance / junk call), industry.
>From:    See my listing in the Private Citizen Directory, the reverse
     side of this document, or as attached.
Subject: I have appointed Private Citizen, Inc. to be my agent to
     communicate the following to you, on my behalf:

                NOTIFICATION & OFFER

- I consider junk calls (as defined below), to be an annoying invasion
of privacy, and an interference with my ability to peacefully enjoy my
property.  You are now instructed to carefully respect my rights in
this regard!

- I am unwilling to allow your free use of my time and telephone for
such calls and offer you such use on the following terms:

- I will accept junk calls, placed by or on your behalf, for a $100
fee, due within 30 days of such use.

- Each such call will be a separate acceptance of this offer and upon
its answer-ratification, all involved entities in receipt of this
document, will be a bound by the resulting agreement and all terms
contained herein.

- Your junk call we constitute you agreement to the reasonableness of
my fee, and my appropriate recording of such call.

- This offer extends for one (1), year from the date of its latest
receipt by you or until I may expressly modify it.

- Non-payment will indicate your rejection of duty to respect my
privacy, a defiance of my request that you leave me alone, and your
maintenance of a nuisance at my expense. I may deem such wrongful
behavior as a separate cause of action.

- I consider the sale or rental of my name and any other identifying
information to be a conversion of my property (name).  A $100 fee will
be due within 30 days of each such conversion, payable to me by
involved and notified entities.

- I hereby certify that I subscribe to PCI's NOTIFICATION & OFFER
(below), and incorporate it with mine wherever possible.

         PRIVATE CITIZEN, INC. (PCI) FOR ITSELF AND ITS SUBSCRIBERS,
           HEREBY NOTIFIES AND OFFERS YOUR ORGANIZATION AS FOLLOWS:

- The Private Citizen Directory is the property of PCI.  It is not to
be sold.  A transfer of it must include this document.

- You may verify the intent and authenticity of those listed in PCI's
Directory

  (details from PCI), by:

   - mailed inquiry to those listed in PCI's Directory
     (PCI can forward your request to those for whom you have no address),

   - inspection of original Authorization Forms at a location agreed upon by
     both PCI and the inspecting entity,

   - inspection of copies of Authorization Forms mailed to a location of your
     choice,

- Responding to a telephoned verification request is a service offered
by those listed in PCI's Directory and obligates such callers to
compensate called subscribers $100 per call.  The terms and conditions
described above apply here as well.

Page 3:
            DEFINITION OF TERMS

PCI AND THESE LISTED IN THE PRIVATE CITIZEN DIRECTORY DEFINE THE TERMS
"TELEMARKETING" / "TELENUISANCE" / "JUNK" CALL AS:

- A telephone call to the premises of a PCI subscriber, delivered live or
  prerecorded, by voice or facsimile,

- by on on behalf of an organization, including but not limited to its agent,
  dealer, franchisee, contractor or subsidiary,

- without both an existing direct relationship with, and fully informed,
  affirmative authorization of the party called,

- whether such calling organization be of a commercial, non-profit,
  survey-research, or political nature and

- dialed either randomly, sequentially, automatically, manually or
  intentionally targeted,

- intended to sell, rent, survey/poll, solicit information about, encourage
  donations to, generate/qualify sales leads for, create interest in or renew
  subscriptions for anything (tangible or intangible), of concern to the
  calling entity.

Junk calls include those by a firm having an established relationship
with the called party if the call is not related to the business
established between them (ex. a city bank junk calling its credit card
holders to peddle a city travel package).

Junk calls do not include calls made to collect debts if payment is
not made per agreement nor do they include calls made when both the
calling and called individuals are personally acquainted with each
other.


         In Association with Lawrence M. Raphael, LTD.
           Copyright Private Citizen, Inc. 1990


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

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Swedish Televerket Changes Policy on AXE Services
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1991 20:34:36 GMT


I just came back from a trip to my native Sweden, and dug up some
interesting telecom facts:

1. Televerket has made a turnaround on the use of the special services
available on the Ericsson AXE equipped exchanges (about 50% of all
exchanges in Sweden today are AXE).  They have relaunched the AXE
services under the name "PLUS" and removed most of the fees associated
with them.  They used to charge a "connection fee" of about 50 SEK (8
USD) plus 10 meter ticks (2.30 SEK; 0.40 USD) every time they are
used.  Most of the services are now always enabled and free of charge;
this includes call waiting, questioning (dial other party while
putting the current caller on hold), 3-way calling, call transfer,
autodial (off-hook a specified time automatically dials a certain
number), forward to another number.  Other services still have a usage
charge, but no "connection fee".

I presume Televerket assumes people will call more, and that will more
than compensate for the lost fees.  (You have to pay for all calls you
originate, even if it is on hold, and if you forward or transfer a
call you pay for the forwarding/transfer distance for the entire call)

2. The fairly new "020" numbers which equals the U.S. 1-800 toll free
numbers have gotten a companion in the new trunk code (that is the
term used in the English supplement to the phone book) "071", which
are pay-per-call (U.S. 1-900) numbers.  There seem to be very little
information about it and I think many people don't know what 071 is.
It doesn't help that it looks VERY ordinary for an area code, 020 is
slightly out of the normal, but 071 is definitively not.  But Sweden
is quickly running out of area codes.

3. You still need a dial tone after the country code when dialing
abroad, e.g. 009 1 (tone) 708 XXX XXXX to call the Chicago suburbs;
but on AXE exchanges it is no longer possible even to detect the pause
between the last country code digit and the tone.  Televerket also
advertises that if you have PLUS (i.e. have an AXE CO) there will
always be dialtone as soon as you pick up the headset.  This is of
course harder to test, but it is not the 2-3 second delay of
electromechanical offices.

4. To use all the PLUS services, you still need a 13-button phone with
the 0123456789*#R buttons.  Empirical testing showed that 0123456789*#
are the standard DTMF tones, while the R button performs a hookflash.
In other words, there is nothing there is on Swedish phones that ain't
on the U.S.  ones.


INTERNET: [e-mail] ([e-mail]
after this summer) BITNET: HPA@NUACC HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN FIDONET:
1:115/989.4 "finger" the Internet address above for more information.

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

Subject: Stupid 700 Tricks
From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 17:24:40 EDT
Organization: Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton


Some interesting things happened during a recent trip through various
places, especially when 1 700 555 4141 is dialed.

In Florida, you get a canned voice asking for 65c when the carried ID
number is dialed from a payphone.

In some cases, 1 700 555 4141 gets a reorder/fast busy signal.

In New York City, dialing the carrier ID got the message "Due to the
severe weather conditions in the area you are calling you call cannot
be completed at this time. Please try your call later. 212 0T" (this
was from a 212 area phone).

On my second _de_facto_ visit to Washington DC, the 1 700 555 4141
seemed to work more reasonably. This time, the AT&T message came on.
The recorded thanks for choosing AT&T even came on when 10222 1 700
555 4141 was dialed.  :-0...


[e-mail], [e-mail], and growing...

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Day the Telephone Bug Hit
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 0:40:14 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


July 16 {Philadelphia Inquirer}, on the editorial page:

(OCR'd into the system, so pardon any mis-reads...)

The Day the Telephone Bug Bit
By RICHARD PENCE

    Those big phone outages of recent weeks have had me feeling a
bit guilty over what's been happening.

    You see, I remember exactly how all this started.  Back in
1950 I was a novice seahand aboard a cruiser based In Philadelphia,
barely six months out of high school and fresh from the plains of
South Dakota.

    One Friday night in November, we were granted shore leave at
the end of a two week training cruise.  Homesick and seasick,, I
headed immediately for the row of pay phones that lined the dock.

    Depositing a carefully preserved nickel (remember?), I dialed
"O." The following is a roughly verbatim account of what transpired
after the Philadelphia operator answered:

"I'd like to place a station to station collect call to the Bob Pence
residence in Columbia, South Dakota," I said in my best telephone
voice.

The Philadelphia operator was sure she had heard wrong. "You mean
Columbia, South Carolina, don't you?"

"No, I mean Columbia, South Dakota." I had tried to call home once
before, and I was ready for that one.

"Certainly. What is the number, please?" I could tell she still
didn't't believe me.

"They don't have a number," I mumbled. I'd tried to call home before,
and I knew what was coming.

She was incredulous. "They don't have a number?"

"I don't think so."

"I can't complete the call without a number. Do you have it?" she
demanded.

I didn't relish seeming like even more of a bumpkin, but I was in the
Navy and I knew authority when I heard it. "Well ... the only thing I
know is ... two longs and a short."

I think that's the first time she snorted. "Never mind. I'll get the
number for you. One moment please."

There followed an audible click and a long period of silence while she
apparently first determined if, indeed, there was a Columbia, S D.,
and then if it was possible to call there.

When she returned to the line, she was armed with the not-insignificant
knowledge necessary complete her task.

In deliberate succession, she dialed an operator in Cleveland, asked
her to dial one in Chicago, asked Chicago to dial Minneapolis, and
Minneapolis to dial Sioux City, Iowa. Sioux City called Sioux Falls,
S.D., and the operator there dialed one in Aberdeen, S.D. At last,
Aberdeen dialed the operator in Columbia.

By this time, Philadelphia's patience was wearing thin, but when
Columbia answered, she knew what had to be done.

"The number for the Bob Pence residence, please," she said, now in
control.

Columbia didn't even hesitate. "Two longs and a short," she declared.

Philadelphia was set back for an instant but valiantly plowed on. "I
have a collect call from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for anyone at
that number. Will you please ring?"

"They're not home," said Columbia, again not missing a beat.

Philadelphia digested this and decided not to press the point.
Instead, she relayed the message I'd already heard. "There is no one
at that number, sir. Would you like to try again in later?"

Columbia quickly interrupted: "Is that you, Dick?"

"Yeah, Margaret ... Where are the folks?"

Philadelphia was baffled, but her instincts told her to look out for
the company. "Sir, madam ... you can't ..."

Margaret ignored her. "They're up at the school house at the
basketball game. Want me to ring?"

I knew I was pushing my luck with Philadelphia, so I said it likely
would be too much trouble to get them out of the game.

"No trouble at all," said Margaret. "It's halftime."

Philadelphia was still in there trying to protect the company. By this
time, though, she was out of words.  "But ... but ... " she stammered.

I caved in to Margaret, mainly because I didn't want to have to start
over later. "All right."

Philadelphia made one last effort. Mustering her most official tone,
she insisted: "But this is a station to station collect call!"

"That's all right, honey," said Columbia, "I'll just put it on Bob's
bill."

Philadelphia was still protesting when the phone rang and was answered
at the school house.

"I have a station-to-station collect call for Bob Pence," Philadelphia
said, certain that Ma Bell had somehow been had.

"This is he," replied my father.

"Go ahead," whispered an astonished Philadelphia.

I'm glad couldn't'see her face when I began my end of the conversation
the way all Midwesterners do:

"Hi, Dad, how's the weather?"

"Jeez," said Philadelphia and clicked off.

Now comes the confession. I have it on good authority it was the next
Monday morning that AT&T began to automate phone service And now look
where we are.


[Richard Pence is a Washington, D.C., writer and editor. He wrote this
for the {Washington Post}.]


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP           Elm Coordinator: Current 2.3PL11
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                  Projected 2.4 Release: Late 1991
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd      Voice: [phone], FAX: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #547
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13558;
          19 Jul 91 4:50 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08596;
          19 Jul 91 2:56 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18581;
          19 Jul 91 1:50 CDT
Date:     Fri, 19 Jul 91 1:46:42 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #548
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 19 Jul 91 01:46:37 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 548

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Maryland 301/410 Split: Where the Prefixes Will Go [Dave Leibold]
    Re: Pacific Bell Touts Their Calling Card [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [David Barts]
    Re: Calling Myself / Call Return [Joe Stein]
    Re: New AT&T Call Me Card *Not* Always Restricted [Victorino Macapagal]
    Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Dan Sahlin]
    Information Wanted on Portable Faxes and Fax Boards [Nermin Zukic]
    Re: Information on Execuline Requested [Dave Johnston]
    DMS-100 Documents Also Available [Charles (C.A.) Hoequist]
    Re: PacTel Information Wanted [Dave Johnston]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Leibold <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 22:18:07 EDT
Organization: Brave New World BBS, Delray Beach, FL
Subject: Maryland 301/410 Split - Where the Prefixes Will Break


C&P Telephone will be splitting Maryland into two area codes starting
on 1st November, 1991 (410 area code allowed for dialing); the process
should be complete by 1st November, 1992 (when 410 must be used in
those areas getting the new 410 area code). The new area code 410 will
cover Baltimore regional areas, and 301 will be retained for
Washington regional areas.

This information is based on C&P Telephone data, phone books and other
sources. Thanks in particular to [e-mail] (Carl Moore) for help
with some bits of information. The chart should determine which
exchanges are going to go to the new 410 area code and which ones will
stay in 301. Corrections, additions and clarifications are welcome:
please mail to [e-mail] or to [e-mail].

How to use: for a given prefix, look up its first two digits on the
left hand guide; for instance, the entry for prefix 345 will be on row
34x. Then, check the "5" column in that row for the information on
which area code will be used. This will be a single character which
represents one of the following situations after the 301/410 split:

   3 - means prefix stays in 301 area code
   4 - means prefix will become 410 area code
   X - means this prefix not known to be assigned, or is not yet active
   % - means prefix is used for special purpose (like time, weather,
       976, etc) and may be used in both area codes after the split

410: eastern Maryland
301: southern, western, Washington metro


     0123456789        0123456789        0123456789        0123456789
20x  XXX3X43X43   30x  XXX4XX34X3   40x  X33343XXX3   50x  XX3XX3X3X3
21x  3XX4XXX3XX   31x  XX443X43X4   41x  X%XX3X33X3   51x  3XX3XX4X3X
22x  3443444343   32x  3434X44444   42x  3333344334   52x  3444444444
23x  3344443434   33x  3344343444   43x  4334343443   53x  3444444444
24x  3344433433   34x  3344334443   44x  434343X343   54x  34444X4444
25x  4343444433   35x  3443444443   45x  4443344443   55x  44344%4443
26x  3334344444   36x  4444434443   46x  3443344433   56x  4444334334
27x  3344344343   37x  4333434444   47x  3443334434   57x  3334444343
28x  4443443444   38x  3444343344   48x  3444444344   58x  3434434333
29x  4433334343   39x  34443X444X   49x  3333433333   59x  3443433433


     0123456789        0123456789        0123456789        0123456789
60x  X34X34333X   70x  XX3XX3X3XX   80x  XXXXX3433X   90x  XXXXX343XX
61x  X%44XXXX3X   71x  XX433XXX34   81x  XXX4XX3XXX   91x  X%X3X%3X33
62x  3334444343   72x  4434334443   82x  4444343443   92x  4344333343
63x  3444444444   73x  4343433333   83x  4344344443   93x  343333%344
64x  3444434443   74x  4443443444   84x  3433%33X44   94x  3434443433
65x  3434343344   75x  4443444443   85x  4333333434   95x  X333%444%%
66x  X433444444   76x  4433444X43   86x  4433334433   96x  4343444344
67x  3444444434   77x  3433343343   87x  3334344444   97x  343343%344
68x  3344444433   78x  4434443444   88x  4344344434   98x  3333333443
69x  X444333333   79x  3344344344   89x  3344334334   99x  3444344444

notes: 844 reserved for time of day
       936 reserved for time of weather
       915, 976 are for special toll services (recordings, etc)
       954 is an exchange for C&P Telephone Repair

Notes, disputed references:

 ** the C&P automated help line service provides information on where
    prefixes will split; it can be reached by calling 1 800 477 4704 from
    almost anywhere in the U.S. However, this help line has missed a few
    prefixes: for instance 303 Columbia, 481 Baltimore, 826 Accident

 ** 688 is another prefix that caused some confusion; Carl Moore says
    this is a Ft Meade prefix. Other sources call this prefix Odenton
    which will be in 410 area code (despite C&P help line's listing
    as staying in 301 area).

 ** the consensus from sources seems that 878 is a Baltimore prefix,
    although C&P help line lists this as going to 301 area code;
    Carl Moore mentions this exchange to be in Ft Ritchie.

 ** the programming folks can take any extant London UK prefix-area
    code finders and adapt these for the above Maryland information.

 ** Scott R Houck (with data from David Hogben) wrote a utility to
    determine places for Washington DC area exchanges; some of this
    data was useful for corroborating some of the Washington Metro
    Maryland prefixes.

 ** A more elaborate listing of 301/410 prefixes with their locations,
    future area code assignments, LATAs and other commentary is forth-
    coming.


David Leibold  [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], 89:82/135 (IMEX), 1:3609/7 (Fido)

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 21:41:24 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pacific Bell Touts Their Calling Card
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


> Pacific Bell sent out new calling cards this month, with the same old
> number and pin.

Yea, I just got one of those last week.  The interesting thing is, the
number that the card is attached to is no longer in service!  I moved
about two months ago, and a few days after the old service was turned
off, its calling card stopped working.  Two months later, this card
arrives, and the calling card number again works.  I've been using it
instead of my current one, just to see what happens to the billing.  I
figure that the charges just may end up in the bit bucket, and the
worst that could happen is that I end up paying what I would have
anyway had I used my current one.  You would think that Pacific Bell
would have their act together a little better than this.  I could
understand general PR material being sent out to old accounts, but
"live" calling cards?  I wouldn't be surprised if they have a lot of
collection problems with this.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: polari![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return
Date: Wed Jul 17 18:19:54 1991


[e-mail] (Todd Inch) writes:

> Our local GTE switches (GTD-5 if I remember correctly) go one step
> further:

As far as I know, all GTE Northwest switches in the Seattle area are
5ESS.  I asked a GTE craftsman this question just a month ago.  He
then proceeded to give his opinion of the GTD5; I can't remember
exactly what he said but I distinctly remember the phrase "piece of
junk" figuring prominently in his description.

> By the way, on the local GTE switches, we just dial 411 to get an ANI...

And the ANAC that I have gotten from dialing 411 in nearby GTE areas
is definitely that of a 5ESS.  It sounds just like the ANAC on the
Seattle-EMerson 5ESS that serves my house (i.e., a brief tone that
sounds like an octothorpe, then a female synthesized voice that reads
the number, followed by a busy signal).


David Barts  N5JRN
[e-mail]    ...!uunet!apex!camco!ars2!polari!davidb

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

From: Joe Stein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Myself / Call Return
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 18:46:51 PDT


According to Todd Inch:

> By the way, on the local GTE switches, we just dial 411 to get an ANI
> computer to read back the number for the line.  Very helpful when
> working in the phone connection closet with your butt-set.  Hopefully
> it'll work for you, too.

Here in the GTE Northwest service area, you dial three 9's (i.e. 999)
to get the ANI computer.


Joseph W. Stein - [e-mail]  -or-
[phone]   [e-mail] -or- [e-mail]
(voice)
[phone]   My opinions are my own, and no one would even
(data)            think of claiming them...

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

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 91 22:29:09 hst
From: Victorino Macapagal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New AT&T Call Me Card *Not* Always Restricted


> The new [Call Me Card] is honored without restriction by Southwestern
> Bell.

This is also true of my AT&T Call Me Card.  Hawaiian Tel, my local
BOC, will also honor my Call Me (Call Home) card for calls ANYWHERE,
not just my home number as it's suppose to.

I take this with mixed blessings though.  My new AT&T Calling Card is
in the new format.  It's much more difficult to memorize since it does
not have the phone number in the card number, all digits seem to be
random and bear no resemblance to my phone number.  But the Call Home
card still has the phone number + 4 digit pin format, so I've been
using that to make my calling card calls.  In three months of normal
usage, I've never had a Hawaiian Tel operator refuse the card for
calls that weren't to my home.

Is this because Hawaiian Tel has no way of knowing that the card is
for calls to the home only?  Or is this a money grubbing scum tactic?

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

From: Dan Sahlin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1991 09:46:50 GMT


Here in Sweden, I can call directly automatically to almost anywhere
in the world, but it impossible for me to call an 800-number in North
America, even if I ask for operator assistance.

Why is that so?

The answer my operator gives is far from satisfactory:

"An 800-number works just like a 020-number in Sweden, and you cannot
call those numbers from abroad".

I thought the whole idea of having a free number was to make it easier
to call a company.  Now instead, if I only have the 800-number it is
impossible for me to contact the company.

I don't expect calling an 800-number from Sweden to be free; I expect
it to cost exactly as much as any call to North America.  I'm sure the
company I'm trying to reach has not explicitly wanted to block
international calls to their 800-number.

So why are those calls blocked?


Dan Sahlin, SICS    email: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The 'whole idea of having a free number' is to be
able to receive calls *from where you want to receive them*. In the
USA, not even all 800 numbers are reachable from all locations. Some
are only for use within certain states or other specific regions of
the USA. The companies which subscribe to 800 service can elect
*where* they are willing to receive calls from. And by definition, 800
service is a *domestic* offering within the USA for USA callers. There
is no tariff which provides for calling an 800 number from outside the
USA.  It is possible to make calls which you pay for to a gateway in
the USA which in turn will extend the call to an 800 number.  But the
800 subscriber does not authorize international toll charges, which is
why you are blocked from calling him by that method.    PAT]

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

Date: 17 Jul 91  6:57 -0600
From: Nermin Zukic <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on Portable Faxes and Fax Boards


Hello there,

I haven't seen this topic being discussed recently, so I hope it
belongs here (at least some mags put together cell-phones and faxes
together).

In any case, I am searching for information on personal/home
officce/portable faxes and fax boards, pros and cons for each -
preferrably from experience.

Some of the more important questions I have are:

a) existance of compatibility/interface standards (CCITT) for
facsimilies/boards and PC (IBM line - 386/486), and gray scanners
(i.e. could I use specific scanner and fax board as a reasonably good
replacement for some/any "low-level" fax?)

b) thermal vs. regular paper - in terms of quality of reproduction,
price.

c) introduction of colour faxes, existance of color fax boards (?)
for color scanners.

d) common problems encountered using (smaller) faxes on daily basis.

e) nice features, other than polling, document memory, automatic
redial, dial memory, delayed calling.

f) maintenance and costs associated.

g) accessories for faxes (fax boards).

Any replies will be greatly appreciated.


Nermin Zukic   AECL Research WL   [e-mail]

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

Date: 17 Jul 91 08:10 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Information on Execuline Requested


In TELECOM Digest V11 #541, Arun Baheti <[e-mail]> asked
for information on a company called Execuline which was reselling long
distance in the LA area.  Well, I know there were a couple companies
using that or similar names here in California.  The predominent one
is based in Sacramento.  They were initially a relatively small
reseller covering just the Sacramento area.  As they realized, as did
most others in the business, that Pac Bell among others was
structuring rates in such a way as to squeeze them out, they merged a
number of small resellers into a single company.

One of the companies they acquired was Toll Communications, Inc. the
company that I worked for at the time.  I've used their service ever
since and have been happy with it.  The quality is good and their
billing has been accurate.  I guess that's all you can say of any long
distance company.

I should add that I am not nor have ever been employed by Execuline.

Good Luck,

Dave

Dave Johnston                       Santa Rosa Junior College
Supervisor, Campus Data/Telecom     1501 Mendocino Ave.
[e-mail] or      Santa Rosa, CA  95401
[e-mail]      [phone]

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

Date: 17 Jul 91 12:55:00 EDT
From: Charles (C.A.)Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: DMS-100 Documents Also Available


Regarding the query in Telecom #540 as to whether there is any DMS-100
document analogous to AT&T's 5ESS Switch Feature Handbook:

Try the following:

Title: DMS-100 MDC Features

Places to look:

800-992-2303
or
Northern Telecom
Dept. 4254
PO Box 13010
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Title: Feature Planning Guide

Place to look:
Northern Telecom
INS Marketing Communications
Dept. 4262
RTP, NC 27709

I can't personally vouch for the number or addresses. I got them out
of the inside covers of the named documents.


Charles Hoequist     | "We don't need telephones. We have
[e-mail]      | plenty of messenger boys"
BNR Inc.             | -- head of the Royal Mail, early
PO Box 13478         | in this century.
Research Triangle Park NC 27709-3478, USA
919-991-8642

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

Date: 18 Jul 91 11:33 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: PacTel Information Wanted


In TELECOM Digest, Phydeaux <[e-mail]> wrote:

> for use in the U.S.A."  They will ship anywhere.  I wonder what
> frequencies they are using and who the (illegal) users of the devices
> in the U.S.A. are interfering with.

Well, the "long range" cordless phones I have seen in the past were
designed for the Asian market.  They utilize the 146-148 Mhz area that
is allocated to Amateur (Ham) Radio here in North America.  In Asia,
the two meter Amateur band only covers 144-146 MHz as apposed to the
144-148 MHz allocation that we have here.

These "long range" phones are five watt or so VHF radios.  I have also
seen some of these units advertize 20, 30 and 40 Watt amplifiers to
extend the range even further.

The Amateurs use the heck out of this band.  It would be almost
impossible in any major metropolitan area for someone to use one of
the illegal phones without being found ... and reported to the
appropriate authorities.


Dave Johnston, WD6AOE               Santa Rosa Junior College
Supervisor, Campus Data/Telecom     1501 Mendocino Ave.
[e-mail] or      Santa Rosa, CA  95401
[e-mail]      [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #548
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11183;
          20 Jul 91 3:50 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20030;
          20 Jul 91 2:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06178;
          20 Jul 91 1:07 CDT
Date:     Sat, 20 Jul 91 0:58:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #549
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Jul 91 00:57:54 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 549

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: County Seat Phone Numbers [Stan M. Krieger]
    Re: County Seat Phone Numbers [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices [Carl Moore]
    Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices [Martin Janzen]
    Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves [John Higdon]
    Re: Swedish Televerket Changes Policy on AXE Services [H. Peter Anvin]
    Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old on Still Works? [Bill Huttig]
    Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today [Paul Wexelblat]
    Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Scott Hinckley]
    Re: Lightning Protection for Modems [Ken Abrams]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 09:36:16 EDT
From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: County Seat Phone Numbers
Organization: Summit NJ


>> I take it most people are local to their county seat in the U.S.
>> (Failing that, a special number is usually provided for those people
>> long distance within the county.)

>    This is not the case in Washington State, not even here in
> King County, of which the county seat is Seattle.

>    Counties are somewhat larger here in the West than many
> Yankees would expect.

This article made me realize how small local calling areas in New
Jersey actually are (but since we're so densely packed here, we can
probably call more people for free than in most other areas, so I
guess that makes up for it a bit).

I have lived in three NJ counties, and it was never a local call to
the county seat.  In Atlantic County, the Atlantic City local calling
area extends about ten miles to the west, while the county seat at
Mays Landing is about twenty miles away.  In Morris County, while the
county seat at Morristown is centrally located, Roxbury Township and
points west are long distance.  Now in Union County, which in area is
the second smallest in the state, the local calling area for the
"Summit" central office goes only as far east as Union.  The county
seat of Elizabeth is the city just east of Union (and anything east of
Elizabeth is in NY), and is thus a toll call from the western part of
a county that is maybe all of twenty miles wide.

So you don't have to be in the west to be unable to call the county
seat as a local call.  Even with the small counties in the east (and
consider that we squeeze 21 counties in New Jersey), the local telcos
still manage to make it a toll call from some points to the county
seat.

Actually, if this isn't bad enough, there were cases where calls
within a suburban township were toll calls.  This occurred when parts
of three central offices served the township, and where local calling
areas extended for only one zone in a certain direction.  With the
implementation of a 911 database, NJ Bell no longer charges for calls
within a municipality.


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
[e-mail]                      policies of my employer.

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

From: Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: County Seat Phone Numbers
Date: 18 Jul 91 18:14:30 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


In article <[e-mail]> Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax!carroll@
cs.washington.edu> writes:

>    Incidentally, in Huntington County, Indiana, where I grew up,
> almost all the territory adjacent to the county line was long distance
> from the county seat. This in a rectangular area only twenty-four by
> sixteen miles.

> [Moderator's Musing: If I am correct (from reading an old phone
> directory from the Huntington area, folks in the outskirts there had
> an 'Enterprise' number to call the Sheriff in emergencies. Right or
> wrong?   PAT]

    May be. The only Enterprise number I remember explicitly is
the one for the National Yellow Pages Service, and possibly also for
contacting local Indiana Bell offices. My aunt, who was a career
operator for Indiana Bell and still does little jobs for them on
occasion (such as helping out at a recent switch cutover in the
Huntington CO), might remember better than I; my memory only goes back
to 1963 or so.

    This is almost certainly no longer the case, since the late
sixties or early seventies when Huntington County became the first
community in America to receive 911 emergency service. Our
congressman, J. Edward Roush, was one of 911's most active supporters
on the national scene until he lost his seat to J. Danforth Quayle in
1976.

    I believe 911 covered the whole county from the beginning,
which would have been a sizable task in its day. The northern edge of
Huntington County is served by GTE, and much of the southern part is
served by independent telcos, with the town of Warren at the southern
edge served (if my memory is correct) by United Telephone.


Jeff Carroll        [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 11:14:19 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices


Customer service number [phone]?  Is this something like those
business-office numbers in California which cannot be reached from
outside of California?

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

From: Martin Janzen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: B.C., Canada - Long Distance Telephone Service Choices
Reply-To: Martin Janzen <[e-mail]>
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd.
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 20:33:12 GMT


Carl Moore ([e-mail]) points out that the B.C. Tel customer
service number I gave the other day doesn't work if you're calling
from outside the province.  I called B.C. Tel, who confirmed this and
told me that you can call [phone] collect instead.

Sorry for the confusion!


Martin Janzen                     [e-mail] (134.87.131.13)
MPR Teltech Ltd.                  Phone: [phone]
8999 Nelson Way                   Fax: [phone]
Burnaby, BC, CANADA  V5A 4B5

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

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 91 01:30 PDT
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Larry King Gets What He Deserves


Jeff Carroll <ssc-bee!ssc-vax![e-mail]> writes:

>     In my book the Larry King show is an insult to the
> intelligence and a threat to civilization as we know it as well as an
> abuse of the telecom network. Of all America's media celebrities, LK
> has to be high on the "Least Deserving" list.

Is Larry King on so tight a budget that he uses this scam (of letting
lines ring for 30 minutes until the call is ready to air)? The vast
majority of national talk shows use an 800 number, put the calls on
hold, and just chalk up the cost as a necessary business expense.

Answering the calls when they come in also makes for a much more
professionally produced show.


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

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

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Swedish Televerket Changes Policy on AXE Services
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Il.
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1991 14:59:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> of comp.dcom.telecom,
[e-mail] (H. Peter Anvin) writes:

> 1. Televerket has made a turnaround on the use of the special services

Here is a list of the new-old "PLUS" services from a Televerket
brochure; it should have been included in the previous article but I
couldn't find it:

WAKEUP CALL:

Order:   * 5 5 * X X X X #       X X X X  =  time of day     Fee 2.30 SEK
Cancel:  # 5 5 #                                             No refund

PHONE QUEUE AT BUSY: (your phone will ring when the one you call is free
again.)

Order:   Dial "5" at the busy signal                         No fee
Cancel:  # 3 7 #

MOVING WITH: (calls to one number rings the phone somewhere else)

Order:   * 2 1 * other number #                              No special fee
Cancel:  # 2 1 #                                             (see below)

You pay all calls the distance between the first and second number.

FURTHER CONNECTION IF NO ANSWER: (same as MOVING WITH but it first attempts
to ring on the first number, then transfers the call if no one answers.)

Order:   * 6 1 * other number * X X #   X X = time in seconds 05-60
Cancel:  # 6 1 #

Same fee arrangement as for MOVING WITH.

QUESTIONING, PENDULUM, THREE-WAY CALLING, TRANSFER:

At any time during the call, dial:

R other number

to put the other party on hold and call up a second party.  You will
be connected to the second party with the first one on hold if there
is an answer, otherwise returned to the first connection.

With one party on hold, you can use these commands:

Hang up this call, return to the other one:                     R 1
Put this party on hold and speak to the other:                  R 2
Initiate three-way calling:                                     R 3
Hang up leaving both the other parties talking to each other:   R 4

You pay for any call you initiate, even if it is on hold or you hang
up with R4.  No other fees.

CALL WAITING:

Order:   * 4 3 #
Cancel:  # 4 3 #

No particular fee.  Two beeps marks incoming call, after which any of
the R1-4 commands above can be used.

There seems not to be a cancel-for-this call only, which of course is
a very big loss for modem users (I have ATDT*70W as my dial prefix!)

Now, let's see if U.S. phone companies will follow suit and remove all
fees on CLASS service.  Maybe around 2050 or so ...


Peter

INTERNET: [e-mail]   ([e-mail] after this summer)
BITNET:   HPA@NUACC           HAM RADIO:  N9ITP, SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/989.4
"finger" the Internet address above for more information.

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Carry New AT&T Card When Old on Still Works?
Date: 18 Jul 91 17:11:29 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

> IXCs will not have to accept LEC issued calling cards (at least not
> after 1/1/92), although my best knowledge is that AT&T will continue
> to do so.  However, I'm not sure that the Reach Out card option will

This was where things were a few years back ... when you dialed a
10xxx + 0 + call you had to use a card from the xxx IXC.  Seems like a
step backwards.  Does this mean a LEC does not have to take AT&T's new
card?

If so, does one LEC have to take another LEC's card? (If this is the
case you won't be able to dial intra-LATA unless your using the same
LEC as your home has.

Will the LEC take other IXC's cards besides AT&T?

ATC is introducing new calling cards that will have your phone number
plus a four digit PIN. Also the card is going to have some special
international ability. (Maybe the 891 type international number?) Why
not use the same 891 number in the US? You would just not dial the
first six digits.

I have noticed that MCI and US Sprint are trying to push LEC billing,
which I think is bad since it takes a lot longer to get credits and a
statement than the IXC and the LEC cycle dates are different).  I also
heard that AT&T has been testing their own billing for a couple years
now and I assume they will go to direct billing soon. It seems like
AT&T is going the opposite of the other IXC's.  I would like to see it
that every carrier offers the option of LEC or IXC billing.


Bill

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

From: Paul Wexelblat <samsung!ulowell!.ULowell.EDU![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New 1991-92 Phone Books Arrived Today
Reply-To: samsung!ulowell![e-mail]
Organization: Univ. of Lowell CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1991 17:42:03 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick
Sayer) writes:

    {stuff about who is last in his phonebook}

Our friendly Moderator appended a musing that contained:

> [Moderator's Musing:...
>     Talk about listings under "A"

> For a few years now, IBT has insisted that to get such a
> listing, you must come to their office and prove (via letterhead,
> business license, etc) that you are doing business as "A", or that "A"
> is your name.  All that's left now are the ones that were
> grandfathered in when IBT started cracking down on such vanity (me
> first!) type listings. Now they will only let you be first or last if
> you legitimatly and naturally fall in that way.  PAT]

This raises an issue; I have an unlisted phone. (No need to go into
why.) I asked my business office (NYNEX) to list my number under a
random name (Then I could tell my friends that they could look up e.g.
Harry Fuzzdingle, or some such, if they forgot/lost my number.) The
business office said that I couldn't do that!!!

Is this generally true??

NOTE: They had no problem with listing random names for a listed
phone, a common occurence with shared housing, they just would not do
it for and unlisted/unpublished number.  They did not think I was just
trying to avoid the unlisted/unpublished number charges, I offered to
pay them.

Comments??


Wex

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

From: Scott Hinckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems
Date: 18 Jul 91 23:12:30 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: I try not to


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Glenn R.
Stone) writes:

> received thru the phone lines.  I use both, and have yet to lose
> equipment here in thunderstorm-prone Atlanta ... <user knocks on
> wood> Fifteen bucks worth of surge suppression is cheap insurance for
> three- and four-digit modem purchases.  You pay now, or pay later.

Hi Glenn.

While I heartily agree with the use of surge suppression I just
thought I would add this data point. In 12 years of use in
thuderstorm-prone Atlanta and Huntsville without phone-line surge
suppression I have not had any component failures for any reason
(including surges).

Hmmm ... only $15 for phone line surge suppression? Rad Shak here I
come.


VoiceNet:Scott Hinckley | ATTnet:[phone] | Compuserve:70461,1706
Internet:[e-mail] | UUCP:...!uw-beaver!bcsaic!hsvaic!scott
US snail:110 Pine Ridge Rd / Apt# 608/ Huntsville / AL / 35801
DISCLAIMER: All contained herein are my opinions

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

From: Ken Abrams <samsung!athenanet.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lightning Protection for Modems
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1991 20:27:17 GMT


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

>> The other night I lost my third modem in three years due to an
>> electrical storm. All three times the phone line was the culprit. This

> You need GOOD lightning protection. The Telco will give you so-so
> protection, generally.

[Absolutely top notch, excelent article deleted.....]

Thanks to Mr. Bruce for the effort to share with us some VERY informative
and useful information.

 From a very narrow, purist point of view, however, there really is no
such thing as lightning "protection".  The suggestions Barton made are
really good advice for spikes and surges induced by all kinds of
things (lightning included) but NOTHING will save equipment connected
to the outside wires when those wires take a direct hit within a
couple of hundred yards of your building (pure dumb luck might help in
some cases).

The best protection is to disconnect your equipment from ALL outside
conductors when the storm approaches; this includes ground
connections.  Sometimes when the building takes a direct hit, even
disconnected equipment can sustain damage as the bolt dances around
but this is rare.  Second best is to take some of Barton's advice AND
the advice of another poster to be sure you have good insurance
(because no plan is fool proof and a direct hit will get you despite
the best protection devices).  Lightning is (obviously) nasty stuff
and it makes up it's own rules as it goes along.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #549
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13434;
          20 Jul 91 4:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16633;
          20 Jul 91 3:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20030;
          20 Jul 91 2:14 CDT
Date:     Sat, 20 Jul 91 1:44:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #550
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 20 Jul 91 01:44:16 CDT    Volume 11 : Issue 550

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Doug Martin]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Tom Reingold]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Doug Konrad]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [M. Henderson]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Mike Bell]
    Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas? [Tony Harminc]
    Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Joan Krizek-James]
    Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Joshua_Putnam]
    Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Jim Graham]
    Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals [Morten Reistad]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Douglas Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1991 07:39:41 -0600

> [Moderator's Note: ...  *where* they are willing to receive calls
> from.  And by definition, 800 service is a *domestic* offering
> within the USA for USA callers. There is no tariff which provides
> for calling an 800 number from outside the USA.  It is possible to
> make calls which you pay for to a gateway in ...

Most US 800 numbers are not accessible from Canada (I assume that also
applies vice-versa), but some definitely are. So, it's a bit more than
a *domestic* offering.


[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

From: Tom Reingold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: 19 Jul 91 14:40:52 GMT


I think the Moderator did not completely answer the original poster's
question.  Suppose the company with the 800 number is willing to
accept international calls.  Can it?  If the company is not willing to
accept international calls, how can someone from Sweden who is willing
to pay charges call him?  All he has is an 800 number.  Calling a
deficiency a feature is an old trick, but it's not cute any more.

I think the phone companies ought to be able to give the willing-to-pay
caller the regular number associated phone number so he can call it.

I also think that companies should publish their toll numbers along
with their tollfree numbers so that Swedes etc. don't have this
problem.  It's good business sense.


Tom Reingold    [e-mail]  OR  ...!princeton!samadams!tr

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

From: Doug Konrad <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Organization: Univ. of Alberta
Date:     Fri, 19 Jul 1991 09:51:53 -0600


800 service is available in Canada and the U.S. together (if the
subscriber selects it). Its not entirely domestic.


Doug Konrad    [e-mail]

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

From: "Mark C. Henderson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby BC, CANADA
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 17:13:59 GMT


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

> Here in Sweden, I can call directly automatically to almost anywhere
> in the world, but it impossible for me to call an 800-number in North
> America, even if I ask for operator assistance.

One other virtue of CAMNET from Vancouver, B.C.  (See my article of a
couple of days ago) is that it gives access to 800 numbers that are
accessible only from the U.S.  (the charge is a flat $0.30/minute
regardless of time of day...&c.).  Sure comes in handy when some
American firm gives me their 800 number assuming that I'll be able to
use it, and I later find out that it is not accessible from Canada.


Mark C. Henderson, Special Service Networks, MPR Teltech Ltd.
8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC V5A 4B5 CANADA   [phone] (voice)
Email: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Fax:    [phone]

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

From: Mike Bell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?
Organization: Spar Aerospace Ltd, Toronto, Canada
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 13:48:50 EDT


In <[e-mail]> The Moderator writes about 800
numbers and says they are purely for the USA.

Hey! Don't forget Canada. We can call most US 800 numbers from here!

(And we really hate those companies which advertise their 800 number
and no other, and then don't enable calls to them from Canada ...)

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

Date: Fri, 19 Jul 91 10:20:08 EDT
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why is it Impossible to Call 800 Numbers From Overseas?


The Moderator Noted:

> [Moderator's Note: The 'whole idea of having a free number' is to be
> able to receive calls *from where you want to receive them*. In the
> USA, not even all 800 numbers are reachable from all locations. Some
> are only for use within certain states or other specific regions of
> the USA. The companies which subscribe to 800 service can elect
> *where* they are willing to receive calls from. And by definition, 800
> service is a *domestic* offering within the USA for USA callers. There
> is no tariff which provides for calling an 800 number from outside the
> USA.  It is possible to make calls which you pay for to a gateway in
> the USA which in turn will extend the call to an 800 number.  But the
> 800 subscriber does not authorize international toll charges, which is
> why you are blocked from calling him by that method.    PAT]

I am surprised to see such misinformation posted by our usually well-
informed Moderator.  It is simply not true that 800 service is a
*domestic* offering within the USA.  And there is certainly a tariff
for calling 800 numbers from other countries.  I dial USA 800 numbers
all the time from here (Toronto).

There are several complicating pieces to this puzzle:

 - the number 800 looks like an area code, but it isn't.  It is known
as a SAC - Special Area Code.  It doesn't represent a location.

 - there are several (12 or so) countries within world numbering plan
zone 1.  1 is not "the country code for the USA" - it is the country
code for lots of places.

 - 800 service has been around for a long time (1960s) in the USA,
and was first implemented on crossbar switches.  It was an engineering
triumph (or masterful kludge), but its very design excluded international
service.  (I can write on the original 800 implementation if there is
enough interest).  A strange side effect of the design is that an operator
anwhere (even in Sweden) could have completed a call to *any* 800
number, with sufficient knowledge of internal codes.

Back to the present: a subscriber to 800 service in the USA can
specify (as the Moderator says) where they wish to receive calls from.
This extends to most countries in the first world.  For countries
within numbering zone 1, the 800 number will usually be the same
everywhere.  For countries in other zones, a local toll-free number
(020 for Sweden, 0800 for the UK, etc.) will be provided which maps to
the USA number.  The method of charging for the service is up to the
carrier - perhaps flat-rate, perhaps billed as normal toll calls, bulk
discounts, etc.

The confusion starts because 800 looks syntactically like an area code
within zone 1.  It gets worse because toll-free numbers in any country
in zone 1 look the same.  There is no syntactic way of telling if an
800 number is in Canada or the USA or Bermuda.  Because the toll-free
systems in the various countries developed separately, there have been
conflicts in the prefixes, though I believe these have largely been
resolved.

So why can't you dial a USA 800 number from Sweden ?  Mainly because
the USA company involved doesn't want to pay for you do call them, or,
far more likely, simply hasn't even considered that there is a whole
world out there outside the USA who might like to call them.  It's
much more a question of attitude than one of technology.

Tony H.


[Moderator's Note: I should have said *North America* rather than the
USA. And yes, there are limited exceptions where calls can go between
the USA and Canada over an 800 number, but they are rare by
comparison. And yes, there are a few cases where one can dial an 800
number to reach a <country> Direct operator in another country. But
that is calling *from* the USA to the other country. But by and large,
800 numbers are intended for calling from a USA point to another place
here in the USA. Generally the subscribers to 800 service do not wish
to pay for international traffic, thinking perhaps that it only makes
up a small part -- or none -- of their business profits.  PAT]

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

From: Joan Krizek-James <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals
Date: 19 Jul 91 13:41:10 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


So far no one has mentioned the shopkeeper who may not want drug
dealers hanging out in his shop. I wouldn't be opposed to IBT offering
this service at the shopkeeper's request. But to do it as a general
rule is a bit much.


[Moderator's Note: The shopkeeper who does not want someone hanging
around -- drug dealer or otherwise -- need only request that the
person leave the premises, provided his discrimination is lawful; i.e.
drug dealers are not protected by law.    PAT]

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

From: Joshua_Putnam <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals
Date: 18 Jul 91 19:14:40 GMT
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA


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

> More than 50 payphones in the 8th and 37th wards will no longer accept
> coins between 6 PM and 6 AM.

> All outgoing calls from those phones must be 'zero-plussed', meaning
> the caller must use a calling card, call collect, or bill the call to
> a third party, but quarters won't do them any good.

I wonder what the calling card fraud rate will be at these phones from
now on.  Do these people really think the drug dealers will refrain
from stealing and using other people's cards?  All this will do is
increase credit fraud and inconvenience innocent card holders.  (That,
after all, is why some West Coast pay phones only accept coins at
night, no calling cards.  It's a lot easier to commit $100 worth of
credit fraud than to carry $100 in quarters.)


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


[Moderator's Note: IBT has already annoounced a slight change in
plans. The restriction hours will be 7:30 PM to 4:00 AM. This was in
response to the fact that folks would still be coming home from work
at 6:00 PM and could have trouble with the car, etc.  PAT]

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

From: Jim Graham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals
Organization: Amoco Corporation, Telecommunications Network Design
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1991 18:35:02 GMT


Before I say anything, I want to point out that even though I do live
in Chicago, this action does not directly impact me (yet), since I
live in the downtown area, which, as far as I know, is not in the
affected area.  And even if it is, all I have to do is pull out my 2m
handheld and make a phone patch for non-business calls, and use a
toll-free number for business calls ...

But it still strikes me as a dumb idea.  It's another case of
attacking a symptom, not the problem itself.  If the politicians
really want to do war on drugs, they should start with spending more
money on law enforcement and less on travelling all over the world on
``business'' trips.  Then, they should make sure that the courts
can do something about it after the dealers are caught.


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

[from the Sun Times article]

> More than 50 payphones in the 8th and 37th wards will no longer accept
> coins between 6 PM and 6 AM.

Frankly, I fail to see how this will help at all ... I'm quite certain that
the drug dealers, who have alraeady proven to be very good at finding ways
around voice mail security, are simply going to find ways around this as
well (like, for instance, using stolen calling card numbers).  sure, they
leave a paper trail....with someone else's name on it.

> Moderator's Musings:

> I wonder how IBT plans to deal with long distance *inter-LATA* calls

> No doubt some AT&T customers will be complaining about an addtional
> charge due to being forced to use a card instead of coins.

I would certainly hope that Illinois Bell is picking up the tab.  If
not, I honestly would deduct the difference from my bill, with an
appropriate explanation attached.  After all, their intent isn't
supposed to be to make a higher profit, now is it?

>  I wonder if IBT plans to waive any price differential incurred on an
> operator assisted call where a calling card or third party/collect
> billing is used?  Will they handle local payphone calls from that area
> for the customary 25 cents, since this latest scheme was their bright
> idea?

Ditto.  I don't see how they can get away with NOT picking up the
difference.  unless, that is, they're really looking for those extra
$$$, in which case I suspect they would *** try *** to charge people
the difference (and some would no doubt just pay it without
questioning it, so they would have at least limited success).  the
more I think about it, the more this sounds like yet another scheme to
try and grab as much of my money as possible -- something that this
city excels at in general (if you live in this area, you know how
absurd the prices, taxes, etc. are already).

> This has to be one of the most hair-brained schemes yet! It ranks
> right up there with the fools who want to convert the payphones to
> rotary dial to 'prevent the use of beepers'.

Ah, now that's another stupid concept.  How, if they do that, will
business callers make use of their own voice mail systems, company
calling cards, etc.?

I look forward to hearing the fallout from this when Ill Bell gets
flamed from all directions for this idiotic plan.


jim

Standard disclaimer....These thoughts are mine, not my employer's.
Additional disclaimer:  Please re-read the first disclaimer....several times.

Internet:  [e-mail]    or    [e-mail]
Amateur Radio:
   TCP/IP:    [e-mail] (44.72.47.193)
   Packet:    BBS went QRT for good...still searching for new one.

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

Date: 18 Jul 91 11:09 +0200
Organization: Oslo Stock Exchange
From: Morten Reistad <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IBT Pulls the Plug on Payphone Drug Deals


In yesterdays' issue an excerpt from {Chicago Sun-Times}, Tuesday, July 16,
1991 was quoted:

> Brison Poindexter says he knows when a motorist using the pay phone
> outside his south side 7-Eleven store is up to no good.
> "Someone pulls up in a fancy car in the middle of the night and asks
> for change for $3 or $4. You don't ask for that kind of change to call
> mom," said the 21-year old manager of the convenience store at []

I often see myself in this situation. The reason is that someone has
PAGED me from some faraway place, like the U.K. og the U.S., while I
was out driving. Doing a first exit from a freeway would normally send
you into some random neighbourhood, asking for lots of change, and
some odd looks.

I have also been in the same situation visiting another country, where
fonecards will be totally out of the question beacuse of all the
paperwork.

BTW: You forgot one issue : In this country (Norway) the law regarding
settlements REQUIRES you to accept cash as the common denominator for
all trade. I.E. NOONE can refuse cash if they are otherwise prepared
to do business with you. I had the impression this was the same in the
U.S., at least I seem to recall as much from the courses I took at
college.

Universal basic phone service and universal settlement in cash is the
foundation upon which we build significant part of our societies.
Don't mess with it.


Morten Reistad


[Moderator's Note: In the USA, cash must be accepted in payment of all
DEBTS, public and private. But the DEBT is incurred once the call has
been made, not before it is made. Before it is made, you are
attempting to enter into a contract with IBT to place a call, and IBT
says they will only enter into the contract with you provided you
agree to pay by credit card, etc.  To be sure, once you have placed
the call and get billed, they cannot refuse to accept cash when you
pay your phone bill, i.e. your DEBT.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #550
******************************